UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

)

GWEN CARLSON, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., )

)

Defendant.

)

)

CASE NO. CV 02-3780 (JNE/JJG)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE

SCANNED
SEP 18 2006
u.s. DISTRICT COURT MPLS
~

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 II. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 3 III. GOALS, PURPOSES, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSENT DECREE ............................................................................................ 4 3. 1 Goals Of The Consent Decree .................................................................... 4 3.2 Purposes Of The Consent Decree ............................................................... 4 3.3 The Consent Decree Is Not An Admission Of Liability .............................. 4 3.4 No Court Findings As To Liability ............................................................. 5 3.5 Parties' Agreement Regarding Non-Admissibility In Any Other
Proceeding .................................................................................................. 5 3.6 Failure To Obtain Final Approval Of Consent Decree ................................ 6 IV. JURISDICTION .................................................................................................... 6 V. EFFECT AND DURATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE ................................ 6 5.1 Effect of Consent Decree ............................................................................ 6 5.2 Joint Request For A Court Order ................................................................ 7 5.3 Expiration Date .......................................................................................... 7 VI. SCOPE OF THE CONSENT DECREE ................................................................ 7 6.1 Scope Of The Consent Decree .................................................................... 7 6.2 On-Going Best Efforts To Ensure The Effectuation Of The
Settlement .................................................................................................. 7 VII. DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................... 8
7.1 "Best Efforts" ................................................................ ,....... ,.................... 8 7.2 "C.H. Robinson" .................................................................................. " ..... 8 7,3 "Claimant" '.................. ,................ ,........... ,....................................... ,........ 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd 7.4 "Claim Form" ............................................................................................. 8 7.5 "Class" ....................................................................................................... 8 7.6 "Class Counsel" .......................................................................................... 9 7.7 "Class Member" ......................................................................................... 9 7.8 "Counsel of Record" ................................................................................... 9 7.9 "Court" ....................................................................................................... 9 7.10 "Day" ......................................................................................................... 9 7.11 "Depository Bank" ..................................................................................... 9 7.12 "Distribution Formula" ............................................................................... 9 7.13 "Effective Date" ......................................................................................... 9 7.14 "Eligible Claimant" and/or "Eligible Class Member" ............................... 10 7.15 "Eligible Claim(s)" ................................................................................... 10 7.16 "Federal Law" .......................................................................................... 10 7.17 "Gender Based Claim of Discrimination or Gender Based
Discrimination" ........................................................................................ 10 7.18 "Ineligible Claimant" ................................................................................ 11 7.19 "L"ltIgatI.on".................................................................... . 11 7.20 "Named Plaintiffs" ................................................................................... 11 7.21 "Notice" ................................................................................................... 11 7.22 "Office Of The General Counsel" ............................................................. 11 7.23 "Parties" ................................................................................................... 11 7.24 "Preliminary Approval" ............................................................................ 11 7.25 "Service" .................................................................................................. 12
11

TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd 7.26 "Settlement" ............................................................................................. 12 7.27 "Settlement Administrators" ..................................................................... 12 7.28 "Settlement Claims Service" ..................................................................... 12 7.29 "Settlement Monitor" ............................................................................... 12 7.30 "State" ........................................................................... '" ........................ 12 7.31 "State Law" .............................................................................................. 12 VIII. RECOGNITION OF RETAINED MANAGERIAL DISCRETION .................... 12 8.1 Overall Management Discretion Over The Workplace And
Workforce ................................................................................................ 12 8.2 Management Discretion Over Compensation And Promotion
Decisions .................................................................................................. 13 8.3 Managerial Discretion As To Employee Discipline .................................. 13 8.4 Individual Personnel Decisions Not Required ........................................... 13 8.5 No Quotas Are Established Or Implied By The Consent Decree ............... 13 8.6 Managerial Discretion Over Human Resource Functions .......................... 13 8.7 The Consent Decree Does Not Require C.H. Robinson To Violate
Any Law................................................................................................... 14 IX. AGREED UPON PROGRA.MMATIC RELIEF .................................................. 14
9.1 No Automatic Injunction .......................................................................... 14 9.2 EEO Program: Statement of Non-Discrimination ..................................... 14 9.3 Appointment ofEEO Director and EEO Specialists .................................. 15 9.4 Annual Survey .......................................................................................... 17 9.5 Job Classification System ......................................................................... 18 9.6 Performance Evaluations .......................................................................... 18
111

TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd 9.7 Compensation........................................................................................... 20 9.8 Advancement............................................................................................ 21 9.9 Training .................................................................................................... 22 9.10 Programs For Female Sales And Operations Employees ........................... 23 9.11 Distribution And Posting Of Employment Policies ................................... 24 9.12 Discipline And Computer Monitoring ......................................... ,...... ,'" ,. 25 9.13 Office Environment Enhancement And Entertainment Guidelines ............ 26 9.14 Hiring ..................................................................................... ,................. 26 9.15 Internal Grievance Procedure ................................................................... 26 9.16 Recordkeeping And Reporting .................................................................. 28 X. PRELIMINARY FAIRNESS HEARING ............................................................ 29 XI. NOTICE, OBJECTIONS, AND OPT-OUTS ...................................................... 30 XII. EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF OPT-OUTS ............................................................ 32 XIII. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE ............................................................... ,....... 32 13.1 Resolution Of Parties' Disputes ................................................................ 32 13.2 Court Intervention ................................................ '" ................................. 33 13.3 No Third-Party Rights For Non-Parties .................................................... 33 XlV. MONETARY RELIEF ........................................................................................ 34 14.1 Settlement Fund................................................. ,...................................... 34 14.2 Creation and Administration of Settlement Fund ............................... ""'" 35 14.3 Claims Filing Procedures and Awards for Settlement of Claims of
Class Members ......................................................................................... 37 14.4 Distribution Formula ....................................................... ,........................ 40
IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd 14.5 Tax Treatment .......................................................................................... 40 14.6 Remaining Monies In Settlement Fund ..................................................... 43 14.7 Class Counsel Shall Not Solicit Representation of Excluded Class
Members .................................................................................................. 43 XV. RELEASE OF CLAIMS ..................................................................................... 44 XVI. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS ................................................................... 45
16.1 Attorneys' Fees And Costs ....................................................................... 45 16.2 Release Of Any Claims For Attorneys' Fees And Costs ........................... 45 16.3 Costs Of Employment Practices................................................................ 45 XVII. CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................. 46 17. 1 Governing Law ......................................................................................... 46 17.2 Severability .............................................................................................. 46 17.3 Joint Document Of The Parties ................................................................. 46 17.4 Agreed Modifications ............................................................................... 46 17.5 Headings .................................................................................................. 47 17.6 Non-Waiver. ............................................................................................. 47 17.7 Calculation Of Time ................................................................................. 47 17.8 Notice To The Parties ............................................................................... 47 17.9 Exclusive Agreement As To Settlement Terms ......................................... 48 17.11 Counterparts ............................................................................................. 48 XVIII. STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA OR GENERAL PUBLIC .............................. 49 XIX. VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE .............................................. 49
v

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

)

GWEN CARLSON, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., )

)

Defendant.

)

)

CASE NO. CV 02-3780 (JNE/JJG)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE

I. INTRODUCTION On October 2, 2002, Plaintiff Gwen Carlson and other current and former female
employees (<<Plaintiffs") of Defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. ("C.R. Robinson" or the "Company") filed a complaint initiating a civil lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota (the "District Court") styled Carlson, et aI., v. c.H.
Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 02-3780 (the "Case"). In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Company (1) discriminated against them and other similar1y situated female employees by engaging in a pattern or practice of sex discrimination with respect to the maintenance of a hostile work environment, compensation, and branch management promotions in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and/or the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.c. § 206(d) et seq., and (2) misc1assified them as exempt employees and failed to pay them oveltime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U. S.c. § 207. C.R. Robinson denied,

and continues to deny, all allegations of wrongdoing and liability in the Case. More particularly, C.H. Robinson categorically denies that it discriminated against employees on the basis of their gender, harassed female employees, created a hostile work environment, has condoned any such conduct, or that any company-wide pattern or practice of gender discrimination or harassment exists or ever existed at the Company.
Beginning in early 2003, Plaintiffs and the Company engaged in extensive discovery, including producing over 100,000 pages of documents, answering interrogatories and requests for admission, and deposing approximately 100 witnesses, including each party's respective expert witnesses. The discovery period closed on March 19,2004.
Thereafter, on May 28, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to maintain their Title VII sex discrimination claims as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. c.H. Robinson opposed Plaintiffs' motion. On March 31, 2005, the
District Court issued an Opinion and Order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiffs' motion. The District Court denied the motion with respect to the hostile work environment claims, and granted the motion with respect to the compensation and branch manager promotion claims. In addition, the District Court severed the issues of liability and declaratory or injunctive relief from Plaintiffs' requests for monetary damages and certified only the issue of liability and request for declaratory or injunctive relief as a Rule 23(b)(2) class action. The District Court certified separate classes for purposes of the two certified claims, defined as follows:
2

• All females employed on a full-time salaried basis at any domestic C.H. Robinson branch office at any time since August 17, 2000, who have been or may be subjected
to c.H. Robinson's challenged compensation policies and practices (the
"Compensation Class"); and • All females employed at any domestic C.H. Robinson branch office at any time since
August 17, 2000, who have more than two years' experience in a sales and/or operations position and who have been or may be subjected to C.H. Robinson's challenged promotions polices and practices (the "Promotions Class").
A class liability trial on the certified pay and promotion claims ("Class Claims") was scheduled to begin on April 11, 2006. On April 4, 2006, the District Court held a final pretrial conference, and issued rulings on numerous evidentiary motions and the
general conduct of trial. On April lO, 2006, counsel for Plaintiffs and c.H. Robinson
agreed on a class action settlement in principle, and on April 11, 2006, counsel for Plaintiffs and C.R. Robinson advised the District Court that they had reached a settlement in principle with respect to the Class Claims and the individual claims of the Plaintiffs, excluding all Fair Labor Standards Act claims. At the Parties' request, the District Court continued the class liability trial pending the filing of a motion to grant final approval of the proposed Settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e). II. FINDINGS
The Court, having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree ("Consent Decree"), and based on the pleadings and the record in the Case, and subject to the Court's findings as set forth in its orders granting preliminary and final approval of the Consent Decree, finds as follows:
(a) this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter ofthis action and over the Parties for purposes of entering and enforcing this Consent Decree;
3

(b) the terms of this Consent Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable and just; and
(c) this Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Ru1es of Civil Procedure and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person, any Party, or the Class. The final approval of this Consent Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the Parties and the Class.
III. GOALS, PURPOSES, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONSENT DECREE 3.1 Goals Of The Consent Decree. The Parties enter into this Consent Decree
to achieve the following goals: (a) to resolve all claims asserted in the Litigation, including all requests for damages, costs and attorneys' fees arising therefrom; (b) to ensure that Class Members, including Named Plaintiffs, are fairly compensated for release of their claims; and (c) the entry of a Court order specifying certain relief as to
c.H. Robinson to ensure that effective mechanisms are in place to provide equal
employment opportunity and non-discrimination for female employees. 3.2 Purposes Of The Consent Decree. The Parties and Counsel of Record
agree that the purposes of this Consent Decree are to: (a) continue to ensure equal employment opportunity; (b) prevent discrimination and promote fair treatment for all employees; (c) expedite relief for Class Members, including Eligible Claimants and Named Plaintiffs; (d) avoid further expensive and protracted litigation; (e) provide finality for all claims asserted in the Litigation; and (f) fe-affIrm C.R Robinson's commitment to maintaining a workplace free of gender discrimination.
3.3 The Consent Decree Is Not An Admission Of Liability. This Consent Decree does not and is not intended to constitute and shall not be deemed to constitute an
4

admission by C.R. Robinson as to the merits, validity, or accuracy of any of the allegations, claims, or defenses in the Case, nor shall it be used as a means to require the continuation of any program or action beyond the term of this Consent Decree, except as may be necessary to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree. By entering into this Consent Decree, c.R. Robinson does not admit or concede, expressly or impliedly, but instead denies, that it has in any way violated Title VII; the common law of any jurisdiction; any federal, state, or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or executive order; or any obligation or duty at law or in equity. Nothing contained in this Consent Decree shall be interpreted or construed as evidence of an admission of liability, or a waiver or release of any claim, except as expressly provided for herein.
3.4 No Court Findings As To Liability. In agreeing to the terms of this Consent Decree, the Parties acknowledge that neither this Court nor any other court has made any findings or expressed any opinion concerning the merits, validity, or accuracy of any of the claims in the Litigation, other than granting c.R. Robinson's motions for partial summary judgment set out in the pleadings at Docket Nos. 501, 505, 509, 513, 517,521,525,533, and 537, and as set forth in the Court's Order dated March 31,2005.
3.5 Parties' Agreement Regarding Non-Admissibility In Any Other Proceeding. Nothing in this Consent Decree, nor any action taken in implementation thereof, nor any statements, discussions, or communications, nor any materials prepared, exchanged, issued, or used in negotiations leading to this Consent Decree, are intended by the Parties to, nor shall any of the foregoing constitute, be introduced, be used, or be admissible in any way in the Case, or in any other judicial, arbitral, administrative,
5

investigative, or other proceeding of whatsoever kind or nature as evidence of Gender Based Discrimination, or as evidence of any violation of Title VIl; the common law of any jmisdiction; any federal, state, or local law, statute, ordinance, regulation, mle, or executive order; or any obligation or duty at law or in equity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Consent Decree may be used by the Parties in any proceeding in this Court to enforce or implement the Consent Decree or any orders or judgments of this Court entered into in connection herewith.
3.6 Failure To Obtain Final Approval Of Consent Decree. In the event this Consent Decree does not become final or effective in its current form (for whatever reason), this entire Consent Decree shall become null and void and of no force or effect. The Parties further agree that the claims in the Litigation shall be reinstated if C.H. Robinson lawfully exercises its option to void the Consent Decree pursuant to Section 12 below. IV. JURISDICTION
For the duration of the Consent Decree, this Court shan retain jurisdiction over this Consent Decree solely for the purpose of entering all orders and judgments authorized hereunder that may be necessary to implement and enforce the relief provided herein.
v. EFFECT AND DURATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE
5.1 Effect of Consent Decree. Upon the Effective Date, the Consent Decree shall constitute an order of the Court and all of its provisions will become enforceable by the Parties in the manner set forth in this Consent Decree. The Parties agree that,
6

pursuant to Sections 5.2 and 6.2 of this Consent Decree, they shall not appeal from the Consent Decree or the Court's Order.
5.2 Joint Request For A Court Order. The Parties agree that they will seek entry of an Order in the form attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as Exhibit A, which dismisses the Class Claims, as well as all individual claims by the Named Plaintiffs against C.H. Robinson with prejudice, without payment of attorneys' fees or costs to any Party except as expressly provided herein.
5.3 Expiration Date. This Consent Decree shall expire and shall be without any force or effect two (2) years from the Effective Date, unless extended by agreement of the Parties. VI. SCOPE OF THE CONSENT DECREE
6.1 Scope Of The Consent Decree. Except as provided in Section 15.3 below, this Consent Decree resolves all Class Claims, as well as all individual non-class claims of the Named Plaintiffs included in the Release and Indemnification Agreement (All Named Plaintiffs) ("Named Plaintiffs' Release") attached as Exhibit B.
6.2 On-Going Best Efforts To Ensure The Effectuation Of The Settlement. The Parties agree to make and undertake their best efforts on an on-going basis to effectuate, as well as to seek entry of this Consent Decree, or if applicable, to defend, this Consent Decree from any legal challenge by appeal, collateral attack, objection, or otherwise.
7

VII. DEFINITIONS The following terms, when used in this Consent Decree, shall have the following
meanings as set forth below. All tenns defined in the singular shall have the same meaning when used in the plural, and all tenns defmed in the plural shall have the same meaning when used in the singular.
7.1 "Best Efforts" means taking steps in good faith and reasonably designed to achieve compliance with specified objectives to which the best efforts are directed.
7.2 "C.H. Robinson" means C.B. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. including its officers, directors, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, and successors.
7.3 "Claimant" means any Class Member who submits a claim through the claims process as set forth in Sections 11 and 14 of the Consent Decree.
7.4 "Claim Form" means the form (as set forth and fully incorporated herein at Exhibit C) on which a written description of a Claimant's Eligible Claims is submitted by a Claimant to Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrator.
7.5 "Class" means the Compensation and Promotions Classes certified by the Court on March 31, 2005, and further defined as follows:
7.5.1 Compensation Class. All females employed on a full-time salaried basis at any domestic C.H. Robinson branch office at any time since August 17, 2000 through April 10, 2006, who have been or may be
subjected to c.H. Robinson's challenged compensation policies and
practices; and
8

7.5.2 Promotions Class. All females employed at any domesticC.H. Robinson branch office at any time since August 17, 2000 through April 10, 2006, who have more than two years' experience in a sales and/or operations position and who have been or may be subjected to c.H. Robinson's challenged promotions policies and practices.
7.6 "Class Counsel" means the law finn of Sprenger & Lang, PLLC. 7.7 "Class Member" means any individual member of the Compensation Class and/or the Promotions Class. 7.8 "Counsel of Record" means all counsel of record for the Parties and who are signatories to this Consent Decree. 7.9 "Court" means the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and the Judge thereof having been assigned to preside over the Litigation, or proceedings relevant to the Litigation. 7.10 "Day" means a calendar day, unless otherwise noted to be a business day (i.e., Monday through Friday, exclusive of any Federal or State holiday). 7.11 "Depository Bank" means the financial institution selected by Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrators to invest the settlement funds. 7.12 "Distribution Formula" means the fonnula approved by the Court for the allocation of monetary awards to Eligible Claimants. 7.13 "Effective Date" means the date when all of the following have occurred: (1) the Court has finally approved, signed and entered this Consent Decree; (2) the Court has entered an Order and Judgment dismissing the Litigation with prejudice, with
9

continuing jurisdiction limited to enforcing this Consent Decree; and (3) the time for appeal has either lUI1 without an appeal being filed or any appeal (including any requests for rehearing en bane, petitions for certiorari or appellate review) has been finally resolved.
7.14 "Eligible Claimant" and/or "Eligible Class Member" means any Class Member who timely and properly submits to Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrator a Claim Form and is entitled to a monetary award from the Class Claims Portions of the Settlement Fund under the terms of a Distribution Formula approved by the Court. "Eligible Claimant" and/or "Eligible Class Member" specifically excludes any Class Member who previously executed a valid and enforceable release of her Eligible Claims, unless such release specifically provides for recovery under this Consent Decree.
7.15 "Eligible Claim(s)" means any claim of sex discrimination with respect to compensation, or promotion to a branch manager position, that arose at any time between August 17, 2000 and April 10, 2006.
7.16 "Federal Law" means any law enacted by the United States Congress, and codified in the U.S. Code.
7.17 "Gender Based Claim of Discrimination" or 44Gender Based Discrimination" means any claim of unlawful discrimination andlor harassment/hostile work environment brought by employees or ex-employees of C.R. Robinson against the Company, its officers, directors, agents, supervisors, or employees on the basis of sex or gender.
10

7.18 "Ineligible Claimant" means any Class Member who submits a Claim Fonn to Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrator and who, for any reason, fails to qualify for a monetary award from the Class Claims Portions of the Settlement Fund.
7.19 The '-Litigation" means all proceedings relating to or arising from
Carlson, et al. v. eH. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Civ. No. 02-3780, other than claims
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 7.20 "Named Plaintiffs" means the individual plaintiffs who brought suit,
including Gwen D. Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Debra Kinniry, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, LeeAnn Puckett, Angela Roberts (nlkla Angela Roberts-Jackson), Jennifer Smyrl, Jessica Vetter (nlkla Jessica Tober), Stacey Hottois, and Marti Justet.
7.21 "Notice" means the notice (attached hereto as Exhibit D) of the proposed class settlement that is sent to Class Members pursuant to order of the Court.
7.22 "Office Of The General Counsel" means C.H. Robinson's Office of General Counsel located at 8100 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344.
7.23 "Parties" means the Named Plaintiffs and C.H. Robinson. 7.24 "Preliminary Approval" means the entry of the Court's Order granting preliminary approval of this Consent Decree, which reflects that the Court concludes that the terms of this Consent Decree appear sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class as a whole to warrant notice to the Class, an opportunity for Class Members to object or opt out, and a fairness hearing to consider final approval of the Consent Decree.
11

7.25 "Service" means delivery of notice and/or papers, and shall be defined as service as specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
7.26 "Settlement" means the settlement terms embodied in this Consent Decree. 7.27 "Settlement Administrators" means any person appointed by the Court to serve as a Trustee and Administrator of the Settlement Fund. 7.28 "Settlement Claims Service" means any person or entity engaged by the Settlement Fund to make distributions to Eligible Claimants and to perform related administrative functions including, but not limited to, calculating tax withholdings, filing tax reporting forms, distributing income reporting forms, and preparing tax returns on behalf of the Settlement Fund. 7.29 "Settlement Monitor" means any person or entity engaged by the Settlement Fund to act as an ombudsman between Class Members and Class Counsel, and to independently monitor C.H. Robinson's implementation of and compliance with Section IX of the Consent Decree. 7.30 "State" means the State of Minnesota. 7.31 "State Law" means any law enacted by the State of Minnesota. VIII. RECOGNITION OF RETAINED MANAGERIAL DISCRETION 8.1 Overa1l Management Discretion Over The Workplace And Workforce. Subject to the terms of this Consent Decree, C.H. Robinson shall at all times retain managerial discretion, inter alia, to select, hire, assign, transfer, train, promote, compensate, discipline, or tenninate any of its employees, including but not limited to any Class Member, in accordance widl applicable law.
12

8.2 Management Discretion Over Compensation And Promotion Decisions. Subject to the terms of this Consent Decree, C.H. Robinson shall at all times retain the unilateral right to make any and all compensation and promotion decisions affecting its employees, including but not limited to a Class Member, in accordance with applicable law.
8.3 Managerial Discretion As To Employee Discipline. Subject to the terms of this Consent Decree, C.H. Robinson shall at all times retain the unilateral right to take disciplinary action against any employee, including but not limited to any Class Member, up to and including termination of employment, in accordance with applicable law.
8.4 Individual Personnel Decisions Not Required. Subject to the tenns of this Consent Decree, c.H. Robinson shall at all times retain the unilateral right to make any personnel decision relative to any employee, including but not limited to any Class Member, such as displacement, transfer, or bumping any employee from his or her position.
8.5 No Quotas Are Established Or Implied By The Consent Decree. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall require that a quota or certain number of employees be hired or promoted in any position or job classification at c.H. Robinson, as such decisions shall remain solely within the managerial discretion of C.H. Robinson and in accordance with applicable law.
8.6 Managerial Discretion Over Human Resource Functions. Subject to the terms of this Consent Decree, C.H. Robinson shall at all times retain the unilateral right to modify its existing human resource functions, terms and conditions of employment,
13
---------- -------------------------------------

programs, procedures, practices, or policies or otherwise adopting any new human resource functions, terms and conditions of employment, programs, procedures, practices, or policies as CB. Robinson may deem appropriate in accordance with applicable law.
8.7 The Consent Decree Does Not Require C.H. Robinson To Violate Any Law. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall require C.B. Robinson to violate any applicable law, ordinance, or regulation. IX. AGREED UPON PROGRAMMATIC RELIEF
9.1 No Automatic Injunction. While C.B. Robinson agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree in addition to all applicable federal and state employment laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the Equal Pay Act, that are related in any way to the Company's pay and promotion decisions, this Consent Decree shall not operate in any way as an automatic injunction.
9.2 EEO Program: Statement of Non-Discrimination. Not later than 30 days from the Effective Date of this Consent Decree, CH. Robinson shall adopt, and publish on the Company's intranet the following "Policy Against Sex Discrimination" as a part of the Company's overall EEO Policies:
CB. Robinson is committed to enforcing its policies: that prohibit gender discrimination; that prohibit retaliation against individuals who report such infractions; of timely and appropriately responding to known violations; of disciplining violators of these as appropriate in accordance with legal requirements; and to monitor employee compliance with these policies. Nothing in this Section 9 shall limit CH. Robinson from adopting and/or modifYing other policies prohibiting unlawful discrimination that it deems appropriate.
14

9.3 Appointment of EEO Director and EEO Specialists. Within 30 days of
the Effective Date of this Consent Decree, c.H. Robinson shall appoint an EEO Director
and two (2) EEO Specialists within its Human Resources Department to be responsible for providing support to a specific branch or group of branches of the Company for purposes of implementing the terms of this Consent Decree, interpreting and applying the Company's anti-discrimination and harassment policies, receipt and investigation of reports of potential discrimination or harassment complaints, and corrective action as may be necessary as to any substantiated reports of discrimination or harassment.
9.3.1 The EEO Director and C.H. Robinson's Human Resources
Department shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcing c.H. Robinson's policy
prohibiting Gender Based Discrimination and/or retaliation in its workplace. A protocol for responding to any complaint of Gender Based Discrimination or retaliation by any employee shall be maintained and consistently utilized. This protocol shall include a requirement that the complaining party be apprised of the commencement, progress and conclusion of the investigation as well as the results and cOlTective action taken where appropriate.
9.3.2 The EEO Director shall support and report to the Vice President of Human Resources and shall support the overall effectiveness of the Human Resources Department. The Parties expressly agree that the individual who fills the position of EEO Director shall not be deemed to be a beneficiary under this Consent Decree. Nothing in this Section 9 shall create any right or obligation in contract or equity with respect to the
15

EEO Director, nor shall it expand on Of diminish any pre-existing statutory right or obligation. The EEG Director shall:
(a) have comparable responsibility and authority as other Human Resource Managers;
(b) enjoy full support from the Company's senior management, including being provided with the resources necessary to develop, implement, and monitor policies that promote equal employment opportunities for all employees;
(c) be responsible for the Company's compliance with the record-keeping obligations imposed by this Consent Decree,
(d) possess the qualifications necessary to perform the job of EEO Director, which include having significant human resources experience on a corporate-wide basis for C.H. Robinson or a company with a substantial workforce, a commitment to equal employment opportunity, and adequate knowledge of applicable federal and state EEG laws. 9.3.3 The EEG Specialists shall follow the protocol for responding to any
complaint of Gender Based Discrimination or retaliation of any employee. EEG Specialists shall advise any complaining party of the commencement, progress and conclusion of the investigation as well as the results and corrective action taken, if any, and where appropriate.
9.3.4 The EEO Specialists shall monitor for compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree and the Company's personnel policies.
9.3.5 The EEG Specialists shall have a college degree and human resource work experience, and shall report to the EEG Director with respect to the duties under this Consent Decree.
16

9.4 Annual Survey.
9.4.1 Each year during the term of this Consent Decree, c.H. Robinson
shall conduct an annual employee survey (the "Annual Survey") to identify and address employee needs and issues.
9.4.2 This Ammal Survey shall be broad-based and shall address employee attitude and satisfaction, and compliance with the Company's EEO policies and procedures. The Annual Survey shall include instructions on how to report activities
that violate c.H. Robinson's EED policies, including policies prohibiting gender
discrimination andlor retaliation. 9.4.3 The Annual Survey administered by the Company pursuant to this
Consent Decree shall be developed by c.R. Robinson or a vendor selected by c.R.
Robinson. C.H. Robinson shall maintain complete discretion over the substantive format and queries posed in the Annual Survey subject only to the agreed parameters addressed herein.
9.4.4 The first Annual Survey shall be initiated no later than six (6) months after the Effective Date of this Consent Decree and shall be completed within three (3) months thereafter. Any Annual Survey conducted thereafter shall be initiated no later than twelve (12) months after the date of initiation of the previous Annual Survey and completion shall occur within three (3) months of initiation.
9.4.5 All employees shall be provided an opportunity to participate in the Annual Survey. Results of the Annual Survey shall be compiled and a report generated.
17

Feedback on the overall company-wide results of the Annual Survey shall be communicated to all employees.
9.S Job Classification System. c.R. Robinson will facilitate the Company's job classification system through implementation of PeopleSoft as its Human Resources Information System ("HRIS"). Functionality of the HRIS shall include the integration of consistent job classifications, including: "Management," "Sales," "Operations," and
"Support" c.R. Robinson will endeavor to use its best efforts to achieve consistency in
job titles for branch salaried positions. The HRIS shall be utilized by C.H. Robinson so that an infrastructure is established for future career and development planning of its employees.
9.6 Performance Evaluations. 9.6.1 During the term of this Consent Decree, C.R. Robinson shall
endeavor to implement documented annual performance evaluations for all salaried employees.
9.6.2 Each employee's superVIsor will evaluate the employee's pelformance based on each employee's job accountabilities and objectives. The performance evaluation process shall also provide each employee with feedback and, as appropriate, guidance for improving his or her job performance. The perfonnance evaluation is intended to fairly measure employee performance and, among other things, it will be provided to the employee to review, keep a copy and sign to indicate review and receipt but not necessarily agreement.
18

9.6.3 c.H. Robinson shall inform employees in advance of the standards
and basis for which the Performance Evaluation will be conducted.
9.6.4 During the term of the Consent Decree, c.H. Robinson shall utilize a numerical or letter rating associated with the performance evaluation. c.H. Robinson
will develop and implement descriptions applicable to each such alpha/numeric evaluation rating.
9.6.5 c.H. Robinson shall implement a branch manager scorecard process
for the annual review of managers. The scorecard process shall include, but not be limited to, performance objectives and metrics evaluating each manager in the following areas: general effectiveness in leadership of Company employees; the ability to motivate Company employees; the development of Company employees; compliance with the Company's corporate compliance program; and completion of performance reviews of
team members. c.H. Robinson Vice Presidents or the manager's direct supervisor shall
be responsible for conducting the annual performance review of branch managers. 9.6.6 C.H. Robinson shall utilize an incentive compensation system for
eligible branch employees that is tied to the performance and profitability of the employee and their branch or business unit.
9.6.7 C.H. Robinson will monitor the extent to which Performance Evaluation forms are completed with respect to the evaluation of each of its employees.
c.H. Robinson shall retain an electronic or written copy of each employee's completed
Performance Evaluation for the term of the Consent Decree.
19

9.6.8 Tn addition to those employed less than six months at the time of the Performance Evaluation closeout, C.H. Robinson shall retain the right to identify other narrow categories of employees who shall be exempt from the Performance Evaluation requirement because the circumstances of such individuals' employment during the evaluation year significantly diminishes the value of conducting the evaluation. By way of example, one such exempted category may be those employees who have been on leave of absence at least six (6) months during the assessment year.
9.6.9 Failure of any c.H. Robinson manager/supervisor to complete
Performance Evaluation(s) of all his or her employees who are not exempted from the Performance Evaluation process, including completion of the Performance Evaluation form(s), shall be a factor considered in the assessment of that manager/supervisor's performance.
9.6.10 c.H. Robinson shall retain unilateral discretion over all material
aspects of the performance review process. 9.7 Compensation.
9.7.1 c.H. Robinson shall be free to continue to use its "pay for
performance" compensation system during the term of this Consent Decree. 9.7.2 The base salmy range for job classification of Branch Sales
employee, Branch Operations employee, and Branch SUppOlt employee will be determined by the Human Resources Department in collaboration with business line executives based on those job classifications and the relevant labor market. Branch Managers shall continue to have discretion to set base salaries within those base salary
20

ranges set by the Human Resources Department based on relevant job experience and other relevant factors.
9.7.3 The EEO Director shall conduct an annual reVIew of the total compensation paid to Branch Sales and Branch Operations employees. If the EEO Director finds that there are significant compensation disparities among male and female employees, he or she will notify CH. Robinson's Compensation Team and respective business line leaders and seek an explanation from the appropriate Branch Manager. The EEO Director shall have the discretion and authority to propose a remedy for any such disparity to the Branch Manager for his or her consideration.
9.8 Advancement. 9.8.1 CH. Robinson shall implement an annual performance management
process to assist all employees, including female employees, in establishing career path goals. The annual performance management process shall include a component in which employees discuss career aspirations and opportunities within the Company. Further, the process shall require preparation of an individual development plan with respect to each employee.
9.8.2 The Company shall discontinue use of various tests and tools designed by Carroll Stein, Ph.D. ("the Stein test"). Managers shall be advised not to administer the "Stein" or "Flexibility/Adaptability" tests or inventories.
9.8.3 CH. Robinson shall post all openings for branch managers at new branches. Each posting shall be for a minimum of 7 to 10 days and shall include the title and a general description of the duties and qualifications required. C.H. Robinson will
21

endeavor to include in each posting the following EEO statement: "CR Robinson is an equal opportunity employer and does not unlawfully discriminate against qualified
applicants." c.H. Robinson shall maintain a copy of all such postings.
9.8.4 C.H. Robinson will continue to act affirmatively to develop and promote women pursuant to goals and objectives set forth in its Affirmative Action Plan and this Consent Decree.
9.8.5 C.R Robinson shall utilize its HRIS system to monitor its promotion decisions.
9.8.6 The EEO Director shall endeavor to monitor the Company's promotion decisions with respect to branch management positions by utilizing, among other things, C.R Robinson's HRlS system. CR Robinson will endeavor to retain the names of known branch manager applicants who seek a promotion (including the successful applicant) and, if applicable, each applicant's previous positions, salaries, and office locations dating back to October 2005. All of the above information shall be available to the EEO Director upon request.
9.9 Training. 9.9.1 CH. Robinson shall train all EEO Specialists, Branch Managers, and
Operational Vice Presidents with respect to best human resource practices in interviewing, selection of job candidates, performance and evaluation of feedback, and general employment issues. The training shall be conducted on an annual basis with the first training session to be conducted within six (6) months after the Effective Date ofthis Consent Decree.
22

9.9.2 C.H. Robinson shall train all new hires on company policies and practices, including applicable federal laws prohibiting discrimination and sexual harassment, within sixty (60) days of hire.
9.9.3 c.H. Robinson shall implement on on-line training program. This on-line training program shall be designed for:
• all new hires on avoiding Gender Based Discrimination in the workplace;
• all managers on avoiding Gender Based Discrimination in the workplace where "managers" means those individuals who are responsible for conducting written performance and compensation evaluations; and
• complying with EEO obligations. 9.9.4 C.H. Robinson shall provide investigations training which shall be required for EEO Specialists. 9.9.5 A record of all training activities undertaken by C.H. Robinson pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be maintained and shall include: a listing of all managers and supervisors who have received the training, identification of the date the individual manager/supervisor was placed in the management/supervisory position, the date ofpalticipation in the training, and a listing of all training activities held pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree. 9.10 Programs For Female Sales And Operations Employees. 9.10.1 Not later than six (6) months after the Effective Date of the Consent Decree, C.H. Robinson shall implement a women's peer networking circle in which it
23

endeavors to have at least ten (10) women, assessed to be interested in management within the next two years, participate in a focused development experience for one year.
9.10.2 The Company shall implement a voluntary mentoring program for female sales and operations employees with the goal of developing more female
employees for management positions. c.H. Robinson shall utilize its Best Efforts to
identifY female mentors to fill this role on a voluntary basis, and the Company shall provide reasonable support for the program.
9.11 Distribution And Posting Of Employment Policies. 9.11.1 C.H. Robinson shall maintain employment policies prohibiting
Gender Based Discrimination in the workplace. C.H. Robinson shall share copies of its employment policies with Class Counsel within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Consent Decree. CH. Robinson will consider constructive revisions to these policies provided by Class Counsel provided Class Counsel tenders any proposed revisions to CH. Robinson's employment policies within thirty (30) days of receipt thereafter.
9.11.2 Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, C H. Robinson shall post and make accessible all of its compliance policies on the Company intranet.
9.11.3 CH. Robinson shall publish its EEO and other employment policies on its intranet, and all employees shall have ready access to the Company's intranet during regular business hours. Upon the hire of all new employees, C.H. Robinson shall provide each new hire sufficient time during orientation to review all EEO and other employment policies that are posted on the Company's intranet.
24

9.11.4 Without incurring a fee, employees are permitted to print any and all employment policies that are solely published on the Company's intranet.
9.11.5 At least once annually, c.H. Robinson shall re-publicize to all employees the content of its Non-Discrimination policy, any other EEO policies that the Company wishes to highlight, and the location where an employee can obtain or review the complete content of all employment policies.
9.11.6 C.H. Robinson shall comply with all federal and state laws concerning posting of relevant legal notices and EEO posters.
9.11.7 C.H. Robinson will endeavor to seek electronic signatures from its employees who are required or requested to acknowledge their receipt of an EEO or other employment policy. Employees shall be permitted to print a copy of any electronic signature or policy from the Company's intranet.
9.12 Discipline And Computer Monitoring. 9.12.1 C.H. Robinson shall utilize software to monitor and block access to
inappropriate web sites and to block inappropriate material from entering the Company's e-mail system.
9.12.2 C.H. Robinson shall insure that all known violations of its compliance policies with respect to computer use and internet access will be identified and addressed by the appropriate manager and reviewed by the Company's Compliance Committee, which is chaired by the Company's General Counsel. The Compliance Committee shall recommend appropriate discipline standards, up to an including termination, for violations of the Company's compliance policies.
25

9.13 Office Environment Enhancement And Entertainment Guidelines.

C.R Robinson shall adopt client entertainment guidelines which will prohibit client

entertainment at inappropriate venues (e.g., "strip clubs"), as well as reimbursement of

expenses incurred at such inappropriate venues within sixty (60) days after the Effective

Date of the Consent Decree. Specifically, C.R Robinson shall expressly prohibit

employees from conducting company-related business III sexually oriented

establishments, including lingerie bars, strip clubs, and the like, and shall expressly

prohibit sexually provocative entertainment at any Company function or on Company

premises at any time.

9.14 Hiring. C.R Robinson shall continue its efforts to recruit females for sales

and operations positions. C.R Robinson shall identity means to recruit qualified and

interested female applicants for salaried sales and operations positions and to stimulate an

interest among such women for employment with C.H. Robinson. C.H. Robinson shall

use such means as are reasonable to achieve these purposes.

9.15 Internal Grievance Procedure. C.R Robinson shall maintain an internal

grievance procedure. This procedure shall be shared with all employees via the

Company's intranet and shall:

(a)

Require employees to repOlt EEO violations;

(b)

Provide reasonably convenient and confidential

mechanisms for reporting such violations;

(c)

Require every c.H. Robinson manager and supervisor

who receives a report of Gender Based Discrimination

to notity Human Resources Legal, or one of the two

designated EEO Specialists;

26

(d)

Designate multiple channels for employees to submit

their report of violations of the policies against Gender

Based Discrimination, including:

1.

Employees can notify their supervisor regarding

a specific concern or the substance of a

grlevance;

11.

Employees can send an e-mail to an internal

anonymous reporting mailbox to submit a

complaint and/or grievance. The anonymous e-

mailbox shall be published on the Company's

intranet;

111.

Employees can access a special "800" telephone

number to report a complaint and/or grievance;

this "800" telephone number will be publicized

on the Company's intranet; the '"800" line shall

be available 24 hours per day and shall be

staffed by live person from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Central Standard Time; at other hours, the

"800" line shall record a caller's message(s).
Where appropriate, c.R. Robinson will

endeavor to investigate and promptly respond to

any complaints of Gender Based

Discrimination; or

IV.

Employees can contact a member of the HR

Department, one of the two EEO Specialists,

the EEO Director or office of the General

Counsel. The names and phone numbers of

each person in the HR Department, each EEO

Specialist, the EEO Director and the General

Counsel shall be published on the Company's

intranet

(e)

strive not to impose any more burdensome

requirements on employees who report violations of

the policies against Gender Based Discrimination than

are imposed upon employees who report violations of

other Company policies;

27

(£)

Provide for appropriate remedial action consistent with

applicable laws to address complaints of Gender Based

Discriminati on;

(g)

Provide for appropriate disciplinary action consistent

with applicable laws for violations of the policies

against Gender Based Discrimination;

9.16 Recordkeeping And Reporting.

9.16.1 For the term of the Consent Decree, c.H. Robinson will preserve its

records relating to the implementation of programmatic relief in paper or electronic form.

This provision, however, will not supersede any obligation under state or federal law, if

applicable, to maintain such records for a longer period. Those reports shall be tendered

to Class Counsel on the first business day of the twelfth (12th) and twenty-third (23rd)

months after the Effective Date of the Consent Decree.
9.16.2 c.H. Robinson will report to Class Counsel on the implementation

of programmatic relief as described in paragraph 9.16.1. The reports shall include the

following information:

(a) identification of the EEO Director and EEO Specialists;
(b) a copy of the Annual Survey results, including the munber of responses.
(c) a report on the completion ofPerfOlmance Evaluations;
(d) a report of training activities undertaken by C. H. Robinson pursuant to this Consent Decree, including the subject, date and location of the training, a brief description of the training, and the names of the attendees;
(e) a report on the status of the women's peer networking circle, including the number of women participating;
(f) identification of the software utilized by C.H. Robinson to block employee access to inappropriate websites and to block inappropriate material from entering the Company's email system;

28

(g) a promotions report which includes, for each opening for any branch management opportunity, identification of the successful candidates by name;
(h) a copy of the client entertainment guidelines adopted by C.H. Robinson; (i) confirmation that c.H. Robinson's employment policies against Gender
Based Discrimination are posted on the Company's intranet; (j) a report on employee use of the internal grievance procedure; (k) a report on the number "blocks" as identified by the software used to block
inappropriate websites; (I) a report on the number of Gender Based Discrimination Claims processed
through the internal grievance procedure and the results of each investigation of each such claim. 9.16.3 Class Counsel and/or the Class Monitor, within ten (10) days upon receipt and review of the above-described reports from C.H. Robinson, may provide feedback and/or recommendations to the [EO Director regarding matters encompassed within the reports. c.H. Robinson will consider the feedback from Class Counsel and the
Class Monitor using good faith efforts. All information, reports, and documents produced pursuant to this Consent Decree
shall be kept confidential and not disclosed in any manner or fOlID to anyone other than the Parties in the Litigation, unless compelled by law.
x. PRELIMINARY FAIRNESS HEARING
At the Preliminary Fairness Hearing, the Parties agree to conduct themselves consistent with the: (1) Joint Motion For Preliminary Approval of the Consent Decree and Directing Issuance Of Notice To Class Members; and (2) Administrative Order
No. l.
29

XI. NOTICE, OBJECTIONS, AND OPT-OUTS 11.1 Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrators shall mail the Notice
attached as Exhibit D, and Class Members shall have the right to object to the settlement, opt-out of the monetary re1iefprovisions of the settlement and submit claims, as provided for within this Section.
11.1.1 By no later than ten (lO) days following preliminary approval, C.H. Robinson shall provide the Class Lists in mailing label or electronic format to Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrators. The Class Lists shall contain the names
and last known addresses of each female employed by c.H. Robinson who falls within
the definition of either the Compensation and/or Promotion Classes. The data used to compile the Class Lists may come from C.H. Robinson's personnel and/or payroll database( s).
11.1.2 By no later than ten (lO) days following receipt of Class Lists from C.H. Robinson, Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrators will mail the Notice attached as Exhibit D and Claim Form attached as Exhibit C to Class Members.
11.1.3 The Notice, approved by the Court, will include infonnation and instructions relating to:
l. The deadline for and instructions on how a Class Member may submit an objection and/or opt-out of the monetary relief provisions of the settlement; and
11. The deadline for and instructions on how a Class Member may submit a completed Claim Fonn to Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrators.
30

11.2 Any Class Member may request exclusion from the Class for purposes of monetary relief only. Any Class Member who wishes to opt-out of the Consent Decree for purposes of participation in the monetary portion of the settlement must submit a written and signed statement to the Settlement Administrators at the address identified in the Notice attached as Exhibit D. Opt-out statements must be post-marked and mailed to the Settlement Administrators by the date specified in the Notice.
11.3 No Class Member may opt out of the programmatic relief provisions in Section IX of this Consent Decree.
11.4 At least ten (10) days prior to the Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrators shall file all objections and/or opt-outs received from Class Members with the Court.
11.5 Class Members who have timely and properly requested exclusion from the Class may not participate at the Fairness Hearing.
11.6 Class Members who have not requested exclusion and who wish to object to this Consent Decree or any part of it may be heard at the Fairness Hearing only if they:
(a) file with this Court and serve on Counsel of Record a written statement of their objections;
(b) where such statement is received by the Court and Counsel of Record at least ten (10) days prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing;
(c) where such statement indicates whether they intend to appear at the Fairness Hearing; and,
(d) contemporaneously notify the Court and Counsel of Record of their intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing.
31

11.7 Class Members may appear at the Fairness Hearing either in person or by counseL Failure to perform any of these requirements shan be deemed a waiver of any objections. The Parties may, but need not, respond in writing to objections by filing a response with the Court. XII. EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF OPT-OUTS
C.H. Robinson shall have the unilateral right to revoke the Consent Decree prior to the Effective Date in the event that five percent (5%) or more of Class Members opt-out of the monetary provisions of the Consent Decree. Additionally, in the event C.H. Robinson exercises its unilateral right to revoke the Consent Decree pursuant to this Section of the Decree, all monies in the Settlement Fund and income earned thereon shall be immediately returned to the entity that funds the Settlement Fund. XIII. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE
13.1 Resolution Of Parties' Disputes. In the event that Class Counsel, the Settlement Monitor, or any Party to this Consent Decree believes that a Party has failed to comply with any material provision of this Consent Decree, they shall first attempt to resolve their differences by good faith negotiations. To that end, they shall notifY the other party in writing via e-mail and first class mail of the particulars of the dispute, the term or terms of the Consent Decree that are involved, and a suggested resolution of the problem. The recipient of the written communication must respond in writing to the sender within ten (10) business days with an explanation of its response and/or its proposed solution. If such correspondence does not resolve the dispute between the
32

Parties, then the Parties shall meet on at least one (1) occasion within the next ten (10) business days and attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith.
13.2 Court Intervention. After complying with Section 13.1 above, if the Parties are unable to resolve their dispute, then the Parties may seek Court intervention. The moving papers shall explain the facts and circumstances that allegedly necessitate immediate action by the Court. If any such matter is brought before the Court requesting immediate Court action, the opposing party shall be provided with appropriate actual notice, and an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the motion, pursuant to the Local Rules of the Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court in its discretion may set such procedures for emergency consideration as are appropriate to the particular facts and circumstances, but no such matter may be conducted on an ex parte basis.
13.3 No Third-Party Rights For Non-Parties. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be deemed to create any rights on the part of Non-Parties to enforce this Consent Decree. The right to seek enforcement of this Consent Decree is vested exclusively in the
Parties, except that any Class Member may enforce c.H. Robinson's obligations under
Section IX through Class Counselor the Class Monitor. In the event that a Non-Party challenges this Consent Decree or brings a lawsuit or files an administrative charge with a governmental agency, such as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or
a similar state or local agency, against c.H. Robinson for liability resulting from any
actions required by this Consent Decree, Class Counsel agrees that it will send a letter to and/or file a motion with the agency with which the charge was filed and/or judge assigned to the lawsuit which was filed, stating that Class Counsel believe the Consent
33

Decree is valid, that the Consent Decree should be given full force and effect, that any actions taken by C.H. Robinson as required by the Consent Decree are in compliance with all applicable laws, and that C.H. Robinson should be absolved from liability for any actions required by this Consent Decree. Class Counsel will provide a copy of its letter and/or motion to C.H. Robinson at the time of its mailing to and/or filing with the applicable court or governmental agency. XIV. MONETARY RELIEF
14.1 Settlement Fund. No later than 14 days after Preliminary Approval of this Consent Decree, c.R. Robinson shall cause to be paid by wire transfer to the Depository Bank (pursuant to transfer instructions to be provided by Class Counsel within seven days after Preliminary Approval of the Consent Decree) the sum of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000.00). The monies so transferred, together with interest subsequently earned thereon, shall constitute the Settlement Fund. The $15 million Settlement Fund shall constitute all the funds or monies to be paid by c.H. Robinson in connection with and in consideration for: (1) the resolution of the Class Claims and Individually Named Plaintiffs' Claims; (2) this Consent Decree (and incorporated and referenced Exhibits); and (3) the dismissal of Counts I, II and IV of the Second Amended Complaint filed in the Litigation. This sum is inclusive of payment for: (1) all awards to and on behalf of the Class Members and Named Plaintiffs; (2) attorneys' fees and expenses of the Classes and Named Plaintiffs; (3) all costs of notice and settlement administration; (4) all taxes imposed on the Settlement Fund subsequent to the date of its creation by C.R. Robinson's transfer to the Depository Bank and all expenses related to those taxes; and (5) all taxes
34

required to be withheld and paid over to the appropriate taxing authorities with respect to
payments made by the Fund. Nothing in the foregoing sentence, however, shall release
c.H. Robinson from expenses required to fulfill its obligations to provide Programmatic
Relief as stated in Section IX of this Decree. In the event the Consent Decree is not
approved by the Court, in the event the Consent Decree is revoked by C.R. Robinson
pursuant to Section XII of the Consent Decree, or in the event the settlement set forth is
terminated or fails to become effective in accordance with its terms (or, if following
approval by this court, such approval is reversed or modified), all monies in the
Settlement Fund and income earned thereon shall be immediately returned to the entity
that funds the Settlement Fund. Under no circumstances shall there be any distribution of
funds from the Settlement Fund until after the Effective Date of the Consent Decree.
14.2 Creation and Administration of Settlement Fund.
14.2.1 Creation.
(a) The Settlement Fund shall be an irrevocable trust under Minnesota law and a Qualified Settlement Fund under Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code and shan be administered by the Settlement Administrators under the Court's supervision in accordance with Administrative Order No. 1. Subject to the Court's approval of Class Counsel's fee application, the Settlement Fund will consist of four portions: two Class Claims Portions (one for the compensation class in the amolUlt of $6,154,483.00 plus interest and eamings, and another for the promotion class in the amount of $1,172,283.00 plus interest and earnings); the Named Plaintiff Non-Class Claims Portion (in the amount of $681,018.00 plus interest and earnings); and, the Legal & Administrative Expense Portion (in the amount of $6,992,2]6.00 plus interest and eamings). Tax reserves and an appeal fund may be created out of the Class Claims Portions and set aside before distributing awards to Eligible Claimants.
35

(b) From the Class Claims Portion and any income earned thereon, after the Effective Date, Eligible Claimants may receive distributions pursuant to the claims process described below.
(c) From the Named Plaintiff Non-Class Claims Portion, after the Effective Date, the Named Plaintiffs shall receive the following distributions and any income earned thereon:
(i) One Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Eight Dollars and Eighteen Cents ($155,158.18) shall be distributed to Gwen Carlson to resolve any and aU claims, including but not limited to the Gender Based Claims of Discrimination, arising out of the severance
of her employment with c.B. Robinson.
(ii) One Hundred Thirty-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-Five Dollars and Sixty-Six Cents ($138,945.66) shall be distributed to Amy Hossenlopp to resolve any and all claims, including but not limited to the Gender Based Claims of Discrimination arising out of
the severance of her employment with c.B. Robinson.
(iii) Two Hundred Twenty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen Dollars and Twenty Cents ($224,914.20) shall be distributed to Tricia Porter to resolve any and all claims, including but not limited to the Gender Based Claims of Discrimination arising out of the
severance of her employment with c.B. Robinson.
(iv) Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) each shall be distributed to LeAnn Puckett and Jennifer Smyrl to resolve their claims, including but not limited to the Gender Based Claims of Discrimination raised in the Litigation and their sexual harassment claims that survived summary judgment.
(v) One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) each shall be distributed to Gwen D. Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Debra Kinniry, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tlicia Porter, Andrea Prout, LeAtm Puckett, Angela Roberts (n/k/a Angela Roberts-Jackson), Jennifer Smyrl, and Jessica Vetter (n/k/a Jessica Tober) to resolve their respective appellate rights arising out of the District Court's dismissal of one or more of their Gender Based Claims of Di scrimination.
(d) Subject to the Court's approval of Class Counsel's fee application, from the Legal & Administrative Expense Portion, after the Effective Date, Class Counsel shall be paid an attorneys' fee award of Five Million Three
36

Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($5,325,000.00) and reimbursed One Million Six Hundred Two Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen Dollars ($1,602,216.00) advanced for litigation expenses In addition, Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000) shall be set aside for the Settlement Administrators to pay fees, costs and expenses to the Settlement Monitor andlor Settlement Claims Service. 14.2.2 Trustees and Administrators. The oversight of the Settlement Fund shall be the responsibility of the Trustees who shall be appointed in accordance with Administrative Order No. 1 attached as Exhibit E and who shall also serve as Settlement Administrators. These Trustees and Administrators are collectively referred to herein as the "Settlement Administrators." 14.2.3 Settlement Administrators' Administrative Responsibilities. In administering the Settlement Fund, the Settlement Administrators shall be bound by the terms of Administrative Order No.1, as that order may in the future be supplemented or amended by the Court to administer and carry out the purposes of the Consent Decree, provided that no such supplementation or amendment shall alter the terms of this Consent Decree or any of its Exhibits. 14.3 Claims Filing Procedures and Awards for Settlement of Claims of Class Members. All Class Members who are located using best practicable notice will be eligible to receive a payment from the Class Claims Portions of the Settlement Fund as provided in this Consent Decree and its Exhibits. Any Class Member who obtained a final judicial determination concerning claims which would otherwise be covered by this Consent Decree is not eligible to receive an award from the Class Claims Portions.
37

14.3.1 In order to receive an award from the Class Claims Portions, a Class Member must submit a Claim Form postmarked or hand delivered by a date to be established by the Court. Claim Forms postmarked after that date shall not be eligible, unless the Court determines that the reason for a late submission constitutes excusable neglect.
14.3.2 Following the deadline for submission of Claim Forms and following review of all such received Claim Forms, Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrators will verify the validity of each Claim Form submitted and certify those who are Eligible Claimants. Verification may include, among other things, checking the relevant information on computerized databases maintained by the Settlement Administrators and Claimant's tax returns.
14.3.3 Upon completion of review and verification of all Claim Forms, Class Counsel will propose to the Court a point allocation formula, a distribution of the Class Claims Portions of Settlement Fund based on application of that point allocation formula to the responses on each Eligible Claimant's Claim Form, and acceptance of any excusably late Claim Forms.
14.3.4 Within ten (10) days of the Court's Order approvmg a point allocation formula for the distribution of the Class Claims Portions of Settlement Fund, and acceptance of any excusably late Claim Forms, Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrators will mail:
(a) to Eligible Claimants 1. Notices of Awards and Rights to Appeal,
38

II. Release and Indemnification Agreements, and 11l. Certificates of Residency. (b) to Ineligible Claimants 1. Notices of Ineligibility and Rights to Appeal. 14.3.S Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrators and the Settlement Claims Service will issue distribution checks to Eligible Claimants from whom executed Releases and completed Certificates of Residency are received, withholding and reporting applicable and neceSSaIY taxes. These distribution checks will be issued in rolling groups. That is, Class Counsel and the Settlement Claims Service need not wait for receipt of all Releases from all Eligible Claimants in order to begin issuing distribution checks. Instead, after the Effective Date of the Consent Decree upon receipt of a number of Releases and Certificates of Residency, Class Counsel and the Settlement Claims Service may begin issuing distribution checks on a rolling basis and continue such distribution until such time as all Eligible Claimants are paid or the time period for returning executed Releases expires. Distribution checks shall only be issued to Eligible Claimants after the Effective Date of the Consent Decree. 14.3.6 All claims of Eligible Claimants shall be deemed null and void if executed Releases are not received and distribution checks are not claimed for any reason within one (1) year after issuance of such awards and such funds shall become part ofthe reserves that shall be distributed in accordance with Administrative Order No.1. 14.3.7 All monetary aWaI'ds shall be subject to the review and approval of the Court before disbursement.
39

14.3.8 All Class Members receiving awards will be required to keep the amount of the awards confidential from everyone except Class Counsel, the Settlement Administrators, or any attorney, tax or fmancial adviser representing them or their spouse, life partner, or members of their immediate family.
14.4 Distribution Formula. 14.4.1 Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrators shall propose a
point allocation formula to the Court for its approval. The Court will determine this Distribution Formula based on the record in the Litigation, recommendations of Class Counsel andlor the Settlement Administrators and any submissions received from Class Members. The Court will not conduct a hearing on the Distribution Formula. Class Members shall have input into the Court's consideration of the Distribution Fonnula through written submissions to Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrators as provided for in the Notice attached as Exhibit D.
14.4.2 The Distribution Formula shall be applied uniformly after approval and may be amended only by Court Order. The total points awarded to all Claimants will be aggregated, and each Claimant's proportionate share of the total points will be determined. The Claimants shall then be allocated a commensurate proportion of the Class Claims Portion(s). Subject to Court approval, a Claimant may be required to obtain a minimum number of points to qualifY for a monetary award.
14.5 Tax Treatment. 14.5.1 Qualified Tax Status and Tax Responsibilities. The Settlement
Fund shall be a Qualified Settlement Fund within the meaning of Section 468B of the
40

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and any Treasmy Regulations promulgated thereunder, and shall be administered by the Administrators under the Court's supervision in accordance with Administrative Order No. l. The Parties shall cooperate to ensure such treatment and shall not take a position in any filing or before any tax authority inconsistent with such treatment.
14.5.2 Payment of Federal, State and Loca] Taxes by the Settlement Fund. The Settlement Fund shall (1) pay to the appropriate taxing authorities any applicable federal, state and local taxes that may be imposed on the Settlement Fund (including employer FICA taxes under Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code); and shall (2) withhold and pay over to the appropriate taxing authorities any applicable federal, state, and local taxes (including employee FICA taxes under Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code) required to be withheld and paid over pursuant to this Decree, Administrative Order No.1, or any applicable law. The Settlement Administrators shall arrange for the preparation and filing of all tax reports and tax returns required to be filed by the Settlement Fund and for the payment from the Settlement Fund of any taxes owed by the Settlement Fund andlor required to be withheld andlor deducted from distributions to Class Members and Named Plaintiffs. The Settlement Administrators also shall arrange for the preparation, filing and issuance of any required IRS Forms 1099, W-2 or other tax related forms (induding forms required by any state and local tax authorities) related to payments made to Class Members and Named Plaintiffs from the Settlement Fund.
41

14.5.3 Indemnification by Class Members and Named Plaintiffs. For purposes of this indemnification, each Class Member and Named Plaintiffwho receives a payment from the Settlement Fund shall be fully and ultimately responsible for payment of any and all federal, state or local taxes (excluding the employer share of employment taxes and unemployment taxes and excluding amounts properly withheld from the payment) resulting from or attributable to the payment received by such Class Member or Named Plaintiff Each Class Member and Named Plaintiff shall indemnify and hold harmless C.H. Robinson, Counsel for CH. Robinson, Class Counsel, the Depository Bank and the Settlement Administrators from any tax liability, including penalties and interest and costs of any proceedings, related in any way to any acts or omissions on the part of the Class Member or Named Plaintiff In all cases in which the tax liability that arises is not attributable to any acts or omissions on the part of a Class Member or Named Plaintiff, the Class Member or Named Plaintiff shall indemnify and hold harmless CH. Robinson, Counsel for CH. Robinson, Class Counsel, the DepositoI)' Bank and the Settlement Administrators from any tax liability, but not penalties and interest, or the costs of any proceedings related to such tax liability.
14.5.4 C.H. Robinson Has No Obligation, Liability or Responsibility. c.H. Robinson shall have no withholding, reporting or any other tax reporting or payment responsibilities with regard to the Settlement Fund or its distribution to Class Members and Named Plaintiffs. Moreover, CH. Robinson shall have no liability, obligation, or responsibility for the administration of the Settlement Fund, the determination of any formulas for disbursement, or the disbursement of any monies from the Settlement Fund
42

except for (1) its obligation to pay the settlement amollnt no later than 14 days after Preliminary Approval of this Decree; (2) its agreement to cooperate In providing information which is necessary for settlement administration set forth herein.
14.6 Remaining Monies In Settlement Fund. Mter all payments are made to the Eligible Claimants from the two Class Claims Portions of the Settlement Fund and to Named Plaintiffs from the Named Plaintiff Non-Class Claims Portion of the Settlement Fund, which in all instances shall be after the Effective Date of the Consent Decree, any monies remaining in the Settlement Fund due to uncashed checks and interest earned on the Settlement Fund and any monies remaining in any funds set aside for taxes or appeals shall be held in the Settlement Fund for two years after the last distribution. Expenses related to the creation, operation, and closure of the Settlement Fund, shall be paid out of the Settlement Fund. Within a reasonable period of time after the expiration of the twoyear period, the Settlement Administrators shall transfer all remaining monies in the Settlement Fund to a 501(c)(3) organization whose primary mission is to advance employment rights. In designating the 501(c)(3) organization, Settlement Administrators shall receive and consider input from C.H. Robinson.
14.7 Class Counsel Shall Not Solicit Representation of Excluded Class Mem bers. Consistent with the applicable rules of professional responsibility, Class Counsel shall not affirmatively solicit representation of any Class Member who requests exclusion from the Class in accordance with the Consent Decree; nor will Class Counsel solicit representation in any capacity of any person or entity in any employment dispute adverse to C.H. Robinson for the period of time covered by the Consent Decree or at any
43

time with respect to any conduct, acts or omissions that are alleged to have occurred, or that occurred during the period covered by the Consent Decree which are based on such conduct, acts or omissions revealed by, or contained in the information furnished Class Counsel during the term of the Consent Decree. Nothing herein shall in anyway prohibit Class Counsel from representing Class Members who have pending claims identified in Exhibit F attached hereto. XV. RELEASE OF CLAIMS
15.1 General Release. In consideration of receiving any monetary award pursuant to this Consent Decree, all Named Plaintiffs shall execute a Release in the form attached as Exhibit B. In consideration of receiving a monetary award from the Class Claims Portions of the Settlement Fund, all Eligible Claimants shall execute a Release in the fOffil attached as Exhibit G.
15.2 Covenants Not To Sue. Except as set forth in Section 15.3 below, upon the Effective Date, the Named Plaintiffs shall be subject to a covenant not to sue with respect to any and all allegations and causes of action of employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and/or retaliation arising prior to the Effective Date that were made or that could have been made by any Named Plaintiff.
15.3 Excluded Pending Claims. The Parties agree that nothing contained within the Consent Decree affects in any way the individual claims pending in the ninetyeight (98) matters identified in Exhibit F attached hereto, or the pending Fair Labor Standards Act collective action before this Court.
44

XVI. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS 16.1 Attorneys' Fees And Costs. Class Counsel shall submit a fee application
to the Court sufficiently in advance of the Fairness Hearing so that the issue may be
addressed at the Fairness Hearing and c.H. Robinson may file any responsive or other
pleadings as it deems appropriate. Class Counsel's fee application shall be submitted no later than the date on which the Parties fully agree as to the form of the Consent Decree. The Court shall determine the attorneys' fees, as well as costs and expenses of the Litigation, to be paid to Class Counsel out of the Settlement Fund at the time of final approval of this Consent Decree. Such fees, costs and expenses shall include time to be spent in the future defending the Consent Decree, enforcing the Consent Decree, conferring with Class Members, reviewing the reports of C.H. Robinson, conferring with c.H. Robinson's counsel, or any other legal work to be performed by Class Counsel related to monitoring, administration, and/or implementation of this Consent Decree.
16.2 Release Of Any Claims For Attorneys' Fees And Costs. c.H. Robinson
shall have no obligation under this Consent Decree to pay any money for attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel, except as expressly set forth in this Consent Decree. Except as otherwise provided herein, C.H. Robinson shall not be liable for any of the Named Plaintiffs' costs or attorneys' fees, statutoI)' or otherwise, incurred in the Litigation or during the term of the Consent Decree.
16.3 Costs Of Employment Practices. The costs and expenses for administering the employment practices in Section 9 of the Consent Decree shall be paid exclusively by C.R Robinson.
45

XVII. CONSTRUCTION 17.1 Governing Law. This Settlement Order shall be construed and interpreted
in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 17.2 Severability. Subject to and independent from Section 3.6 herein, if any
clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Consent Decree or the application of it to any person or circumstances, is, for any reason, judged by the Court to be totally or partially unenforceable or contrary to law or if the enactment or amendment of any federal or state statute, order, ordinance, regulation renders any provision of this Consent Decree totally or partially unenforceable or contrary to law, such ruling, judgment, enactment, or amendment shall not effect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this Consent Decree, except as otherwise provided herein.
17.3 Joint Document Of The Parties. The tenns of this Consent Decree are the product of joint negotiation and are not to be construed as having been authored by one Party or another.
17.4 Agreed Modifications. Should either Named Plaintiffs or c.H. Robinson
detennine that modifications, additions, or deletions to this Consent Decree are necessary, the counsel for the Parties shall meet in good faith and on reasonable notice to discuss any such changes. No modification, deletion, or addition to this Consent Decree shall be adopted unless it is agreed upon in writing, signed by the Parties, and so ordered by the Court.
46

17.5 Headings. The headings in this Consent Decree are for the convenience of

the Parties only and shall not limit, expand, modify, amplify, or aid in the interpretation

or construction of this Consent Decree.

17.6 Non-\Vaiver. The waiver in anyone instance by any Party hereto of any

term, condition, or covenant in this Consent Decree or of the breach of any term,

condition, covenant, or representation herein shall not operate as or be deemed to be a

waiver of the right to enforce any other term, condition, or representation, nor shall any

failure by any Party at any time to enforce or require performance of any provision hereof

operate as a waiver of or affect in any manner such Party's right at a later time to enforce

or require performance of such provisions or of any other provision hereof.

17.7 Calculation Of Time. In computing any period of time prescribed or

allowed by this Consent Decree, unless otherwise stated, such computation or calculation

shall be made consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

17.8 Notice To The Parties. All notices and other communications required

under this Consent Decree shall be in writing and delivered either personally or by

depositing the same, postage prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed to the party

hereto to whom the same is directed at the following addresses:

To Plaintiffs:

To C.H. Robinson:

Steven M. Sprenger Sprenger & Lang, PLLC 1400 Eye Street N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 265-8010 (202) 332-6652 facsimile

Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Seyfarth Shaw, LLP 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 269-8965 (312) 269-8869 (facsimile)

47

With a copy to: Linda Feuss, Esq. General Counsel C.H. Robinson Worldwide 8100 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 937-8500 (952) 937-7840 (facsimile)
17.9 Exclusive Agreement As To Settlement Terms. This Consent Decree and the Exhibits hereto constitute the full and exclusive agreement of the Parties with respect to the matters set forth herein, and supersedes all negotiations, representations, comments, contracts, term sheets, and writings prior to the Effective Date of this Consent Decree. No representations or inducements to compromise the Litigation have been made, other than those recited or referenced in this Consent Decree. No waiver and no amendment of any provision of this Consent Decree shall be effective, unless made in writing and signed by the Patties to be bOlUld thereby.
17.10 The Pruties or their counsel may from time to time change their addresses or representatives for purposes of this Section by providing written notice, return receipt requested, of such changes to the other Party.
17.11 Counterparts. This Consent Decree may be executed in one or more counterpatts and each executed copy shall be deemed an original which shall be binding upon all Parties hereto.
48

------ - - - - - - ------ -----------

XVIII.

STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA OR GENERAL PUBLIC

18.1 The Parties and theIr counsel have entered into this Consent Decree with

the hope and expectation that C.H. Robinson will enjoy, for many years to corne, a strong

and mutually beneficial relationship with all its employees, including its female

employees.

18.2 The Named Plaintiffs and Counsel of Record agree not to disparage each

other, and further agree to refrain from publicly or in the media taking any action

designed to harm the public perception of the Company. The Named Parties and Counsel

of Record further agree that they shall mutually agree to a joint press release statement

(attached as Exhibit H) and develop a mutually agreed upon Q & A Guidelines.

18.3 Class Counsel agrees that, within two (2) business days after the Court

grants Preliminary Approval to the Consent Decree, it will modify any web site it

controls that relates in any way to the Litigation to ensure consistency with the terms

herein.

XIX. VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE The Parties agree that, as of the Effective Date, Counts I (hostile work

environment), II (pay and promotion) and IV (equal pay) of the Second Amended

Complaint are voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

49

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 1060 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 56 of 67

Fu SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this

~
day of

td,d4«t '2006.

Joan N. Erice¥ V~ .
United States DIstrict Court Judge

Agreed to in [onn:
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
~:;aA:;:' Steven M. Sprenger Sprenger & Lang, PLLC 1400 Eye Street N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 265-8010

Agreed to in fonn:
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC.
By:~~J d,q,J8.

a R. Thompson S renger & Lang, PLLC 310 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 871-8910

obi ,Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. 2 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 349-8500

50

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 1060 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 57 of 67

r 7 Dated:

By:~d~ en D. Carlson Plaintiff

Dated: -------------------

By: ______________________________
Carol Flannigan Plaintiff

Dated: -------------------

By: ____________________
Amy Hossenlopp Plaintiff

Dated:

By: ______________________________
Debra Kinniry Plaintiff

Dated:

By: --~--~---------------------Sandy Nelson Plaintiff

Dated:

By: _____________________________ Cathy Perky Plaintiff

Dated:

By: -----------------------------Tricia Polier Plaintiff

Dated: -------------------

By: ______________________________ Andrea Prout Plaintiff

Dated: -------------------

By: LeeAnn Puckett Plaintiff

51

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 1060 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 58 of 67

Dated: ---------------------

By: ________~------------------­
Gwen D. Carlson Plaintiff
BY~.,j~~ Carol Flannigan Plaintiff

Dated: --------------------

By: ________~------------------­
Amy Hossenlopp
Plaintiff

Dated: _____________________

By: ______~--------------------­
Debra Kinniry
Plaintiff

Dated: ____________________

By: __~__~_____________________
Sandy Nelson Plaintiff

Dated: ---------------------

By: _______________ Cathy Perky Plaintiff

Dated: ------------------~

By: -----------------------------Tricia Porter
Plaintiff

Dated: --------------------

By: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Andrea Prout
Plaintiff

Dated: ---------------------

By: ______________________________
LeeAnn Puckett Plaintiff

51

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 1060 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 59 of 67

Dated: ------------------

By: __________________________ Gwen D. Carlson Plaintiff

Dated: ---------------------

By: ____~~------------------~ Carol Flannigan Plaintiff

Dated: -------------------

Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated:

By: Debra Kinniry Plaintiff
By: Sandy Nelson Plaintiff
By: Cathy Perky Plaintiff
By: Tricia Porter Plaintiff
By: Andrea Prout Plaintiff
By: LeeAnn Puckett Plaintiff

51

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 1060 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 60 of 67

Dated: ---------------------

By: _______________________________ Gwen D. Carlson Plaintiff

Dated: ---------------------

By: ______~----------------------­ Carol Flannigan Plaintiff

Dated: ---------------------
Dated: ¢!)!ob

By: _______________________________ Amy Hossenlopp Plaintiff

Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated:

By: Sandy Nelson Plaintiff
By: Cathy Perky Plaintiff
By: Tricia Porter Plaintiff
By: Andrea Prout Plaintiff
By: LeeAnn Puckett Plaintiff

51

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 1060 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 61 of 67

Dated:

By: ----------------------------~ Gwen D. Carlson Plaintiff

Dated:

By: _____________________________
Carol Flannigan Plaintiff

Dated:

By: ________~------------------­ A-Iny. tJossenlQJill ... __.
Plaintiff

Dated: ___________________

III!J Dated: j'

h

---I~~--~---------

By:~--~~--------------------­
Debra Kinniry Plainti f

Dated:

By: ____________________________~
Cathy Perky Plaintiff

Dated:

By: ----------------------------Tricia Porter
Plaintiff

Dated:

By: ______________________________
Andrea Prout Plaintiff

Dated: -------------------

By: LeeAnn Puckett Plaintiff

51

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 1060 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 62 of 67

Dated: ----------------~-

By: ~~~~~~~~~------~~-Gwen D. Carlson Plaintiff

Dated:

By: ------------------------------
Carol Flannigan Plaintiff

Dated: ------~~---------

By: _____________________________
Amy Hossenlopp Plaintiff

Dated: -------------------

By: ______________________________
Debra Kinniry Plaintiff

Dated: --------------------

By: ______________________________
Sandy Nelson Plaintiff

Dated: -------------------

Dated:

By: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-Tricla Porter
Plaintiff

Dated: -------------------

By: __________________________-L__ Andrea Prout Plaintiff

Dated: -------------------

By: --~----~-------------------LeeAnn Puckett Plaintiff

51

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 1060 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 63 of 67

Dated:

By: ______________________________
Gwen D. Carlson Plaintiff

Dated:

By: ______________________________
Carol Flannigan Plaintiff

Dated: Dated: Dated:

By: ________~--------------------
Amy Hossenlopp Plaintiff
By: ______________________________ Debra Killl1iry
Plaintiff
By: ______________________________
Sandy Nelson Plaintiff

Dated:

By: ______________________________ Cathy Perky Plaintiff

Dated: --------------------

,n By: -----------------------------Tricia Porter
Plaintiff
B~Yr~ou~t [rot/f
Plaintiff

Dated:

By: ______________________________
LeeArm Puckett Plaintiff

51

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 1060 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 64 of 67

Dated: --------------------

By: ____________________________~
Gwen n Carlson
Plaintiff

Dated: --------------------

By: ______~----------------_____
Carol Flannigan
Plaintiff

Dated: ____________________

By: ________~------------------~
Amy Hbssenlopp
Plaintiff

Dated: ____________________

By: ______________________________
Debra Kinniry Plaintiff

Dated: --------------------

By: ____________________________~
Sandy Nelson Plaintiff

Dated: ____________________

By: ____________________________~
Cathy Perky Plaintiff

Dated: --------------------

By: ____~-----------------------­
Tricia Porter Plaintiff

Dated:

By:

--------------------

--------------------------~

Andrea Prout Plaintiff

/i)

Dated: _ _~C~Clnn DJ~

LeeAnn Puckett ~-

Plaintiff

51

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 1060 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 65 of 67

BY:(k~~ tlgclqj{oberts Plaintiff

Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~

By: _________________ Jennifer Smyrl Plaintiff

Dated: --------~

By: _ _ _ _ _~---------Jessica Vetter Tober
Plaintiff

52

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 1060 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 66 of 67

Dated: ~--------------~
LrfLL ~D Dated _

By: An~g~e~la~R~o~b~e=rt~s~~----~--~--
Plaintiff

Dated:

By: J~e~ss~jc~a~V~e=tt=e~r~T~ob'e-r~--~---------­ Plaintiff

52

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 1060 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 67 of 67

Dated: ------------------

By: ~~~~--------------------Angela Rabe11s Plaintiff

Dated: -----------------Dated: ------------------

By:
--~~--~----------------
Jennifer Smyrl Plaintiff
BY~llk~J~ J SIca Vetter Taber Plaintiff

52

 
 Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 573 Filed 05/20/04 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
FOURTH DIVISION

)

GWEN D. CARLSON, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., )

)

Defendant.

)

CASE NO. CV-02-3780 (JNE/JGL)

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MAINTAIN THIS ACTION AS A CLASS ACTION

Named plaintiffs Gwen Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Am y Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Pr out, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Jessica Vetter, and Debr a Kinniry, by and through their counsel and pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby move to maintain the above-captioned action as a class action, to orde r that named plaintiffs’ proposed form of notice be issued to all subclass members, and to appoint Sprenger & Lang, PLLC as class counsel. In support of their motion, they state as follows:
1. The named plaintiffs seek to prosecute their Title VII “pattern or practice” gender discrimination (i.e., compensation, promotion and hostile environm ent) claims as a class action pursuant to Rule 2 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their proposed “umbrella” class consists of “all females who were employed by C.H. Robinson at any tim e during the liability period or who will be employed in the f uture,” and includes three distinct “claim” subclasses: (a) the com pensation subclass includes “all females who have been em ployed on a full-tim e basis by C.H. Robinson in a dom estic

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 573 Filed 05/20/04 Page 2 of 4
branch office at any time during the liability period”; (b) the promotion subclass includes “all females who were employed by C.H. Robinson in a dom estic branch office and had more than two years’ experien ce in a sales and/or operations position at any tim e during the liability period”; and , (c) the ho stile environment subclass includes “all fem ales who have been employed by C.H. Robinson in a domestic branch office at any time during the liability period.”
2. The proposed class and subclasses m eet the threshold requirem ents of Rule 23(a). The proposed class should be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) because it seeks only non-m onetary equitable, injunctiv e and declaratory reli ef as a result of defendant’s actions and inacti ons with re spect to the c lass. The p roposed subclasses should be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) b ecause common class-wide liab ility and damage issues predom inate over individual i ssues, and the class procedural device is superior to other m ethods of adjudicating these claims, including joinder or hundreds of individual actions. In the alte rnative, the proposed subclasses may be certified in hybrid form pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), but using th e notice and “opt out” procedures designed for Rule 23(b)(3) class actions.
3. The named plaintiffs request the c ourt to order that nam ed plaintiffs’ proposed form of notice be issued to all subclass members.
4. The named plaintiffs further reque st that Sprenger & Lang, PLLC be designated as class counsel.
5. In further support of their m otion, the moving nam ed plaintiffs respectfully refer the Cour t to their supporting m emorandum of law, including the
2
58761

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 573 Filed 05/20/04 Page 3 of 4

declarations, summary exhibits and exhibits thereto, which will be filed pursuant to the rules of this Court.
WHEREFORE, the named plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their motion and certify the above-referenced class and subclasses, order that named plaintiffs’ proposed form of notice be issued to all subclass members, and appoint Sprenger & Lang, PLLC as class counsel.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 20, 2004

SPRENGER & LANG, PLLC

(202)332-6652

By: __s/Steven M. Sprenger________________ Steven M. Sprenger (DC Bar No. 418736) Lead Counsel
Lawrence P. Schaefer (MN No. 195583) Susan M. Coler (MN No. 217621) Teresa K. Patton (MN No. 205679) David L. Ramp (MN No. 89357) 325 Ridgewood Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 (612) 871-8910 (612) 871-9270 (facsimile)
Michael D. Lieder (DC Bar No. 444273) Latif Doman (DC Bar No. 466654) Cynthia Totten (DC Bar No. 474503) Eden Brown Gaines (GA Bar No. 282098) 1614 20th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20009-1001 (202) 265-8010
(facsimile)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

3
58761

Case 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG Document 573 Filed 05/20/04 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I caused the foregoing Motion to be t o be filed electronically this 20th day of May, 2004, with the Clerk of Court through ECF, and that ECF will send an e-notice of the electronic filing to the following:
Janet C. Evans and Thomas B. Hatch Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP 2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
s/Steven M. Sprenger
Steven M. Sprenger
4
58761

 
 Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
2005 WL 758602 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Minnesota.
Gwen D. CARLSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., Defendant.
No. Civ.02-3780 JNE/JGL. | March 31, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Steven Sprenger, Susan Coler, Micheal Lieder, and Eden Brown Gaines, Sprenger & Lang PLLC, for Plaintiffs Gwen D. Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Debra Kinniry, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, LeeAnn Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, and Jessica Vetter individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
Janet C. Evans, Thomas Hatch, Thomas Undlin, and Lisa Heller, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, for Defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
Opinion
ORDER
ERICKSEN, J.
*1 This is a putative class action involving sex-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) (Title VII).1 The case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on their class sexual harassment claims, C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc.’s (CHR) motions for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claims, and CHR’s motion in limine to exclude part of the expert report of Victoria Fuhrer. The parties presented oral argument on October 15, 2004, and November 12, 2004. The Court grants and denies the motions for the reasons set forth below.2
I. BACKGROUND
CHR is a transportation logistics company with at least 134 branch offices in over 42 states.3 CHR began operations in 1905 and was employee-owned until its IPO on October 15, 1997. Between 1997 and 2002, CHR expanded from roughly 1900 employees to 3800 employees. The company’s growth was due in large part to acquisitions of other companies. CHR’s business is divided into six “lines”: Produce (buying, selling and transporting produce-includes Corporate Procurement Distribution Services (CPDS) which specializes in large national customers’ inventory and logistics of their businesses); Transportation (general trucking services); Ross (transportation and management of time-sensitive printed materials); Intermodal (transportation by rail); International Sales (transportation by ocean freight, air freight, rail freight, trucking and rail); and T-Chek (a wholly owned subsidiary that operates credit services for drivers).
Centralized management at CHR is located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Each business line has an operational vice president who oversees performance of that line at all of the branches. All the operational vice presidents are men, as are CHR’s board of directors. The corporate offices contain the human-resource department (HR), the payroll department, and the in-house legal department. HR centrally administers the compensation system and enforces EEO polices and procedures, and provides human resource services to the entire branch network. Before August 2002, HR was called Organizational Resources and provided additional support to the operational vice presidents.
1

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Policies against discrimination CHR prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender. All employees are required to sign a copy of CHR’s anti-discrimination policy at the start of their employment. CHR provides training to new employees, including a seminar on sexual harassment in the workplace. CHR also maintains a policy against employee misuse of the Internet. Employees annually sign compliance certificates, stating that they have complied with all CHR policies during the preceding year.
If an employee experiences an incident of discrimination or inappropriate behavior, CHR recommends reporting the incident in one of several ways: (1) to the employee’s branch manager; (2) to CHR’s in-house legal department; (3) to an anonymous third-party toll-free hotline; or (4) to CHR’s anonymous email service. These recommendations are located on CHR’s website.
CHR workplace *2 The majority of CHR employees occupy sales positions. Sales employees’ primary job duties are to book loads, to ensure the timely and safe arrival of the load, and to negotiate rates that provide a margin of profit to CHR. All employees use computers to facilitate these transactions, especially with regard to tracking loads. The software used by CHR to facilitate these logistics requires access to the Internet. Employees are constantly on the phone, engaging in rapid-fire deal making. As a result, branches often have a loud, frenetic atmosphere.
Employees at CHR work in areas organized in “pod” formations with several employees’ desks and computers clustered together and in close proximity to other pods. Short partial walls separate employees’ desks. The short walls provide minimal privacy and co-workers’ computers are essentially visible to each other. In general, employees’ phone conversations and conversations amongst co-workers are readily overheard.
Compensation CHR employees have individualized compensation packages that are reviewed annually. Salaried employees have four facets to their pay package: base salary; contractual bonus; growth pool bonus; and stock option grants.4 Generally, full-time hourly employees receive an hourly rate that falls within a range set by CHR, and they are eligible to receive a year-end bonus, usually equivalent to no more than two-weeks’ pay. The annual compensation review process begins with a meeting between the branch manager and the employee to review and amend each employee’s compensation package and contract. This typically includes reviewing the employee’s past performance and discussing the employee’s future goals.5
With regard to a salaried employee’s base salary, CHR provides a formula to calculate a range of base salaries, based in part on factors such as experience and cost of living differences. Within the base salary range, the branch manager negotiates a base salary with each employee. Next, the contractual bonus is a spreadsheet of percentage points that each employee makes per $100,000 profit generated within the branch. This bonus sheet is negotiated into the employee’s annual contract. Third, the growth pool bonus program is additional compensation that is awarded to branches that achieve success and growth over certain threshold minimums. The branch manager has total discretion on how to distribute the pool to his employees. Finally, a salaried employee may receive stock options. The stock option program began in 1997, and approximately 15% of all employees receive stock options. Although stock options may be considered part of an employee’s overall compensation, decisions regarding stock options are made separately from the rest of the compensation package.
After developing the compensation packages for each of his employees, the branch manager submits the branch’s entire compensation package to the CHR compensation managers for review. At that point, the CHR compensation manager and the branch manger discuss and review each employee’s compensation package. In a meeting that may last several hours depending on how many employees are in the branch, the branch manager explains the choices and decisions he has made with regard to compensation. At least five minutes is spent discussing each employee.6 The parties dispute who has final say regarding an employee’s compensation. Plaintiffs allege that the compensation manager’s suggestion controls, and CHR contends that it is the branch manager with whom the final decision rests.
*3 Through 1998, the sole CHR compensation manager was Greg Goven. In anticipation of his 2002 retirement, Goven asked others to assist him in the compensation review process. From 1998 to 2002, Greg Goven, Mary Gorski, Colleen
2

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Zwach, Scott Satterlee, and Tim Manning acted as compensation managers and conducted compensation reviews.
Promotions With regard to promotions, CHR generally favors internal candidates as opposed to external candidates. Lower-tier promotions, such as team or pod leaders, are done by the branch manager from within the branch. Some support and operations employees consider a transfer to a sales position to be a promotion. In the process of selecting sales employees, CHR administers a personality test, the Stein test, which is intended to distinguish those applicants who possess management skills. It is unclear whether the results of the Stein test are used in any other way. An employee interested in a management position or promotion is expected to notify his or her branch manager. A branch manager uses an informal system, a “succession planning chart,” to record his recommendations regarding the upward mobility of his employees.
Before this lawsuit, CHR did not regularly post-either internally or externally-openings for branch manager positions. Other positions, such as sales, were routinely posted on CHR’s website. Branch manager positions were generally filled through the recommendations of either the line vice president or the out-going branch manager.
Plaintiffs Gwen Carlson was hired on September 1, 1996, by CHR’s Minneapolis International branch to work in operations. In November 1998, Carlson moved into a sales position that did not suit her well. In February 2001, after interviewing for several other positions, Carlson accepted a newly developed position known as the Domestic Drayage Coordinator. Carlson is still employed by CHR in that position. During her entire period of employment by CHR, Carlson has been a full-time, salaried employee. Carlson filed a claim with the EEOC on June 20, 2001. The remaining named Plaintiffs have all been employed or continue to be employed by CHR in branch offices across the United States.
II. MOTION TO STRIKE
Before turning to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the Court first addresses CHR’s motion to strike the expert report and testimony of Victoria Fuehrer insofar as she opines on issues relating to hostile work environment and sexual harassment. Plaintiffs retained Ms. Fuehrer as an expert in human resources. She has been involved in the human resources field for approximately thirty years. She received two B.A. degrees, one in psychology and one in sociology. She worked in the human resources department at Amhoist from 1975 to 1983, and was thereafter employed by Norwest Corporation as Vice President of Compensation from 1983 to 1984. From 1984 to 2000, Ms. Fuehrer ran a consulting firm that specialized in human resources and “organizational effectiveness.” She has published approximately fourteen articles in the human resources field generally (none relating to sexual harassment). The section of Ms. Fuehrer’s report at issue here focuses on whether CHR’s human resource policies and procedures with respect to sexual harassment comport with accepted business practices.
*4 CHR moves to strike Ms. Fuehrer’s report and testimony because she lacks the appropriate experience to be considered an expert in the field of sexual harassment in the workplace. In particular, CHR argues that Ms. Fuehrer has no formal education or training with respect to sexual harassment, nor has she conducted any training or written any articles on the topic of sexual harassment. Further, CHR contends that Ms. Fuehrer’s practical experience has been limited to writing several policies regarding sexual harassment and participating in one internal investigation while working as a consultant. According to CHR, this experience does not qualify Ms. Fuehrer to opine on issues of sexual harassment in the workplace.
The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which states that “if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” When evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702, a district court must determine whether the testimony is reliable and relevant. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147, 149, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999); see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589, 597, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Moreover, “it is the responsibility of the trial judge to determine whether a particular expert has sufficient specialized knowledge to assist jurors in deciding the specific issues in the case.” Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Beelman River
3

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Terminals, Inc., 254 F.3d 706, 715 (8th Cir.2001) (citing Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 156). The proponent of the expert testimony bears the burden of proving its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n. 10; Lauzon v. Senco Prods. ., Inc., 270 F.3d 681, 686 (8th Cir.2001).
Plaintiffs argue that at the class-certification stage, Daubert and Rule 702 do not apply because an analysis under them entails an impermissible inquiry into the merits of the underlying action. Rather, Plaintiffs contend that a district court must only make certain that the expert testimony is not “so fatally flawed as to be inadmissible as a matter of law.” Pls.’ Mem. Opp’n. at 9. In support, Plaintiffs rely on In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, 280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir.2001), wherein the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted that “a motion to strike expert evidence pursuant to [Daubert ] involves an inquiry distinct from that for evaluating expert evidence in support a motion for class certification.” 280 F.3d at 134. That court further stated that a “district court must ensure that the basis of the expert opinion is not so flawed that it would be inadmissible as a matter law.” Id. at 135.
The Court concludes that even under the In re Visa Check/MasterMoney standard, Ms. Fuehrer does not qualify as an expert on matters relating to sexual harassment. Here, Ms. Fuehrer’s resume fails to identify any experience, skill, training, or education in sexual harassment in the workplace. The Court’s review of her deposition testimony reveals that she consulted on one internal investigation of a sexual harassment charge at a client’s company and she wrote eight to ten policies that address sexual harassment as part of writing employee manuals, but that the bulk of her experience with sexual harassment occurred during her time at Amhoist. Ms. Fuehrer testified in relevant part as follows:
*5 Q. Have you ever been in charge or involved in an EEOC investigation?
A. I don’t recollect that I have.
Q. Okay, Have you ever been involved in any internal investigations where-in a company where there were allegations of sexual harassment?
....
A. Okay, I have had experience in consulting with one of my clients in a sexual harassment, an internal investigation on sexual harassment and advising that company on steps.
....
Q. Okay. So that’s the only sexual harassment that you’ve been involved in?
A. To my recollection, yes.
....
Q. Now you said you wrote sexual harassment policies.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. When?
A. I’ve written sexual harassment policies off and on for a variety of my clients.
Q. Okay.
A. But I would say the majority of that work was performed when I was at Amhoist.
....
Q. Okay. Any training, sexual harassment training that you’ve developed or given?
A. I have not-I don’t recall that I have developed any sexual harassment training.
Q. Ever written an article about sexual harassment?
4

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
A. I don’t think so, no.
....
Q. Okay. So your experience kind of in the area of sexual harassment policy implementation, administration and enforcement would be limited to the policies that you have written and the one-time consulting?
A. I don’t-I’m not sure that the word limited is a good word. I mean I’ve had experience writing sexual harassment policies and administering them. And the focus-the focus of my consulting has been in a more-in the compensation career progression, performance management.
Q. Where have you had experience administering sexual harassment policies?
A. At Amhoist.
Q. Okay. Anywhere else?
A. I would say not.
....
Q. Okay. While you were at Amhoist, was-do you recall any allegation of sexual harassment that you were involved with in either advising, investigating, anything?
A. Uh-huh, uh-huh. I don’t recall any.
(Fuehrer Tr. at 134-139.)
The Court notes that Ms. Fuehrer’s time spent at Amhoist, from 1975 to 1983, predates all relevent decisions by the United States Supreme Court with respect to sexual harassment, as well as subsequent statutory amendments to Title VII. See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986); Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993); Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998). Plaintiffs essentially ask the Court to accept Ms. Fuehrer as an expert in sexual harassment even though her resume and testimony clearly demonstrate that her expertise lies elsewhere.
Although it is not compulsory for a purported expert to have “knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education” in a particular field to be qualified as an expert, possession of at least one of these characteristics is necessary. Cf. Midwestern Mach. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 562, 568 (D.Minn.2001). Plaintiffs fail to establish that Ms. Fuehrer possesses any one of these characteristics with respect to sexual harassment in the workplace. Accordingly, Ms. Fuehrer is without a reliable basis for forming opinions with respect to sexual harassment in the workplace, and the Court therefore grants CHR’s motion to strike.
III. CLASS CERTIFICATION
A. Class Certification Standard *6 Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs a district court’s consideration of a motion for class certification. Decisions on whether to certify a class action are within the discretion of the district court. See Coleman v. Watt, 40 F.3d 255, 259 (8th Cir.1994); Morgan v. United Parcel Serv., 169 F.R.D. 349, 354 (E.D.Mo.1996). In determining whether to certify a class action, “the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974) (citations omitted). Accordingly, while the Court must conduct a “rigorous analysis,” see Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982), class certification is a procedural determination and should not include an inquiry into the merits. See Eisen, 417 U.S. at 177-178. The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the requirements of Rule 23. Coleman, 40 F.3d at 259.
5

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Rule 23 requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all the members is impracticable; (2) questions of law or fact are common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the class; and (4) the representative parties fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). In addition to the Rule 23(a) factors, a plaintiff must also demonstrate at least one of the following subsections of Rule 23(b): (1) that there is a risk of inconsistent verdicts if the class is not certified; (2) that injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate; or (3) that a common question of law or fact predominates any questions affecting only individual members and that a class action would be superior to other available methods. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b).
Plaintiffs move the Court to certify one across-the-board class consisting of “all females who were employed by C.H. Robinson any time during the liability period or who will be employed in the future,” and three subclasses-compensation, promotion and sexual harassment. With regard to their compensation and promotion claims, Plaintiffs allege gender discrimination claims of disparate treatment and disparate impact.7 With regard to hostile work environment, Plaintiffs allege only a disparate treatment claim.8
Turning first to Plaintiffs’ motion to certify an across-the-board class, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden to demonstrate that this class warrants certification. See 8 Alba Conte & Herbert Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 3:9 (4th ed.2002) (noting that plaintiffs carry the burden of establishing the elements of Rule 23 with respect to both across-the-board class and subclasses). Here, Plaintiffs fail to direct the Court to evidence in the record in support of their across-the-board class and fail to distinguish it from the subclasses. Indeed, during oral argument and in their memoranda, Plaintiffs rarely mention the across-the-board class. Furthermore, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate how the across-the-board class independently satisfies the Rule 23 factors. Without more, Plaintiffs have not met their burden. Accordingly, the Court will not certify the across-the-board class.
*7 This conclusion does not, however, preclude certification of Plaintiffs’ subclasses as individual classes. See In re Monumental Life, 365 F.3d 408, 414 (5th Cir.2004) (noting that district courts have discretion to modify class definitions to provide needed precision); Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 937 (2d Cir.1993) (“A court is not bound by the class definition proposed in the complaint and should not dismiss the action simply because the complaint seeks to define the class too broadly.”). Instead, the Court construes Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as a motion to certify three separate classes-compensation, promotion and sexual harassment-and further construes Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief to apply to each of the three classes. Plaintiffs’ proposed class definitions are as follows: (1) Compensation-“All females who have been employed on a full-time basis by C.H. Robinson in a domestic branch office at any time during the liability period;” (2) Promotions-“All females who were employed by C.H. Robinson in a domestic branch office and had more than two years’ experience in a sales and/or operations position at any time during the liability period;” and (3) Sexual Harassment-“All females who have been employed by C.H. Robinson in a domestic branch office at any time during the liability period.” The Court now turns to the Rule 23 factors as applied to each class.
B. Rule 23(a) factors
1. Numerosity The first requirement of Rule 23(a) is that the class must be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1). “Impracticable does not mean that joinder must be impossible, but it does require a showing that it would be extremely difficult or inconvenient to join all members of the class .” Morgan, 169 F.R.D. at 355. Factors relevant to this inquiry include: the number of persons in the proposed class; the size of the individual claims; the inconvenience of trying individual suits; and any other factor relevant to the practicability of joining all of the putative class members. Paxton v. Union Nat’l Bank, 688 F.2d 552, 559-60 (8th Cir.1982).
Here, the parties do not dispute numerosity. Plaintiffs have put forth evidence that each class would contain between 625 and 1300 women who reside in over 40 different states. In particular, Plaintiffs assert that the compensation and sexual harassment classes each could encompass 1300 women while the promotion class could contain as many as 625 women. Given the large number of putative class members combined with their geographic dispersion, the Court concludes that joinder would be impracticable. See Morgan, 169 F.R.D. at 355. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden with respect to this prong of Rule 23(a).
2. Commonality
6

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
The next requirement of Rule 23(a) is that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). The commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) “does not require that every question of law or fact be common to every member of the class.” Paxton, 688 F.2d at 561. The Supreme Court in Falcon noted:
*8 Class relief is peculiarly appropriate when the issues involved are common to the class as a whole and when they turn on questions of law applicable in the same manner to each member of the class. For in such cases, the class-action device saves the resources of both the courts and the parties by permitting an issue potentially affecting every class member to be litigated in an economical fashion under Rule 23.
457 U.S. at 155 (quotations omitted). In assessing commonality, there is not one determinative factor for courts to consider. See Morgan, 169 F.R.D. at 355 (listing non-exclusive factors). In general, the commonality requirement is not an oppressive burden to meet. See Egge v. Healthspan Servs. Co., 208 F.R.D. 265, 268 (D.Minn.2002) (commonality “is easily met in most cases because it ‘requires only that the course of conduct giving rise to a cause of action affects all class members, and that at least one of the elements of that cause of action is shared by all members” ’ (quoting Lockwood Motors, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 162 F.R.D. 569, 575 (D.Minn.1995)). The Court now turns to the Plaintiffs’ proffered evidence to consider whether each class satisfies the commonality requirement.
a. Compensation Class Plaintiffs contend that commonality is met because the issues of whether CHR discriminated against women in compensation and whether CHR’s compensation process had a disparate impact on women pervades all of the class members’ claims. According to Plaintiffs, CHR has a centralized, all male group of vice presidents who dictate compensation based on the subjective recommendations of the branch managers. Plaintiffs allege that the branch manager’s unfettered discretion to compute salary, bonuses, and other compensation perks, coupled with the absence of objective factors such as mandatory performance reviews, led to women being paid less than men.
In support of their argument, Plaintiffs put forth the expert report of Dr. Janet Thornton who conducted a multiple regression analysis and determined that, when aggregating all of CHR’s employees across the branches, there were statistically significant disparities in the pay between men and women.9 Specifically, Dr. Thornton concluded that women received fewer contract points and stock options and received less overall compensation than male workers at CHR. She arrived at this conclusion by aggregating the data of employees across all of the branches. Later, Dr. Thornton confirmed her conclusion by sampling 39 branch years from branches employing more than 20 employees and at least 1 female employee. She revealed her results in her rebuttal report, noting that 33 out of the 39 branch years had female negative disparities and that the remaining 6 branch years had female positive disparities. Importantly, Dr. Thornton found that 10 of the 33 female negative disparities were statistically significant (greater than 2 standard deviations), while none of the 6 positive disparities were statistically significant.
*9 In response, CHR argues that the claims of the putative class members are too individualized to support a finding of commonality because the branch managers employed factors unique to each employee when determining each employee’s compensation. CHR contends that compensation is determined on the basis of objective and subjective factors, primarily performance and branch contribution, and that a gender-diverse group conducts the compensation reviews. Moreover, CHR’s statistical expert, Dr. Elizabeth Becker, argues that Dr. Thornton’s regression analysis is systemically flawed because she improperly aggregated the data and because she failed to take into account the most important compensation factor-productivity. Dr. Becker opines that by aggregating the workforce, Dr. Thornton skewed the relevant labor market. CHR also directs the Court’s attention to cases involving decentralized businesses that have found a lack of commonality in compensation class claims because the compensation determinations were exclusively within the province of local managers. See Seidel v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 93 F.R.D. 122, 124 (W.D.Wash.1981) (denying class certification in part on the absence of commonality because employment decisions, including compensation, were made exclusively by branch management at over 300 branches); Webb v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.R.D. 645, 641 (E.D.Pa.1978) (“The complete autonomy of each plant with respect to personnel decision making prevents [plaintiffs] from satisfying the commonality and typicality requirements.”).
Based on a review of the record and relevant case law, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have met their burden with respect to commonality in the compensation class for salaried employees. First, unlike Seidel and Webb, CHR’s compensation review process does include some management oversight. In particular, there is evidence in the record that CHR’s line vice presidents and board of directors, who are all men, have significant influence in some aspects of the compensation review
7

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
process. Cf. Craik, 731 F.2d at 474 (noting that a hiring process that “is subjective and dominated by men requires particularly close scrutiny”). Moreover, all class members are subjected to the same practices that form the basis of their discrimination claims. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the subjectivity given to the branch manager to determine each facet of a relatively complex compensation scheme, led to salaried women being paid less then their male counter-parts and that these allegations are applicable to all salaried employees. Here, any individual factual disparities in individual compensation determinations do not justify denying class certification. See Paxton, 688 F.2d at 561 (noting that “factual variations are not sufficient to deny class treatment to the claims that have a common thread of discrimination”). Finally, notwithstanding the parties’ dispute regarding the relevant labor market, Dr. Thornton’s rebuttal analysis of 39 branch years produced statistically significant disparities between the salaries of male and female employees. At this stage, Plaintiffs’ statistical evidence is enough to give rise to an inference of discrimination with regard to disparities in compensation between men and women at CHR. See Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 137, 155 (N.D.Cal.2004) (“[T]he Court delves into the substance of the expert testimony only to the extent necessary to determine if it is sufficiently probative of an inference of discrimination.”).
*10 With respect to hourly employees, the Court’s review of the record reveals no statistical evidence to support an inference of discrimination. Specifically, Dr. Becker opines that there is no evidence that hourly employees were underpaid to a statistically significant degree. Plaintiffs do not dispute her assertion. Given this, the Court concludes that commonality is not met with regard to hourly employees. Accordingly, the Court finds that the compensation class should consist only of salaried employees.
b. Promotion Next, Plaintiffs contend that commonality is satisfied in their promotions class because the issues of whether CHR discriminated against women in granting promotions to branch manager and whether CHR’s branch manager promotion process, or lack of a formal promotions process, had a disparate impact on women are common to all class members’ claims. According to Plaintiffs, CHR failed to promote women proportionally to their workforce numbers because it operated an all-male, centralized subjective decision-making promotions process, employed a gender-biased personality test to assess promotability, failed to post branch manager opportunities, and failed to utilize an application process in favor of a “tap on the shoulder” policy. Plaintiffs also contend that the system was reinforced by CHR’s failure to keep records or audit the process for discrimination. Plaintiffs support their claims with Dr. Thornton’s statistical analysis of CHR’s branch manager promotions. With regard to branch manager promotions, Dr. Thornton found a disparity in the number of women branch managers (4.2%) as compared to women in the CHR workforce (34%). Based on the minimum requirements distilled from analysis of the 117 promotions to branch manager between 1999-2002, Dr. Thornton created hypothetical pools to establish a qualified applicant group. From those pools, Dr. Thornton conducted multiple regression analysis and determined that 18 of the 117 promotions should have gone to women. In actuality, only 7 of the 117 promotions went to women.
In response, CHR contends that commonality is not met because the determinations involved in assessing promotion candidates are individualized and based on the specific needs of each branch, not general qualifications. At oral argument, CHR put forth two examples of the individualized nature of branch manager promotions. First, the opening for a branch manager at the Charleston International branch required the candidate to have an international brokerage license. Second, the opening for a branch manager at Laredo, Texas, required hiring someone outside the company because there were systemic problems at the Laredo branch. According to CHR, these are but a few of illustrations of why each branch manager position requires individualized analysis. CHR also disputes the statistical results put forth by Dr. Thornton because she arrived at her results using hypothetical applicant pools. Finally, while CHR’s expert Dr. Becker did not conduct her own promotions analysis, she nevertheless opines that Dr. Thornton’s analysis is faulty because it cannot be reliably correlated.
*11 After reviewing the record, the Court concludes that commonality is met with respect to the promotion class. The Court’s concern regarding the presence of individual fact issues due to CHR’s decentralized nature is outweighed, at this stage, by the uniformity of CHR’s subjective decision making and failures to post available positions, to have any formal path to promotion and to maintain a record-keeping system of promotions. See Morgan, 169 F.R.D. at 355 (concluding that because defendant’s decentralized system was supported by uniform policies, the individualized nature of the promotions decisions supported, rather than prevented a finding of commonality); see also Dukes, 222 F.R.D. at 149-150 (collecting cases). Under CHR’s promotion equation, the branch managers have total discretion to promote or identify candidates for promotional consideration. Then, the all-male vice presidents may approve or deny the promotion, or offer their own candidate. The Court concludes that this process, coupled with the statistical analysis of Dr. Thornton, which demonstrates at least an inference of discrimination, supports a finding of commonality. See Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 292 (2d Cir.1999) (“Where the decision-making process is difficult to review because of the role of subjective assessment, significant statistical disparities are relevant to determining where the challenged employment practice has a class-wide impact.”).
8

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
c. Sexual Harassment Plaintiffs contend that their proposed sexual harassment class satisfies the commonality requirement because the issue of whether CHR fostered or tolerated sexually hostile environments in the branch offices is common to all of the class members. Plaintiffs assert that hostile environments exist at a majority, if not all, of the CHR branches where women are employed, that these hostile work environments were promoted by the branch managers as well two operational vice presidents, Barry Butzow and Joe Mulvehill, and that CHR knew that female employees were being subjected to pornography and sexual harassment and failed to take remedial action in a timely fashion.
In support, Plaintiffs put forth anecdotal evidence from female employees, evidence regarding CHR’s oversight of complaints of harassing conduct, and the expert report of Dr. Peter Glick, a social psychologist. This anecdotal evidence comes from numerous affidavits and declarations, the majority of which focus on the prevalent use of foul language and frequent occurrences of male co-workers either looking at on-line pornography or receiving/viewing/sending pornographic emails. For example, Hossenlopp, Nelson, Perky and Roberts testified to witnessing pornographic images on their male co-workers’ computer screens, and many of Plaintiffs’ declarants attest to being aware of male co-workers and managers viewing pornography because men were seen clustered around one computer, laughing and pointing. Plaintiffs also allege the prevalent use of unprofessional language by their male co-workers. In particular they refer to the use of the words “fuck” and “rape,” as well as derogatory terms directed specifically at women, such as “whore.” Plaintiffs also claim that comments were commonly made by male co-workers regarding the manner in which female co-workers were dressed and their sexual proclivities. Declarants allege that on two occasions striptease artists performed in the workplace, once in the Richmond branch and once in the Los Angeles branch. Finally, offensive behavior also occurred on an individualized basis. Examples of such behavior include Kinniry’s deposition testimony that Mark Derks, her supervisor, made comments to her such as: “Stop sucking on your finger, it’s making me horny,” and “Now that you are leaving, I can tell you that I always wanted to have sex with you,” and Roberts’ deposition testimony that at a branch retreat Eric Gebuhr, a male co-worker, slapped her hip and buttock and stated: “Why are you playing hard to get?”
*12 Plaintiffs also put forth documentation regarding CHR’s HR and legal departments’ involvement in complaints of sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior. According to Plaintiffs, CHR’s responses were ineffective and delayed. Plaintiffs cite as an example a complaint made by Perkey on February 23, 2001, using CHR’s anonymous hotline. Perkey complained after observing a pornographic image on a male co-worker’s computer in the Minneapolis branch. Shortly thereafter, Carlson also called and complained about the branch. After these complaints, over the course of the next six months, CHR required all of the Minneapolis International employees to attend a day of sexual-harassment training and CHR hired outside counsel to come in to investigate the complaints. The investigation resulted in reprimands or suspensions for approximately nine employees-both male and female-and the branch manager, Jeff Scovill, was suspended without pay for thirty days and was required to attend management-training courses.
Plaintiffs also present Dr. Glick’s expert report in support of their theory that a culture existed at CHR that demeaned women, thereby producing a hostile work environment. His report is based primarily on the declarations and deposition testimony of male and female CHR employees. Dr. Glick opines that even a few instances of behavior that degrades women have the potential to create a gender-biased atmosphere. He theorizes generally that sexism is either hostile or benevolent and often is induced by group mentalities-i.e. “men who might not otherwise have a predisposition to sexually demean women, can be encouraged to do so by an environment that sexualizes women and conveys permissive norms about treating them as sex objects.” (Glick Rep. at 11.) According to Dr. Glick, CHR is a male-dominated culture that encourages male employees to engage in stereotypical masculine forms of misbehavior, and that the culture results in an environment that “appears to be highly sexualized in its treatment of women.” (Id. at 19.)
In response, CHR contends that commonality is not met because the question of whether a hostile environment exists is too individualized in that branch managers are each responsible for maintaining a professional office environment and therefore, these issues are not susceptible to common proof and class treatment. Specifically, CHR argues that not all of the branches had complaints of hostile environments, and for the remaining branches, the Court will necessarily have to conduct mini-trials to establish whether the environment at each branch was objectively hostile. Moreover, CHR contends that it took all reasonable preventative measures, that all complaints were remedied in a timely fashion, and that perpetrators were disciplined for any offensive behavior.10
The parties fundamentally disagree as to whether class claims for sexual harassment over multi-facility employers can meet the commonality requirement. The Court’s review of the relevant case law finds such decisions to be highly fact-specific. For
9

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
example, in Wilfong v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Civ. No. 00-680, 2001 WL 1795093 (S.D.Ill.Dec.27, 2001), the court certified a class alleging claims of hostile work environment against a defendant with over 2200 stores. 2001 WL 1795093, at *6. That court found commonality based on: (1) evidence that demonstrated repeated failures of management to respond to plaintiffs’ complaints; (2) the statements of the defendant’s CEO, including his comments that the company would not “have as many sexual harassment suits” as the number of women employees declined; and (3) judicial estoppel because the defendant conceded commonality during settlement negotiations in a concurrent gender discrimination class action. See id., at *4, *6 n. 7. The Wilfong court rejected defendant’s argument that the need for individualized assessments of sexual harassment claims precluded a finding of commonality because those individual issues could be addressed in the remedial phase, see id., at *5. Although smaller in scale, this Court in Beckmann v. CBS, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 608, 613-14, 619 (D.Minn.2000), conditionally certified a class in a sexual harassment case after finding that commonality existed among class members who worked in five geographically diverse stations under general managers who all reported to the same vice president.
*13 On the other hand, the court in Faulk v. Home Oil Co., 184 F.R.D. 645 (M.D.Ala.1999), certified hiring and promotion classes but denied certification for a hostile work environment class because the twenty-one facilities at issue were not subject to common proof. 184 F.R.D. at 659. Rather, the court concluded that because the hostile environment claims were dependent on the comments and actions of individual store managers, the “individual claims of hostile work environment [were] sufficiently different that they [would] require different proof to establish liability.” Id. Similarly, the court in Reid v. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., 205 F.R.D. 655 (N.D.Ga.2001), denied certification of a hostile work environment class claim over multiple facilities because “the actions constituting the alleged hostile environment occurred with varying frequency and possessed varying degrees of severity.” 205 F.R.D. at 675-76. The court noted that “those individuals who have complained only about the occasional, sporadic acts of co-workers [were] not typical of other individuals who described much more severe and pervasive conduct,” and that “Plaintiffs have made no attempt to explain how their hostile environment claims [could] be proven on a class-wide basis given that many members of the class did not experience harassment and that those who did complained of harassment in various forms.” Id. at 676.
After reviewing the relevant case law and the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to establish commonality with respect to sexual harassment. With regard to Plaintiffs’ assertions about the existence of CHR’s centralized policy and practice of tolerating or promoting sexual harassment, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs’ anecdotal evidence demonstrates the existence of such a policy, let alone an inference of intentional discrimination arising from such a policy. Moreover, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the question of whether Plaintiffs in different branches are subjected to severe and pervasive harassment based on sex is subject to common proof. The decentralized and independent nature of the branches and business lines defeats a finding of commonality in this case. Indeed, Smyrl testified that she experienced a hostile environment in only one of the two CHR branches where she worked. Furthermore, Nelson, who worked in four different departments in the same branch, testified to a hostile environment in only two out of the four. Although promotion claims were at issue, the Court finds the following pronouncements of the Supreme Court germane to the present situation:
Conceptually, there is a wide gap between (a) an individual’s claim that he has been denied a promotion on discriminatory grounds, and his otherwise unsupported allegation that the company has a policy of discrimination, and (b) the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury as that individual, such that the individual’s claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual’s claim will be typical of the class claims. For respondent to bridge that gap, he must prove much more than the validity of his own claim.
*14 Falcon, U.S. at 157-58 (emphasis added). Without more, Plaintiffs in this case have failed to bridge the gap between individualized hostile work environment claims and common questions of law susceptible to common proof. See id. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the facts of this case preclude a finding of commonality with respect to the sexual harassment class.
3. Typicality Typicality requires that the claims of the representative parties be typical of the claims of the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(3). As such, “a class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” Falcon, 457 U.S. at 156 (citations omitted); see also Dukes, 222 F.R.D. at 143-44 (“The named plaintiffs’ claims need not be identical to the claims of the class to satisfy typicality; rather the claims are typical if they are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members. It is sufficient for plaintiffs’ claims to arise from the same remedial and legal theories as the class claims.”) (citations omitted). Although some courts combine the components of commonality and
10

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
typicality into one factor, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has made clear that these are two separate components. Paxton, 688 F.2d at 562. In general, “the burden of showing typicality is not an onerous one.” Id.
a. Compensation Gwen Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Debra Kinniry, Sandra Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl and Jessica Vetter are named as representative Plaintiffs for the compensation class. CHR does not dispute that these Plaintiffs’ claims satisfy the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3). All of the named Plaintiffs are or were at some point salaried employees and all allege that they have been paid less than similarly situated male co-workers. Accordingly, the Court concludes that their claims are reasonably co-extensive with that of the compensation class and therefore, the class representatives’ claims satisfy the typicality requirement.
b. Promotion Plaintiffs Carlson, Hossenlopp, Porter, Prout, Puckett and Smyrl are named as representative Plaintiffs of the promotions class. The Court’s review of the record reveals that Andrea Prout is not typical of the class because she does not fall within the class definition. Because she was employed by CHR for only 22 months, Prout therefore does not satisfy the two-year tenure requirement. The remaining Plaintiffs, Carlson, Hossenlopp, Porter, Puckett and Smyrl, are or were employed by CHR for at least two years in sales or operations, and each contends that she was denied promotion opportunities because of her gender. Accordingly, the Court concludes that typicality is met with respect to the remaining named Plaintiffs because their claims arise from the same or similar legal theories as those alleged by the class.
4. Adequacy *15 The final Rule 23(a) factor requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4). “In deciding this question, the Court considers (a) whether the class representatives and their counsel will competently and vigorously pursue the action, and (b) whether differences exist between the interest of the class representatives and the putative class.” Morgan, 169 F.R.D. at 357.
In approving class counsel, the Court must consider: (1) counsel’s work thus far in the action; (2) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, and specifically, in handling claims of the type asserted in the action; (3) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; (4) the resources counsel will commit to representing the class; and (5) any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interest of the class. Fed R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(C)(i)-(ii). CHR does not contest the adequacy of the named Plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the classes. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Sprenger & Lang, has put forth evidence of their frequent participation in class-action lawsuits, a number of which have involved allegations of gender discrimination in employment. The Court concludes that Sprenger & Lang has performed sufficient work in identifying or investigating the potential claims in this action, they have experience in handling employment discrimination class actions, they are familiar with the law relating to gender discrimination in class actions, and they will continue to commit the resources necessary to this litigation. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel satisfies the adequacy prong.
The next step is to ascertain whether differences exist that make the named Plaintiffs’ claims and interests antagonistic to the rest of the class. See Morgan, 169 F.R.D. at 357. The Court’s review of the record has not found any evidence that demonstrates that the class representatives are inadequate in this regard. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the respective class representatives will adequately serve the interests of the proposed classes.
C. Rule 23(b) Subsections Having concluded that Plaintiffs’ compensation and promotion classes satisfy the Rule 23(a) factors, the Court now turns to Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs argue that these classes are appropriately certified under Rule 23(b)(2), or in the alternative, a hybrid of Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). Rule 23(b)(2) requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,” making declaratory or injunctive relief appropriate. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, including an order requiring CHR to adopt policies and procedures in accordance with Title VII and enjoining CHR from continuing its allegedly discriminatory policies and practices. Plaintiffs also seek back pay and front pay (collectively, lost wages), nominal damages and punitive damages. CHR contends, inter alia, that Rule 23(b)(2) certification
11

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
is inappropriate because the requests for monetary damages are not incidental to the injunctive relief.
*16 Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate in cases where the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief so long as injunctive or declaratory relief is the predominant relief sought for the class. Paxton, 688 F.2d at 563; Morgan, 169 F.R.D. at 358. The question of whether injunctive or declaratory relief predominates is a matter for the Court’s discretion. Morgan, 169 F.R.D. at 358. Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ primary request for relief is injunctive and therefore, certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class is warranted.
However, Plaintiffs’ request for lost wages, nominal damages and punitive damages, necessitates a second, remedial phase to the litigation that is separate from resolution of their claim for injunctive relief. See Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 267 F.3d 147, 159 (2d Cir.2001) (“If individual relief such as back pay, front pay, or compensatory recovery is sought in addition to class-wide injunctive relief, the court must conduct the ‘remedial’ phase.”). Importantly, these damages inquiries require individualized factual determinations whose manageability could overwhelm the litigation.
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should fashion a formula for the distribution of lost wages and punitive damages, thereby obviating the need for individualized determinations. In support, Plaintiffs rely on Palmer v. Combined Insurance Co. of America, 217 F.R.D. 430 (N.D.Ill.2003). In that case, the court found a unique set of circumstances where a blanket award of punitive damages based on the defendant’s conduct might be appropriate. Id. at 439-40. Those circumstances are not present in this case and the Court is not persuaded that, on the record thus far, a blanket award of punitive damages not premised on individualized harm is appropriate. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1) (“A complaining party may recover punitive damages under this section ... if the complaining party demonstrates that the [defendant] engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.” (Emphasis added)); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 423, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003) (“A defendant should be punished for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff, not for being an unsavory individual or business.”); see generally Beck v. Boeing Co., Civ. No. 00-301-MJP, 2003 WL 683797, at *1 (9th Cir. February 25, 2003) (holding that the district court erred in certifying class-wide punitive damages without certifying underlying request for back-pay damages); but see Anderson v. Boeing Co., 222 F.R.D. 521, 540-42 (N.D.Okla.2004) (certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class where plaintiffs requested injunctive relief, back pay and punitive damages).
However, this conclusion does not preclude the certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class. See Robinson, 267 F.3d at 162-66; Williams v. Boeing Co., 225 F.R.D. 626, 638-39 (W.D.Wash.2005). Pursuant to Rule 23(c), the Court has discretion to limit certification to specific issues. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(4)(A); see Robinson, 267 F.3d at 167 (“District courts should take full advantage of [23(c)(4)(A) ] to certify separate issues in order to reduce the range of disputed issues in complex litigation and achieve judicial efficiencies.”) (Quotations omitted)); accord Morgan, 169 F.R.D. at 358. Accordingly, the Court severs the issues of liability and declaratory or injunctive relief from Plaintiffs’ requests for monetary damages and certifies only the issue of liability and request for declaratory or injunctive relief as a Rule 23(b)(2) class action.11 See Morgan, 169 F.R.D. at 358. If liability is established in either the compensation or promotion class, then the Court will consider Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the damages phase as a Rule 23(b)(3) class action. See id.; Williams, 225 F.R.D. at 638-39.
*17 Having certified the compensation and promotion classes under Rule 23(b)(2), the Court must now decide if notice should be sent to class members. In certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class, the Court has discretion to “make appropriate orders ... requiring for the protection of the members of the class or otherwise for the fair conduct of the action, that notice be given in such manner as the court may direct to some or all of the members of any step in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(d)(2). Given this, the Court requests supplemental briefing on the issue of whether notice should be sent.12
IV. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment as to liability of the hostile work environment class. Because no hostile work environment class has been certified, Plaintiffs’ motion is moot. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.
V. CHR’s MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion,” and must identify “those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party satisfies its burden, Rule 56(e) requires the nonmoving party to respond by submitting evidentiary materials that designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court must look at the record and any inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
CHR contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on each Plaintiff’s individual claim for hostile work environment because none of the named Plaintiffs can establish a prima facie case for hostile work environment. In response, Plaintiffs rely on newly-filed declarations (July 2004 Declarations) to create issues of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. CHR argues that these declarations constitute sham affidavits and therefore are inadmissible.
A plaintiff cannot create sham issues of fact in an effort to defeat summary judgment by filing an affidavit contradicting deposition testimony. Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 300 F.3d 945, 951 (8th Cir.2002). The court in Marathon reasoned that “this is so because otherwise any party could head off summary judgment by supplanting previous depositions ad hoc with a new affidavit, and no case would ever be appropriate for summary judgment.” Id. (quotations omitted). To the extent that the July 2004 Declarations raise inconsistent or contradictory allegations, the Court strikes those paragraphs. Because Plaintiffs’ arguments in their combined response to CHR’s summary-judgment motions rely exclusively on the July 2004 Declarations, the Court has undertaken a thorough examination of the record, specifically Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony, EEOC charges, and answers to interrogatories as provided, to ensure that any genuine issues of fact are identified. Accordingly, the Court recites below the facts relating to each Plaintiff in the light most favorable to her without discussion of any stricken portions of the July 2004 Declarations.
A. Hostile work environment *18 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful “for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2002e-2(a)(1). Discrimination based on sex which creates a hostile or offensive work environment violates Title VII. See Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 66, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). “Sexual harassment standards are demanding-to be actionable, conduct must be extreme and not merely rude or unpleasant.” LeGrand v. Area Res. for Cmty. & Human Servs., 394 F.3d 1098, 1101 (8th Cir.2005) (quotations omitted). “More than a few isolated incidents are required, and the alleged harassment must be so intimidating, offensive, or hostile that it poisoned the work environment.” Id. (quotations omitted). A plaintiff must prove that her workplace was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). “These standards for judging hostility are sufficiently demanding to ensure that Title VII does not become a general civility code. Properly applied, they will filter out complaints attacking the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender related jokes and occasional teasing.” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 778, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
To establish a prima face case of hostile work environment based on sex, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) the harassment was based on sex; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of her employment; and (5) if the harasser is a non-supervisory employee, that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take proper remedial action. Scusa v. Nestle U.S.A. Co., 181 F.3d 958, 965 (8th Cir.1999). Before considering whether each Plaintiff establishes her prima face case, the Court sets forth the governing law regarding the third, fourth and fifth elements.13
1. Harassment based on sex To satisfy the third element of the prima facie case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the harassment is based on sex. “An offensive workplace atmosphere does not amount to unlawful discrimination unless one gender is treated differently than the other.” Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 933 (8th Cir.2002) (citing Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998)). A plaintiff need not show “that only women were subjected to
13

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
harassment, so long as she shows that women were the primary target of such harassment.” Beard v. Flying J, Inc., 266 F.3d 792, 798 (8th Cir.2001); see Duncan, 300 F.3d at 934. “All instances of harassment need not be stamped with signs of overt discrimination to be relevant under Title VII if they are part of a course of conduct which is tied to evidence of discriminatory animus .” Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 173 F.3d 693, 701 (8th Cir.1999). In Oncale, the Supreme Court stated that “the plaintiff ... must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive sexual connotations, but actually constituted ‘discrimina [tion] ... because of ... sex.” ’ 523 U.S. at 81.
2. Harassment affects a term, condition, or privilege of employment *19 To satisfy the fourth element of the prima facie case, the unwelcome harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment by creating an objectively hostile or abusive environment. Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22; Meriwether v. Caraustar Packaging Co., 326 F.3d 990, 993 (8th Cir.2003). To meet this standard, a plaintiff must show that she subjectively perceived the harassment as sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of employment, and that her subjective perception was objectively reasonable. Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22; Henthorn v. Capitol Communications, Inc., 359 F.3d 1021, 1026 (8th Cir.2004) (“The fourth element involves both objective and subjective components.”). Whether a reasonable person would have perceived the environment as hostile is a function of both the severity and pervasiveness of the offensive conduct, “with a high level of severity compensating for a low level of pervasiveness and vice versa.” Jackson v. Flint Ink N. Am. Corp., 370 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.), rev’d on other grounds, 382 F.3d 869 (8th Cir.2004). A court must look to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the work environment is hostile or abusive. Baker v. John Morrell & Co., 382 F.3d 816, 828 (8th Cir.2004). “Each case must stand on its own circumstances.” Eich v. Bd. of Regents for Cent. Mo. State Univ., 350 F.3d 752, 760 (2003). Several factors are relevant, including, “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. “The question of whether an environment is sufficiently hostile to be actionable is a legal question, and like any legal question is a matter for the court to decide.” Jackson, 382 F.3d at 869.
As discussed in detail below, Plaintiffs allege exposure to pornography in the workplace. The Court notes that this alone is not sufficient to meet the demanding standard for whether an environment is sufficiently hostile to be actionable. By way of example, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Duncan found that this standard was not met where at least one component of a plaintiff’s alleged harassment was exposure to her supervisor’s pornographic screensaver. See Duncan, 300 F.3d at 935. In that case, the Eighth Circuit overturned a jury verdict and concluded that the district court erred in denying the defendant’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff had failed to show that the harassment was “sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment, a failure that dooms [her] hostile work environment claim.” Id. The court considered several harassing incidents over three years directed at the plaintiff including her supervisor’s proposition for a relationship, criticism that she was “incompetent” after she denied his proposition, improper touching of plaintiff’s hand on multiple occasions, request that the plaintiff sketch a sexually objectionable planter, posting of a “Man Hater’s Club” poster that portrayed plaintiff as the president and CEO, and request that the plaintiff “type the He-Men Women Haters beliefs.” Id. at 933-34. The supervisor also had in his office a child’s pacifier in the shape of a penis and a pornographic screen saver on his computer. Id. at 931. The court found that the harassment made the plaintiff uncomfortable and was “boorish, chauvinistic, and decidedly immature,” but that in the aggregate, it did not meet the standard necessary to be actionable. Id. at 934-35.
3. Employer’s prompt remedial action *20 To satisfy the fifth element, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take proper remedial action. “Prompt remedial action shields an employer from liability when the harassing conduct is committed by a co-worker rather than by a supervisor.”14 Meriwether, 326 F.3d at 993. The remedial action must be “reasonably calculated to end the harassment once the employer knew or should have known about the harassment.” Scusa, 181 F.3d 967. Several factors are relevant in assessing the reasonableness of an employer’s remedial measures: “the temporal proximity between the notice and remedial action, the disciplinary or preventative measure taken and whether the measures ended the harassment.” Meriwether, 326 F.3d at 993. See Scusa, 181 F.3d at 968 (“The undisputed evidence showed that every time she complained to management, it responded to her satisfaction. Moreover, after management took action, the incidents were not repeated. Thus, management took appropriate action to end the alleged sexual harassment.”); Smith v. St. Louis Univ., 109 F.3d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir.1997) (denying summary judgment where employer took four months to respond to the plaintiff’s initial complaint).
14

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
B. Plaintiffs’ exposure to pornography For the sake of brevity, the Court addresses here the question of whether Plaintiffs’ individual allegations of exposure to pornography in the workplace constitute harassment “based on sex.”15 The parties do not dispute that each Plaintiff, with the exception of Kinniry, alleges at least one instance of inadvertently seeing pornography on a co-worker’s computer. Plaintiffs assert that the absence of partitions separating workspaces and the close proximity of co-workers to each other facilitated this involuntary exposure to pornography.
CHR contends that Plaintiffs’ exposure to pornography in this case does not constitute harassment based on sex. Since CHR did not move on the ground that Plaintiffs failed to establish the second element of the prima facie case, the Court assumes that Plaintiffs’ exposure to pornography constitutes unwelcome harassment. Thus, the issue before the Court in CHR’s motions is whether the alleged harassment is “based on sex.” In support of its argument, CHR primarily relies on an unpublished Eighth Circuit opinion, Ellet v. Big Red Keno, 221 F.3d 1342, 1342 (8th Cir.2000) (unpublished table decision). In Ellet, the Eighth Circuit stated: “A dually offensive sexual atmosphere in the workplace, no matter how offensive, is not unlawful discrimination unless one gender is treated differently.” Id. As applied in the instant cases, CHR argues that because both sexes were exposed to the pornography, each Plaintiff’s branch constitutes a “dually offensive” environment and therefore, exposure to pornography does not amount to harassment based on sex. In response, Plaintiffs rely on Andrews v. Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1482 n. 3 (3d Cir.1990), for that court’s pronouncement that pornographic materials should be recognized as discrimination based on sex as a matter of course. The Court is not persuaded by either argument. A determination of whether harassment is “based on sex” must be made given all of the attendant circumstances. Cf. Oncale, 523 U.S. at 81-82 (“The real social impact of workplace behavior often depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations and relationships which are not fully captured by a simple recitation of the words used or physical acts performed.”). Accordingly, a per se rule, either way, is not appropriate.
*21 Here, there is no dispute that CHR workspaces are open, with limited ability for co-workers to avoid seeing each other’s screens. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ allegations almost exclusively involve images of naked women. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the unwelcome exposure to pornography-specifically that pornography objectifying women-satisfies the “based on sex” requirement. Accordingly, the Court rejects CHR’s argument that each Plaintiff’s exposure to pornography does not constitute harassment based on sex.
C. CHR’s Individual Motions
1. Jessica Vetter CHR moves for partial summary judgment on Jessica Vetter’s hostile work environment claim. Vetter concedes that summary judgment is appropriate. See Pls.’ Comb. Mem. Opp’n at 1 n. 1. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.
2. Sandra Nelson Sandra Nelson was hired by CHR in August 1996 as an hourly administrative assistant in the Minneapolis branch’s carrier-relations department. The Minneapolis branch contains departments that service all six of CHR’s business lines. From May 1998 to March 1999, Nelson held a salaried operations position in Intermodal. Nelson then transferred to an hourly support position in accounts payable. In September 1999, she became a salaried replenishment analyst in CPDS. Nelson stayed in CPDS until her September 2000 resignation.
Nelson contends that she was subjected to severe and pervasive sexual harassment only during her time in Intermodal (May 1998-March 1999) and in CPDS (September 1999-September 2000). Nelson alleges that in both locations her male co-workers frequently viewed and shared pornographic images. In her deposition, she testified to seeing several of these images generally-i.e., naked or barely clad women in a variety of poses. She specifically recalls seeing one image during her time in CPDS-that of a woman doing the limbo with her genitalia exposed. Nelson also identifies four images: (1) a series of mock MasterCard priceless ads; (2) an email portraying a Barbie doll as an exotic dancer with a Ken doll giving her money; (3) a Barbie doll holding a bottle of vodka with the words “Lactating Barbie” written across the picture; and (4) an email attachment entitled “Life” that displays a bag of narcotics, a woman’s vagina, and a large pile of cash between her legs. Nelson, however, does not remember where or when she saw these pictures.
15

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Turning first to CPDS, Nelson contends that the work environment in CPDS was hostile toward women, herself included, because in addition to the pornography, her male co-workers behaved inappropriately, as though they were in a “locker room.” She stated:
[W]hen I was working in the CPDS department, there was a lot of-a lot of men that were in their mid to late 20’s and they-they would yell, they would holler, you know, smack each other on the back or whatever, they would use, you know, profanities and it was just a real-you know, chewing on-on tobacco and spitting it in cups and it just-it was just real you know it was almost like you know a college fraternity.
*22 (Nelson Tr. at 119.) In particular, Nelson described one occasion when Dan Jost, a CPDS co-worker, yelled out to the entire office that a female co-worker was pregnant. In fact, the female co-worker was not pregnant. Nelson felt embarrassment for the female co-worker because others were cheering and laughing before the female co-worker yelled out that she was not pregnant.
During her time in Intermodal, Nelson alleges that male co-workers viewed pornography although not as frequently as in CPDS. Nelson testified that there were three to five occasions when men were gathered around a computer. Although she could not see what was displayed on the screen, Nelson assumes that they were viewing pornography. Nelson alleges that the following people sent or received pornographic emails: Dan Brau, Angela Stanely, Pat Anton, Kelly (last name not known), and Todd Limesand who was the Intermodal manager. Also during her time in Intermodal, Nelson recalls one incident when Tom Perdue made a sexually derogatory remark about a female known to several men in the office. When the comment was made, Nelson felt uncomfortable, as though the group of men were looking at her for a reaction. She informed Perdue that she thought it was inappropriate for him to make that comment in her presence and he apologized to her. Nelson did not complain about the environments in CPDS or Intermodal to immediate supervisors or through the channels provided by CHR management. She contends that complaining would have made the situation worse.
CHR contends inter alia that it is entitled to summary judgment because Nelson’s alleged harassment was not so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of employment. First, the Court looks to whether Nelson subjectively perceived the alleged conduct to be harassment. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Nelson, the record reveals that she subjectively perceived the alleged harassment to be so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment.
The Court next turns to whether her subjective perception was objectively reasonable. See id. Here, Nelson saw several objectionable pornographic images on co-workers computers, overheard two offensive comments directed at other women, and experienced a “locker-room” atmosphere. Notably, none of the alleged harassment was directed at her. See Bainbridge v. Loffredo Gardens, Inc., 378 F.3d 756, 760 (8th Cir.2004) (affirming grant of summary judgment in claim for racial hostile work environment where comments alleged were not directed at the plaintiff and were “sporadic, no more than one per month, ... were used in reference to customers, competitors, or other employees ... [and] were merely overheard by [plaintiff]”). Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the discrete conduct involved here was interspersed over Nelson’s four-year tenure at CHR and was not severe, physically threatening or humiliating. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that it unreasonably interfered with Nelson’s work. See id. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Nelson fails to demonstrate a sexually hostile environment sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67; Duncan, 300 F.3d at 935. Because the conduct does not rise to the level necessary to be actionable, the Court grants CHR’s motion for summary judgment on Nelson’s sexual harassment claim.
3. Andrea Prout *23 CHR hired Andrea Prout in October 1999 in its Yakima, Washington, branch as a transportation sales representative. In August 2000, Prout requested and received a transfer to CHR’s Portland branch. After her transfer, Prout continued in transportation sales until February 2001 when she began working in “less than a truckload” (LTL) sales. Prout resigned in August 2001.
Prout contends that she was subjected to sexual harassment at both the Yakima and Portland branches. Prout identifies four kinds of evidence in support of her claim: (1) her co-workers’ prevalent use of word “rape”; (2) her co-workers’ viewing of pornography; (3) her co-workers’ generally offensive conversations; and (4) her dissatisfaction with the management at the Portland branch. First, Prout alleges that transportation sales representatives commonly used the word “rape” to refer to a
16

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
load for which a trucker had charged too much, e.g., “that trucker raped me.” Prout was offended by this usage and in the Yakima branch, brought it to the attention of a co-worker who used the phrase excessively. After that, Prout did not hear him use it again. In the Portland branch, Prout complained to Portland branch manager Todd Ortman, about the use of the word “rape.” Prout believes that he did not address her complaint with her co-workers.
Second, Prout alleges that co-workers in both branches viewed pornography on their computers. In Yakima, co-workers used “popcorn” as a code word for pornography. Prout received pornographic emails from co-workers and from unknown sources outside of CHR. Prout identifies several men who she believes viewed pornographic pictures either on the internet or through email: Jack Walrath, Willie Edwards, Louie (last name unknown), Manuel Martinez, Jorge Delgado, Chris Jensen, Jason Cameron, and Bart Erwin.
Third, Prout contends that her Portland co-workers engaged in offensive conversations consisting of derogatory jokes and vulgar language directed at a variety of different racial and ethnic groups. For example, Prout contends that her co-workers would often use xenophobic epithets such as “towel-head” and “spic.” (Prout Tr. at 191.) She also contends that there was prolific swearing, but concedes that occasionally, she too swore.
Finally, Prout alleges that there were personal conflicts in Portland between her and her immediate supervisor, Jensen, as well as between her and Ortman. With regard to Jensen, Prout felt that he micro-managed her and that he misused his management position to advance his career. Prout testified, however, that she thought Jensen’s actions to get ahead just happened to be at her expense. (Id. at 191.) With regard to Ortman, Prout contends that he did not like her. In particular, Prout claims that Ortman did not implement her suggestions on business expansion. Prout first suggested that the Portland branch begin selling refrigerated freight, which, although it involves greater risks to the company, Prout was skilled at selling (from her experience in Yakima). Prout also suggested adding an international line to the branch. According to Prout, Ortman’s refusals to adopt her suggestions were based on Prout’s gender because Ortman had previously implemented a business suggestion made by a male co-worker. Finally, Prout claims that Ortman denied her request for a car allowance, which she believes she was due to receive eighteen months after hire.
*24 CHR contends that it is entitled to summary judgment because Prout’s alleged harassment was neither based on sex, nor so severe and pervasive as to alter a term or condition of employment. The Court considers each in turn.
a. Harassment based on sex CHR asserts that Prout’s alleged harassment does not constitute conduct based on sex. In particular, CHR contends that Prout’s co-workers’ general use of the word “rape,” Jensen’s behavior, and the exposure to pornography do not constitute harassment “based on sex.” Although Prout testified that she was offended by her co-workers’ use of the word “rape,” she does not respond to CHR’s argument in this regard. In her deposition, Prout concedes that the term was never directed at her, and was only used in “a business sense.” Without more, a reasonable fact finder could not conclude that Prout’s co-workers’ use of this term resulted in one gender being treated differently, or that women were the “primary target of such harassment.” See Duncan, 300 F.3d at 933-934; Beard, 288 F.3d at 798; see also Hocevar v. Purdue Fredrick Co. ., 223 F.3d 721, 737 (8th Cir.2000) (citing Kriss v. Sprint Communications Co., 58 F.2d 1276, 1281 (8th Cir.1995) for the proposition that use of the word “bitch” without additional evidence of gender discrimination does not satisfy the “based on sex” requirement). With regard to Jensen’s conduct, Prout again does not address this argument. According to Prout, Jensen’s retention of the most lucrative accounts for himself just happened to be at her expense because he was doing it solely for self-promotion. Accordingly, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that Prout’s difficulties with Jensen were based on sex. For the reasons stated above, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that exposure to porn could constitute harassment “based on sex.” The Court therefore turns to the fourth element. See Duncan, 300 F.3d at 934 (proceeding to fourth element where some, but not all, alleged harassment was “based on sex”).
b. Harassment alters a term or condition of employment First, the Court turns to whether Prout subjectively perceived the alleged conduct to be harassment. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22. Assuming that Prout’s experiences from two distinct branches should be aggregated, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to her, the record reveals that she subjectively perceived the alleged harassment to be so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment.
The Court next considers whether that subjective perception is objectively reasonable. See id. Here, Prout saw co-workers
17

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
viewing and discussing pornography, she received and deleted at least one explicit email, and she had disagreements with Ortman. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, these few incidents spread over two years were not frequent. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23; Bainbridge, 378 F.3d at 760. Moreover, the conduct involved here was not severe, physically threatening or humiliating, and there is no evidence in the record that it unreasonably interfered with Prout’s work. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Accordingly the Court concludes that Prout fails to demonstrate a sexually hostile environment sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67; Duncan, 300 F.3d at 935. Because the conduct does not rise to the level necessary to be actionable, the Court grants CHR’s motion for summary judgment on Prout’s sexual harassment claim.
4. Cathy Perkey *25 Perkey began her employment with CHR in September 1999 in the Minneapolis International branch. She was employed as an import clerk until her termination in June 2004. As an import clerk, her responsibilities included billing, customer service and preparation of paperwork necessary for international goods to clear United States Customs as well as doing some billing, customer service, and securing trucks to move freight.
From some point after she started in 1999 until February 2001, Perkey alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment that was both severe and pervasive. Perkey bases her sexual harassment claim primarily on five incidents. First, in December 1999, she recalls Jeff Enger and Troy Bachman, two male co-workers, viewing a picture of a naked woman. Perkey overheard Enger say that his wife had sent it to him. Second, in December 2000, Enger displayed a holiday card on his file cabinet that Perkey found offensive. The card, which was given to Enger in the branch’s Secret Santa exchange, depicted a large naked woman and had the phrase “Takes a whole lot of woman to please a man,” written on the front. (Perkey Tr. at 92.) Perkey saw the card once, although she believes that it was left out for a week. Third, Perkey alleges that her female co-workers engaged in offensive conversations regarding their sex lives and other sexual topics. Fourth, Perkey received an email joke with a naked man and a snow blower that she found offensive. Finally, on February 23, 2001, Perkey witnessed Enger, Bachman, Jesus Caldaza, and Joe Hauer viewing a picture displayed on Enger’s computer that depicted a woman bent over with her genitalia exposed. Perkey was shocked and offended. She used CHR’s anonymous toll-free telephone number to register a complaint against Enger for sexual harassment and CHR policy violations. Since her complaint, Perkey attests that the only pornography she has seen in the office has been on the computer of co-Plaintiff Gwen Carlson.16
Shortly after Perkey’s anonymous complaint, Carlson also called the anonymous hotline to lodge a complaint. Several events took place as a result of the two complaints: (1) CHR required everyone in the branch’s International department to re-sign CHR’s sexual harassment policy and internet policy and attend sexual harassment training; (2) within six weeks, outside counsel was hired to conduct an investigation; (3) CHR’s CEO Sid Verdoorn, sent an email addressing the situation to all CHR employees; (4) CHR reprimanded several employees-both men and women; and (5) CHR suspended the branch manager without pay for one month and required him to attend diversity training.
Perkey also testified that her immediate supervisor Julie Bergquist, singled her out by tracking Perkey’s arrival and departure times. According to Perkey, Bergquist had been doing this since May 2000. Perkey testified that she considers it a hostile work environment to be monitored in this way, but makes no claim that Bergquist singled her out because of her sex. Perkey also alleges that Bergquist discriminated against her by changing her work hours. Perkey admits, however, that because she was only working a seven-and-one-half-hour day, the change in her work hours simply brought her in line with the other who employees worked an eight-hour day. Bergquist told her that this change was in part to be fair to everyone and in part to give Perkey more time to get her work done. At some point after Perkey filed her February 2001 complaint, she also notes an instance where Bergquist emailed a co-worker regarding Perkey’s hours and accidentally sent it to Perkey as well. Perkey complained to Gordon Anderson, her manager, that she thought this was inappropriate. He said he would talk to Bergquist and asked that Perkey keep it between them. Perkey inferred that he was asking her not to take the complaint to CHR management.
*26 CHR argues inter alia that it is entitled to summary judgment because Perkey cannot demonstrate that her alleged harassment was so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment, nor can she demonstrate that CHR did not provide prompt remedial action upon Perkey’s complaint. First, the Court looks to whether Perkey subjectively perceived the alleged conduct to be harassment. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Perkey, the record reveals that she subjectively perceived the alleged harassment to be so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment.
The Court next turns to whether her subjective perception was objectively reasonable. See id. Here, Perkey saw several
18

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
images of naked women, overheard some inappropriate conversations, and received one offensive email. Other than the email, none of Perkey’s alleged harassment was directed to her. See Bainbridge, 378 F.3d at 760. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the conduct involved here was spread over an eighteen-month period and cannot be considered frequent, nor was it severe, physically threatening or humiliating. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that it unreasonably interfered with Perkey’s work. See id. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the conduct involved was unprofessional, but that Perkey fails to demonstrate a sexually hostile environment sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67; Duncan, 300 F.3d at 935. Because the conduct does not rise to the level necessary to be actionable, the Court grants CHR’s motion for summary judgment on Perkey’s sexual harassment claim.
5. Angela Roberts (n/k/a Angela Jackson) From September 1999 until her termination for habitual tardiness in April 2001, Angela Roberts worked for CHR in its Chicago North branch as a transportation sales representative. During her tenure, Gene Scheisser was the Chicago North branch manager.
Roberts contends that she was subjected to severe and pervasive sexual harassment in two forms: (1) generally offensive behavior by male co-workers; and (2) specific instances of harassment directed at her. As to the former, Roberts alleges that male co-workers asked questions of a personal nature to her female co-workers such as, “What did you do over the weekend?” and “Who are you dating?” Roberts also testified that she witnessed co-workers viewing pornography. Roberts further recalls that male co-workers threw a foam football around the office.
With regard to harassing behavior directed at her, Roberts contends first that she received offensive emails. She identifies three specific instances: (1) an image of a girl doing the limbo with her genitalia showing; (2) an image of a girl at a party with her breasts displayed; and (3) an internet link to a gay pornography website. Roberts complained to Scheisser and forwarded the emails to him. According to Roberts, Scheisser responded by sending out a branch-wide email stating the email system is to be used only for work-related business.
*27 Second, she recalls that Jeff McDonald made frequent comments about her clothes and how she looked. Third, during a nighttime campfire at a weekend retreat for the branch, Eric Gebuhr, a male co-worker, slapped her hip and buttock and stated, “Why are you playing hard to get?” Roberts contends that she and Gebuhr had not previously had a flirtatious relationship, and that he had consumed a lot of alcoholic beverages that evening. Indeed, Roberts claims that she awoke later that night to find Gebuhr passed out in the women’s cabin on an extra bed. (Roberts Tr. at 90-97.)
Finally, at some point during the summertime, Roberts was talking to Ed Celler, a co-worker, and she noticed that he was not looking at her face. Roberts asked him, “Ed, are you looking at my breasts?” He replied: “Well they are right there. What am I supposed to do?” (Id. at 103.)
CHR contends inter alia that it is entitled to summary judgment because Roberts cannot demonstrate that her alleged harassment affected a term or condition of her employment. First, the Court looks to whether Roberts subjectively perceived the alleged conduct to be harassment. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Roberts, the record reveals that she subjectively perceived the alleged harassment to be so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment.
The Court next turns to whether her subjective perception was objectively reasonable. See id. Here, Roberts alleges generally that she saw pornography in the office and overheard inappropriate comments, and specifically that she was harassed based on McDonald’s comments about her attire, Gehbur’s inappropriate behavior at the retreat, and Celler’s staring at her breasts. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the alleged harassment was sporadic and spread over Roberts’ nineteen-month tenure at CHR. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Although there was physical conduct and Celler’s comment was undoubtedly embarrassing, there is no evidence in the record that the alleged harassment unreasonably interfered with Roberts’ work. See id. Given previous decisions of the Eighth Circuit, the Court concludes that she has failed to show that these occurrences in the aggregate were so severe and extreme that a reasonable person would find that the terms or conditions of her employment had been altered. See, e.g., LeGrand, 394 F.3d at 1102-03 (holding that several incidents over a nine month period did not constitute severe and pervasive harassment where conduct included: (1) defendant’s request for plaintiff to watch pornographic movies with him and “to jerk off with him” to relieve stress; (2) defendant’s suggestion that plaintiff would advance in the company if he watched pornographic movies and “jerked [defendant’s] dick off”; (3) defendant kissed plaintiff on the mouth while grabbing his buttocks; and then reached for plaintiff’s genitals; and (4) defendant gripped
19

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
plaintiff’s thigh while both were seated at a table during a meeting). Although the conduct involved was unprofessional and inappropriate, the Court concludes that that Roberts fails to demonstrate a sexually hostile environment sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67; Duncan, 300 F.3d at 935. Because the conduct does not rise to the level necessary to be actionable, the Court grants CHR’s motion for summary judgment on Roberts’ sexual harassment claim.
6. Tricia Porter *28 Tricia Porter works as a transportation sales representative in the Los Angeles branch. She began her employment with CHR in March 1997 at the Chicago North branch. For her first year, Jeff Begin was Chicago North’s branch manager. Gene Scheisser replaced Begin in 1998. According to Porter, she transferred to the Los Angeles branch in April 2000, to escape personal conflicts between her and Scheisser. Porter alleges that she was subjected to severe and pervasive sexual harassment in Chicago and Los Angeles.
Turning to her time in Chicago, Porter identifies four specific occasions and makes general allegations regarding the existence of an inappropriate work environment. First, she alleges that, during Begin’s management, Begin remarked that he had taken a support employee on a sales call because she was attractive. Second, in 1998, believing that she needed his approval, Porter asked Scheisser to allow her to apply for an assistant branch manager position in a newly opened Birmingham office, and he refused. Scheisser allegedly stated that he knew the Birmingham branch manager and that the two of them would not get along. Porter contends that because Scheisser had only recently come to the Chicago North branch and did not know Porter well, his refusal was based on her gender and race.17
Third, when Porter came back from maternity leave in 1999, she expected to resume work on an important account that she had been “growing” before she left. During her absence, Scheisser had assigned the account to a male co-worker. Upon her return, Scheisser questioned whether Porter could handle the responsibility because they were just getting ready to expand it to a national account. After Porter protested, Scheisser allowed her to resume responsibility over the account. Thereafter, Porter contends that Scheisser attempted to diminish her success with the account and the client.
Fourth, Porter describes an incident where Scheisser stood up on his desk and yelled to the entire office that he was “tired of people taking craps on his time.” (Porter Tr. at 190.) He went on to say that people should not spend so much time in the bathroom and that employees should “take craps on personal time not his.” (Id .) A few days later, Scheisser sent a follow-up email that stated: “I want to make a policy adjustment to using the bathroom for the second purpose. Please try to avoid mornings, but if you have to go ahead, I wouldn’t want anyone to injure themselves.” (Id. at 191-92.)
Finally, Porter alleges that male co-workers frequently clustered around certain computers, laughing and joking. Porter assumes that they were viewing pornography and recalls seeing at least one offensive image.18
Turning to the Los Angeles office, Porter contends that the environment there was an improvement over Chicago, but that she continued to be subjected to a hostile work environment. In particular, Porter alleges that co-workers engaged in inappropriate conversations in the form of sexually offensive jokes. Porter recalls one joke in particular: “What’s the difference between a wife and a mistress? ... Forty pounds.” She contends that her co-worker, Brian Jackson, had a “fart man”-a three-dimensional figure that when pressed, bends forward and his pants drop down. Porter contends that the area around Jackson’s desk was known as the “fart zone” and that male co-workers routinely passed gas in that area. As in Chicago North, Porter noticed on one or two occasions male co-workers huddled around a computer, and she assumes that they were viewing pornography. With regard to emails, Porter reports that her male co-workers frequently laughed in unison or called out to each other when sending each other emails. Porter remembers receiving one offensive email. She immediately deleted the email and does not know who sent it to her. In addition, Porter recalls that Eric Foe hung a picture of a girl in a bikini. When a co-worker asked him to take the picture down, he did.
*29 Porter also testified that she frequently had disagreements with her co-worker, Cesar Bustamente. According to Porter, Bustamante was rude and condescending, particularly to women. Further, while she cannot recall the details or the timing, Porter testified that she spoke with Nystie about her difficulties with Bustamante.
In addition, Porter complained twice to Nystie about harassment from carriers she contacted to move loads for her customers. According to Porter, the carriers propositioned her and asked her inappropriate questions. Porter testified that these comments came from the group of carriers she contacts when her regular carriers are unavailable. On the first occasion, the carrier asked Porter her blouse size. She reported to Nystie who told her he would handle it. (Id. at 33-34.) On a second occasion, another
20

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
carrier made offensive remarks to Porter, after which Nystie sent a letter to the carrier.19 (Id. at 42.)
Porter also contends that since the onset of this litigation, she has again been subjected to hostility from Scheisser. In 2002, Scheisser went to Los Angeles for a business appointment and, while waiting to leave, he sat in the pod next to Porter and stared at her. When Nystie realized what was going on, Porter claims that he made a public comment to the effect that Scheisser should be careful not to do anything inappropriate or sexually harassing. Porter took this as a personal attack on her participation in this lawsuit. Nystie later came to her and told her that he had scolded Scheisser for his behavior and had offered to allow him to wait in his office. Porter alleges that Nystie’s public comment only perpetuated the sexual harassment.
With respect to Porter, CHR contends inter alia that it is entitled to summary judgment because she cannot demonstrate that her alleged harassment affected a term or condition of her employment. First, the Court turns to whether Porter subjectively perceived the alleged conduct to be harassment. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22. Assuming that Porter’s experiences from two distinct branches should be aggregated, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to her, the record reveals that she subjectively perceived the alleged harassment to be so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment.
The Court next turns to whether her subjective perception was objectively reasonable. See id. Here, Porter’s alleged harassment consists of her personal conflicts with Scheisser and Bustamante, her problems with certain carriers, two viewings of pornography, one explicit email, and general offensive conduct of her co-workers. However, this conduct, spread over five years, amounts to sporadic instances of offensive behavior and ordinary tribulations in the work place. Cf. Faragher, 524 U.S. at 778 (noting that Title VII is not meant to redress “the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender related jokes and occasional teasing”). Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the alleged harassment does not demonstrate that Porter’s workplace was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit has found conduct as frequent and intrusive as Porter’s insufficient to reach this standard. See Duncan, 300 F.3d at 934-35; LeGrand, 394 F.3d at 1102-03. While some of the conduct involved here was markedly unprofessional, there is no evidence in the record that it unreasonably interfered with Porter’s work. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Porter fails to demonstrate a sexually hostile environment sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67; Duncan, 300 F.3d at 935. Because the conduct does not rise to the level necessary to be actionable, the Court grants CHR’s motion for summary judgment on Porter’s sexual harassment claim.
7. Debra Kinniry née Cash *30 Debra Kinniry began work at CHR on December 15, 2000. She was employed as a sales representative for e-Stop, a subset of CHR’s T-Chek line. The e-Stop business sells information collected by T-Chek regarding fuel services. Her direct supervisor was Mark Derks. Kinniry resigned on December 31, 2001.
Kinniry alleges that she was subjected to severe and pervasive harassment by her co-worker, Tom Berry, and by Derks. With regard to Berry, Kinniry forwarded to him the resume of a male friend. Shortly thereafter, she inquired into whether he received it and Berry asked if the resume belonged to one of her boyfriends. Kinniry felt as though Berry was implying that she was promiscuous. Kinniry complained to Derks, who asked her if she wanted to document the situation. She declined. Kinniry states that she was afraid of retaliation and did not want to jeopardize her job. Nonetheless, Derks documented the incident with J.J. Singh, the president of T-Chek. Singh contacted Kinniry to confirm that she did not want to document the conduct.
With regard to Derks, Kinniry alleges that he made several inappropriate comments to her. First, when Kinniry was picking her teeth with her finger, Derks said, “Stop sucking on your finger, it’s making me horny.” (Kinniry Tr. at 92.) Next, as Derks and Kinniry were preparing for her review, Derks said something to the effect that they could conduct the review under his desk. In addition, after she tendered her resignation, Derks stated “Now that you are leaving, I can tell you that I always wanted to have sex with you.” (Id.) Kinniry admits to having a flirtatious encounter with Derks when the two were traveling in Florida on business, but contends that there was no sexual contact. Kinniry also contends that Derks inappropriately shared his opinion of a co-worker, Nettie Helquist, with her. According to Kinniry, Derks told her that Helquist was a troublemaker. Finally, when Kinniry asked Derks why her male co-worker Nate Wanamaker received a temporary position in card sales, a position Kinniry wanted, Derks allegedly stated that Wanamaker was the typical CHR recruit-male and in his twenties.
Kinniry also contends that she periodically received offensive emails. She could not remember from whom, testifying: “I
21

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
never really paid attention. They went around frequently, they came around the company frequently and I didn’t pay attention to who they were from, they were just deleted.” (Id. at 82.) When asked if she found it offensive, Kinniry testified “I think anyone would find it offensive to some degree, but it went on so frequently that it was the norm. It was not-It was something you just, you got used to dismissing.” (Id. at 84.) Kinniry also recalls two male co-workers gathered around a computer and she assumed that they were viewing pornography.
Finally, Kinniry contends that she felt unwelcome by her male co-workers. In particular, Kinniry describes a CHR golf tournament to which she received a last-minute invitation. After a few holes, Kinniry asked why she was the only woman. Derks replied that Singh had asked that she be invited so that it would not be an all-male event. Kinniry felt uncomfortable thinking that her male colleagues did not want her there.
*31 CHR contends inter alia that it is entitled to summary judgment because Kinniry’s alleged harassment was not so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of employment. First, the Court looks to whether Kinniry subjectively perceived the alleged conduct to be harassment. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Kinniry, the record reveals that she subjectively perceived the alleged harassment to be so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment.
The Court next turns to whether her subjective perception was objectively reasonable. See id. Here, a reasonable person could not conclude that Kinniry was subjected to harassment so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of employment. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the alleged harassment was sporadic. Berry’s comment, Derks’ comments, and her feeling of being unwelcome at the golf tournament do not demonstrate that Kinniry’s work place was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult.” Id. at 21. Moreover, the Eighth Circuit has found conduct more intrusive than Kinniry’s insufficient to reach this demanding standard. See, e.g., LeGrand, 394 F.3d at 1102-03. None of the conduct involved here was severe, physically threatening or humiliating, and there is no evidence in the record that it unreasonably interfered with Kinniry’s work. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Kinniry fails to demonstrate a sexually hostile environment sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67; Duncan, 300 F.3d at 935. Because the conduct does not rise to the level necessary to be actionable, the Court grants CHR’s motion for summary judgment on Kinniry’s sexual harassment claim.
8. Carol Flannigan Carol Flannigan was employed at CHR’s New Orleans branch from August 1999 until her termination in May 2001. She started in support and accepted a promotion in July 2000 to produce sales. From July to September 2000, Flannigan assisted the produce manager, Eric Waitzman. In September 2000, Waitzman took an unexpected leave of absence, and Flannigan began to work independently in produce sales. In January 2001, the branch manager, Duane Leier, retired and he was not replaced. Instead, Kevin Meguire, the regional produce manager, assumed the New Orleans branch’s produce managerial duties.
Flannigan asserts that she was subjected to a hostile work environment in the New Orleans branch based on her co-workers’ generally inappropriate conduct, conversations, and vulgar language, as well as specific comments directed to her. With regard to general conduct, Flannigan contends that her male co-workers frequently viewed pornography on their computers. In her first week of work, Flannigan complained to her support supervisor, Barbara Brevelle, that she had seen co-workers viewing pornography. Flannigan alleges that Brevelle told her that there was nothing that could be done about it. During her time in support, Flannigan estimates that she saw pictures of naked women three times per week on Waitzman’s computer, a total of five times on Craig’s (last name not known) computer, a total of five to ten times on Donald Pecot’s computer, and a total of three to four times on Dan Anderson’s computer. She specifically remembers seeing a pornographic slide show on Waitzman’s computer. Also during her time in support, Flannigan recalls that Leier reprimanded several co-workers who had repeatedly accessed inappropriate websites. After Leier left that day, the co-workers congratulated each other on the number of hours each had logged. Flannigan was offended by the co-workers’ reaction. Although her co-workers thereafter concealed it from Leier, Flannigan believes that they still viewed pornography. After her move to produce sales, and while working closely with Waitzman, Flannigan saw some explicit images on his screen. Flannigan told him that she did not want to see those kinds of images and he closed his computer screen. Thereafter, Flannigan did not see pornography on his or any other co-workers’ computer. Nevertheless, Flannigan alleges that employees continued to view pornography.
*32 Flannigan testified that Leier never engaged in viewing offensive images and would not have tolerated it had he seen it. Nonetheless, she did not report her experiences to him. In addition, Flannigan claims she did not report the pornography through CHR’s other channels because she was afraid of retaliation. She bases this fear upon her contention that after
22

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Brevelle reported an affair between Anderson and Robin Brantley to CHR management, Anderson treated Brevelle poorly and ignored her.
Flannigan also alleges that co-workers engaged in inappropriate conduct at a sales conference in Dallas, Texas, by drinking alcohol and wrestling at a poolside barbeque. In addition, she asserts that the Anderson/Brantley affair interfered with her ability to work because co-workers frequently engaged in conversations and speculation regarding the affair. Flannigan contends that the widespread gossip created a hostile environment. Flannigan further alleges that co-workers often used foul language including the words “fuck,” its derivations, and “rape” (e.g., “that truck driver raped me on a load”). Flannigan concedes that both male and female co-workers used foul language.
With regard to specific comments made to her, Flannigan alleges first that she was offended by her co-workers calling her “Eric’s secretary” after she moved into produce sales. Second, Flannigan alleges that Meguire made two offensive comments about her. Specifically, the first time she met Meguire before he assumed Leier’s duties in December 2000, he took the produce sales employees out to dinner. During dinner, he asked what each person did before coming to CHR. Flannigan brought up her work at a veterinarian’s office. Meguire asked if she had any pets and she responded that she had two dogs and four cats. Meguire then stated that he had eaten cat. Flannigan believes that Meguire used the word “cat” as a euphemism for a woman’s vagina. On another occasion, Flannigan asserts that Meguire intentionally humiliated her by asking her, in front of other colleagues, where she had gone to college. According to Flannigan, Mequire knew that she had not gone to college. Also at that time, she alleges that Meguire made fun of her work at the veterinary clinic.
CHR contends inter alia that it is entitled to summary judgment on Flannigan’s sexual harassment claim because she cannot demonstrate that Meguire’s comments were based on sex, or that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive. The Court turns first to whether the harassment was based on sex.
a. Harassment based on sex CHR argues that Flannigan does not demonstrate that Meguire’s comments were based on sex. Flannigan fails to respond to this argument. To be actionable, “the harassment must be based on the complaining person’s sex.” Scusa, 181 F.3d at 965. An offensive workplace atmosphere does not amount to unlawful discrimination unless one gender is treated differently than the other.” Duncan, 300 F.3d at 933 (citing Oncale, 523 U.S. at 80). Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Flannigan, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Meguire’s comment regarding cats was “based on sex.” The Court therefore denies CHR’s argument with respect to this element.
b. Harassment alters a term or condition of employment *33 First, the Court looks to whether Flannigan subjectively perceived the alleged conduct to be harassment. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Flannigan, the record reveals that she subjectively perceived the alleged harassment to be so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment.
The Court next turns to whether her subjective perception was objectively reasonable. See id. Here, Flannigan alleges that she was subjected to harassment based on her sex because of the office gossip regarding Anderson’s affair, the inappropriate language, conduct and comments, the pornography, and Mequire’s comments. Other than Mequire’s comments and being called “Eric’s Secretary,” none of Flannigan’s alleged harassment was directed at her. See Bainbridge, 378 F.3d at 760. Moreover, a reasonable person could not conclude that Flannigan’s not attending college, and Meguire’s cat comment when coupled with Flannigan’s other allegations constitute humiliating conduct sufficient to satisfy the demanding standards set forth by the Eighth Circuit. See e.g., Duncan, 300 F.3d at 934-35; Ottman v. City of Independence, 341 F.3d 751, 760 (8th Cir.2003) (holding that the district court erred in denying summary judgment where supervisor had belittled female employees’ work product but not male employees’ work; had spoken condescendingly to plaintiff as if she were a child; had on two separate occasions made the comment, “It’s just like a woman” referring to two women who had disagreed with him; had occasionally referred to women as “girls”; had declared “we need more men”; and sometimes told female workers to “be quiet, men are talking”); LeGrand, 394 F.3d at 1102-03. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, her exposure to pornography was frequent during her first several months, but none of Flannigan’s alleged harassment was severe, physically threatening or humiliating, and did not unreasonably interfere with Flannigan’s performance. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Plainly, some of the conduct alleged was juvenile and unprofessional, but Flannigan fails to demonstrate a sexually hostile environment sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67; Duncan, 300 F.3d at 935. Because the conduct does not rise to the level necessary to be actionable, the Court grants CHR’s
23

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
motion for summary judgment on Flannigan’s sexual harassment claim.
9. Amy Hossenlopp Amy Hossenlopp works as a transportation sales representative in CHR’s Columbia, South Carolina, branch. She began working there on May 27, 1998. Until March 2004, Mike Borowiec was Hossenlopp’s branch manager.
Hossenlopp contends that she has been subjected to sexual harassment that was severe and pervasive. First, she alleges that the environment was “hostile” because her co-workers were combative with each other. For example, Ken Clarkson and Bill Colvin engaged in a verbal altercation at work in 2001. Hossenlopp alleges that she was on the phone with a customer at the time and that their “threatening tones” and “vulgar language” made it difficult to concentrate on what her customer was saying. Hossenlopp also describes a March 2002 incident when Clarkson, Hossenlopp’s “zone” leader, was verbally abusive to her and her co-worker, Stephen Dowey, after they sacrificed a profit on a load to accomplish a delivery that had gone awry. Even though Hossenlopp and Dowey had cleared sacrificing the profit with Borowiec, Clarkson belittled and yelled at them the next morning. Hossenlopp complained to Borowiec about Clarkson’s behavior. Borowiec spoke with Clarkson on her behalf. Shortly thereafter, Clarkson emailed her that he was unhappy that she had gone to Borowiec. According to Hossenlopp, Clarkson continued to be verbally abusive to co-workers. Hossenlopp also describes an unpleasant exchange with CHR’s Iowa branch manager, Scott Shannon. Shannon called her and her co-worker, Kevin Harthan, incompetent because a truck hired by Hossenlopp to transport an important load broke down.
*34 Next, Hossenlopp contends that her co-workers engaged in generally offensive conversations, and that some inappropriate comments were directed at her specifically. With regard to the offensive comments, Hossenlopp alleges that William Speas, referring to a female CHR recruiter, stated: “I guess that’s how women in the company advance to the top. They sleep their way up.” (Hossenlopp Tr. at 153.) As Speas was speaking, he made a thrusting motion with his pelvis. Hossenlopp also alleges that she overheard a conversation between Smallwood and Harthan regarding golf. At some point in the conversation, Smallwood said, “Why don’t you go with William Speas at lunch or go with so and so and try and do something with anal beads.” (Id. at 151.) Harthan looked at him and stated: “I don’t know how to respond to that.” (Id.) Smallwood laughed and said, “I don’t even know why I said that.” (Id.) Finally Hossenlopp contends that vulgar language was used in the branch, particularly the word “rape,” (e.g., “he’s raping me on this load”). Hossenlopp concedes that she too cursed on occasion.
Turning to comments directed at Hossenlopp, she recalls speaking with Borowiec in 2000 about comments she had received from her co-workers regarding her attire. In particular, Bill Colvin commented on her new clothes and, on another occasion, suggested that she must have a hot date that night because of her nail polish and make-up. Hossenlopp next alleges that when she went on her first sales call, Julian Montegue made a comment about how she was going to “service the customer.” (Id. at 147.) In addition, Hossenlopp describes an instance where Montegue brought in his leftover birthday cake that was topped with candy in the shape of a woman’s breasts. Hossenlopp testified:
One of the guys came to my desk and told me I need to go into the kitchen because Julian had brought in his birthday cake and I heard them snickering behind my back when I went into the kitchen and when I lifted the lid on the cake and realized what it was I was very appalled and very embarrassed at the same time and went back to my desk because everybody in the branch saw the cake because it was sitting in the breakfast room all day long.
(Id. at 150.) Hossenlopp also alleges that her co-workers were throwing a foam ball around the room and it hit Hossenlopp. She stood up and told them “this was not Romper Room” and that they had to stop. (Id. at 200.) They ceased and returned to their desks.
Third, Hossenlopp asserts that she has been subjected to sexually explicit pictures and male co-workers viewing pornography during work hours. Hossenlopp recalls Clarkson viewing pornography as early as Winter 2000. She also remembers seeing a “naked brunette” on Steve Smith’s computer. Smith shut it off when he realized she was nearby. She also witnessed Clayton Smallwood viewing a pornographic video depicting a naked man being hung by restraints and being kicked in the groin by a female. The video had some “vile” sounds that went along with it. Hossenlopp told Smallwood “that was not conducive.” (Id. at 150.) Finally, she recalls that Clarkson and Neal Elgin gathered around Colvin’s computer. They attempted to close the screen when they realized she was approaching, but she saw part of a woman’s breast before Colvin could close it completely. She did not report any of these incidents at the time that they occurred.
24

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
*35 Between 1998 and her deposition in August 2003, Hossenlopp recalls receiving 3 explicit emails: (1) in 1998, a co-worker from the Boston branch sent her an email that covered her screen with a picture of a naked woman that she could not readily delete from her computer; (2) a picture with a representation of Osama Bin Laden naked, bent over with the Empire State Building inserted in his rear end; and (3) a cartoon joke that she did not understand and deleted immediately.
In the later part of 2001, Hossenlopp mentioned to Borowiec that she might have seen an inappropriate screensaver on someone’s computer but that she was not one hundred percent sure at that time. Hossenlopp told Borowiec that she did not want to “go pointing fingers at people without having the facts.” (Id. at 53.)
During her March 2002 conversation with Borowiec regarding Clarkson’s behavior, Hossenlopp also told Borowiec that she had seen things that she believed were inappropriate. Specifically, Hossenlopp stated that she would hate for her mother or a customer to see “that kind of stuff” in the office. (Id. at 59.) Borowiec agreed with her and said he would address the situation. During that conversation, Hossenlopp, however, did not disclose to Borowiec that she had 23 disks of pornography that she had downloaded from Julian Montegue’s, Colvin’s and Eric Broderick’s computers at the end of 2001. On March 20, 2002, Borowiec sent an email to all Columbia employees reminding them of CHR’s business and ethics policies, and instructing them to refresh their understandings of the policies.
In September 2002, Hossenlopp spoke with Michelle Debben, a CHR HR employee, and complained about the branch’s environment. In particular, she complained about Clarkson and Smallwood. As a result, Tim Manning and Amy Taber conducted an investigation at the Columbia branch on September 27 and 28, 2002. After the investigation, Borowiec brought each employee into his office to explain its outcome. Disciplinary action included Clarkson’s one-month suspension, after which he resigned, and Smallwood’s one-week suspension. Since that time, Hossenlopp testified that she is not aware of any sexually explicit emails or images, or sexually offensive conduct in he branch.
CHR contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on Hossenlopp’s hostile work environment claim because she cannot meet her burden to demonstrate that the harassment was based on sex, that it was so severe or pervasive as to alter at term or condition of employment, or that CHR took did not take prompt remedial action.
a. Harassment based on sex “Abusive behavior is not ‘based on sex’ if the harasser subjects both men and women to similar abuse.” Hesse v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 02-3653, 2004 WL 569563, at *5 (D.Minn.2004), aff’d, 394 F.3d 624 (8th Cir.2005). “Similarly, a supervisor’s legitimate criticism of a female employee’s mistake-however harsh or insensitive-is not harassment based on sex if the supervisor would have reacted the same way to a male employee’s mistake.” Id.
*36 CHR argues that Clarkson’s behavior does not constitute harassment based on sex. Hossenlopp does not respond this argument. At her deposition, she testified that Clarkson subjected both her and her male co-workers to verbal abuse and vulgar language. She gave similar testimony regarding Shannon’s disparaging remarks. The record does not reveal any evidence that Clarkson referred to Hossenlopp’s gender or made sexual innuendoes. Accordingly, a reasonable fact finder could not conclude that Clarkson’s behavior was based on sex. See Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 827 (8th Cir.2000) (finding that behavior that included plaintiff’s supervisor losing his temper, swearing at plaintiff, intimidating her, pounding on desks and on one occasion lunging across his desk at her, was not based on sex where none of the conduct referenced her sex or contained sexual innuendo); Montandon v. Farmland Indus. Inc., 116 F.3d 355, 357-58 (8th Cir.1997) (concluding that harassment was not based on sex where supervisor “used vulgar, profane language, slammed things, stomped around, loudly reprimanded employees and used intimidation” on men and women alike). For the reasons previously discussed, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that exposure to porn could constitute harassment “based on sex.” The Court therefore turns to the fourth element. See Duncan, 300 F.3d at 934 (proceeding to fourth element where some, but not all, alleged harassment was “based on sex”).
b. Harassment alters a term or condition of employment First, the Court looks to whether Hossenlopp subjectively perceived this conduct to be harassment. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Hossenlopp, the record reveals that she subjectively perceived the alleged harassment to be so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment.
The Court next turns to whether her subjective perception was objectively reasonable. See id. Here, Hossenlopp puts forth
25

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
two categories of behavior: (1) general branch environment, which consists of co-workers viewing pornographic images and offensive comments, vulgar language and conversations; and (2) conduct specific to Hossenlopp which consisted of: comments regarding her attire, the incident with Montegue’s birthday cake, Montegue’s comment about “servicing the client” on her first sales call, and receipt of three offensive emails. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Hossenlopp, the Court concludes that she fails to demonstrate that her workplace was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult,” such that it altered a term or condition of her employment. Id. at 21. In particular, a minority of the alleged conduct was directed at Hossenlopp and it spanned over five years. See Bainbridge, 378 F.3d at 760. Moreover, while inappropriate and juvenile, the conduct was not severe, physically threatening or humiliating and did not unreasonably interfere with her ability to do her job. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21. Given previous decisions of the Eighth Circuit, see, e.g., Duncan, 300 F.3d at 934-35; LeGrand, 394 F.3d at 1102-03, the Court concludes that Hossenlopp fails to demonstrate a sexually hostile environment sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67; Duncan, 300 F.3d at 935. Because the conduct does not rise to the level necessary to be actionable, the Court concludes that Hossenlopp fails to meet her burden with respect to this element.
c. Employer’s remedial action *37 Even assuming that Hossenlopp could demonstrate that a reasonable person would consider the harassment so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of employment, Hossenlopp must also demonstrate that CHR knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take proper remedial action. Meriwether, 326 F.3d at 993. Appropriate remedial action must be “reasonably calculated to end the harassment once the employer knew or should have known about the harassment.” Scusa, 181 F.3d at 967. Several factors are relevant in assessing the reasonableness of an employer’s remedial measures: “the temporal proximity between the notice and remedial action, the disciplinary or preventative measure taken and whether the measures ended the harassment.” Meriwether, 326 F.3d at 993.
Turning first to Hossenlopp’s complaint to Borowiec in 2002, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Borowiec’s email was reasonably calculated to address Hossenlopp’s complaints based on sexual harassment. Here, Hossenlopp did not tell Borowiec about the 23 discs of pornography that she had collected. Instead, she stated that she had generally seen offensive images and that she would not want her mother or a client to see what she had seen. Looking to the Meriwether factors, the temporal proximity between Hossenlopp’s notice and Borowiec action was brief-apparently within a week-and the action taken was commensurate with Hossenlopp’s complaints.
Turning next to Hossenlopp’s complaints to Debben, a reasonable fact finder could only conclude that CHR’s actions were reasonably calculated to end the harassment. First, it was only a matter of weeks before Taber and Manning came out to conduct an investigation, and the disciplinary action came only days later. Cf. Smith, 109 F.3d at 1264 (denying summary judgment where employer took four months to respond to the plaintiff’s initial complaints). Hossenlopp contends that CHR did not do enough and that the actions taken by CHR amount to “inconsequential discipline.” Pls.’ Comb. Mem. Opp’n at 192. The Court disagrees. In fact, two employees were suspended-Clarkson for one month and Smallwood for one week, and every branch employee received and was required to sign individualized notices acknowledging that the alleged behavior was unacceptable. For many employees, that notice included either a warning or a final warning regarding his or her own behavior. Hossenlopp herself was warned regarding her use of inappropriate language. Moreover, Clarkson resigned permanently at the end of his one-month suspension, and Hossenlopp testified that thereafter she did not see explicit images or endure offensive comments. A reasonable fact finder could only conclude that CHR’s actions were significant and that, based on Hossenlopp’s testimony, the measures were largely successful. Accordingly, the Court concludes that CHR took prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to end the harassment.
*38 In sum, Hossenlopp fails to demonstrate that Clarkson’s behavior was harassment based on sex, that her alleged harassment affected a term or condition of her employment and that CHR failed to take proper remedial action. The Court therefore grants CHR’s motion for summary judgment on Hossenlopp’s claim for sexual harassment.
10. Jennifer Smyrl In August 1996, CHR hired Jennifer Smyrl as a transportation sales representative in its Pleasanton, California, branch. She worked there until December 1999 when she requested a transfer within CHR to Salt Lake City. In January 2000, Smyrl began working in the Salt Lake City branch as a transportation sales representative. She resigned in June 2002. Smyrl’s claims of sexual harassment relate only to her time in Salt Lake City and are based in large part on the behavior of branch manager, Chris Czekai.
26

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Smyrl alleges that Czekai often made belittling comments to her such as: (1) what she did “anybody could do” and that “it wasn’t worth anything”; (2) that he “didn’t know why [she] was working. Why didn’t [she] just stay at home and be a mom?”; (3) “Why did you get pregnant if you wanted to continue to work?”; (4) “What were you thinking getting pregnant?”; and (5) “What customer is going to want to see you fat?” (Smyrl Tr. at 116; Smryl Resp. Interrogs. at 20.) Smyrl asserts that during a difficult period in Smyrl’s pregnancy, Czekai refused to reduce her hours to a forty-hour workweek until she threatened to go to the labor board. Smyrl was then required to bring in a doctor’s note regarding the reduction in hours as well as notes for any additional visit to the doctor’s office during her pregnancy. (Smyrl Tr. at 234.)
Smyrl also claims that Czekai’s treatment of women differed from his treatment of men with respect to tardiness and work schedules. She contends that women were called into his office when they were late, but men were not. In particular, Smyrl identifies Jason Berquist as someone who received special treatment by Czekai. Smyrl also contends that Czekai openly made belittling and offensive comments about other women in the branch. For example, Smyrl overheard Czekai state that assistant branch manager Stephanie Harrison dressed like a slut. With regard to co-worker Candace Wickstrom, Czekai allegedly said “if you have a horse, work it for what it’s worth.” (Id. at 146.) Smyrl also contends that Czekai and other male co-workers considered Wickstrom unattractive and consequently, she was the topic of many offensive jokes and comments. Smyrl reports hearing a rumor that Czekai was “going to get rid of all of the women” in the branch and another rumor that he said “this bunch of bitches aren’t going to get anywhere with me.” (Id. at 212.) Finally, Smyrl asserts that she was not allowed to play on the branch softball team because Czekai did not allow women on the team.
In addition to Czekai’s behavior and comments, Smyrl also alleges that the Salt Lake City branch had an abusive and harassing environment to women. In particular, she contends that there was prolific swearing-to the extent that she had to hide under her desk to avoid having her customers hear Kim Smith, a male co-worker, swearing at the desk next to her. She testified that when she complained to Czekai, Smith’s language improved for a week, and then he moved his desk over to the other side of the room and resumed his previous manners. Smyrl elaborated that she was not complaining about “reactive” swearing, meaning a verbal response to something bad that just happened, but that the swearing was “proactive” swearing directed at co-workers or customers. For example, co-workers called each other “pussy” and “you fucking idiot.” (Id. at 228.)
*39 Smyrl further contends that her male co-workers created a “fraternity” atmosphere and that she witnessed them viewing pornography. She asserts that the pornography consisted of explicit photographs of nude women in various poses. Smyrl identified several images from Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, namely the imitation MasterCard Priceless advertisements, and a picture of a woman’s breasts. Smyrl alleges that Smith, John Pearson, Mike Radcliff, Rodney Barton, Czekai, Chris O’Shea, Jason Tresnor and Berquist all forwarded pornographic emails to her. With regard to Barton, Smyrl requested that he stop sending her inappropriate emails. She alleges that he would stop for a few weeks, and then resume sending them.
In March 2002, Smyrl used CHR’s anonymous email service to report Czekai’s behavior and the environment of the branch. In April 2002, CHR HR representatives Amy Taber and Tim Manning came out to the Salt Lake City branch to investigate complaints made about Czekai. They individually interviewed the branch employees. Smyrl contends that she did not alert either Taber or Manning to Smyrl’s specific allegations of sexual harassment, but generally described Czekai’s behavior. Smyrl alleges that she feared retaliation if she disclosed everything and that after Taber and Manning left, Czekai did in fact retaliate. (Id. at 234.)
CHR contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on Smyrl’s hostile work environment claim because Czekai’s conduct is not harassment based on sex and because Smyrl fails to demonstrate that the harassment was so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment. The Court considers each in turn.
a. Harassment based on sex Because Czekai’s abuse indiscriminately reached both men and women, CHR contends that it was not based on sex. The Court disagrees. Here, Czekai was physically and verbally abusive to both sexes. However, evidence in the record reveals that this behavior was coupled with comments and conduct that referenced gender or contained sexual innuendo. Cf. Schoffstall, 223 F.3d at 827; Montandon, 116 F.3d at 357-58. In particular, Czekai made comments regarding Harrison, Wickstrom, Smyrl and he excluded women from the branch softball team. Even if, when viewed in isolation, some of Czekai’s conduct cannot be described as based on sex, it is all “part of a course of conduct which is tied to evidence of discriminatory animus.” Carter, 173 F.3d at 701. Because a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Czekai’s conduct was based on sex, the Court denies CHR’s motion with respect to this element.
27

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
b. Harassment alters a term or condition of employment First, the Court looks to whether Smyrl subjectively perceived the alleged conduct to be harassment. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Smyrl, the record reveals that she subjectively perceived the alleged harassment to be so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment.
*40 The Court next turns to whether her subjective perception was objectively reasonable. See id. Here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Smyrl, a reasonable person could conclude that her alleged harassment was so severe and pervasive so as to alter a term or condition of employment. If Smyrl’s only complaints were based on Czekai’s belittling and chauvinistic behavior, the Court might conclude that this was no more severe than the conduct at issue in Ottman. In that case, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment where the supervisor’s behavior was belittling and sexist. See id. at 760. In this case, however, Smyrl’s allegations over the course of two years include co-worker acceptance of and participation in Czekai’s antics. In particular, Smyrl’s complaints include frequently demeaning remarks and jokes regarding Wickstrom, pornography and crass “proactive” language. Accordingly, the Court concludes that a reasonable fact finder could find that the conduct involved here was sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67. The Court therefore denies CHR’s motion for summary judgment on Smyrl’s sexual harassment claim.
11. LeeAnn Puckett In August 1999, Lee Ann Puckett was employed at CHR’s Salt Lake City branch through a temporary employment agency. At that time, the Salt Lake City branch dealt primarily with transportation sales, and Puckett’s position was support for the sales employees. In December 1999, branch manager Scott Satterlee offered her a full-time position in sales support, and she accepted. In October 2000, Satterlee was promoted and replaced by Chris Czekai. Puckett continued in her position under Czekai’s management until her resignation in August 2002.
Puckett contends that she has been subjected to sexual harassment based on Czekai’s behavior and generally inappropriate conduct by co-workers. Prior to Czekai’s promotion to branch manager, he was the transportation sales manager and sat next to Puckett. According to Puckett, Czekai did not like her. Puckett testified: “He would shun me quite a bit. He gave me the feeling-he acted like he was better than myself and other female employees in the office.... I never felt welcomed working for him or with him.” (Puckett Tr. at 67.) She further recalls seeing pornography on his computer. Specifically, Puckett recalls Czekai viewing an image of two naked women fondling each other. Around this time, Puckett called the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) hotline to request help on how to deal with Czekai. As a result, EAP sent Puckett materials on stress management and how to deal with constructive criticism.20
After Czekai’s promotion, Puckett’s problems with him continued. Puckett contends that Czekai was a “stickler” for details, and that he tracked his employees’ hours. On days when she would be out sick, Puckett was required to call in twice during the day to check-in. According to Puckett, only female employees had to report in on their sick days. On one occasion, she was required to bring in an obituary when she left work to go to a funeral. Puckett also claims that Czekai would roll his eyes at her and would mimic her by pursing his lips, and that he once said that women were too emotional. He also commented on her style of dress: “Do you think this is high school LeeAnn? What is that you are wearing today?” (Id. at 160). Puckett testified that his comments made her feel self-conscious. Finally, Puckett asked Czekai if there were any positions available in sales and he replied that sales positions require a college degree, which Puckett did not have.
*41 Puckett was also offended by Czekai’s behavior directed at others. Puckett alleges that Czekai spoke about her female co-workers in a demeaning manner. Specifically, he called Stephanie Harrison “white trash,” “trailer trash,” and a “whore” during a discussion with another male when Harrison was not present. (Id. at 73.) In addition, Puckett heard a rumor that Czekai had said that he was “going to get rid of all the women” in the office. Puckett also recalls an occasion when Czekai and others were playing football in the office and Czekai teased Matt Wagstaff because he was “throwing it like a girl.” (Id. at 72.) Czekai and others continued to tease Wagstaff about his throwing. Puckett told Czekai that he shouldn’t treat people that way. Additionally, Puckett recalls an instance where Rodney Barton and Czekai had a fight. Although it was in Czekai’s office, everyone could hear yelling and what sounded like furniture being thrown about. Barton later told Puckett that Czekai had threatened to burn Barton’s house down. Finally, Puckett alleges that she was fearful of Czekai because he would frequently walk around with a golf club or hockey stick and swing it around his head during branch meetings.
28

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Puckett also alleges harassment not related to Czekai. In particular, she recalls seeing pornography on co-workers’ computers. For example, she asserts that on her first day of work she saw a picture of naked woman on Mike Radcliff’s computer. In 2000, she also witnessed: male co-workers gathering around Johnny Pearson’s computer; Kim Smith viewing a web site directed at gay pornography; and an image of two women “engaging with each other and another man” on Jason Tresnor’s computer. (Id. at 76-77.) Puckett contends that pornography was a frequent topic of conversation among her male co-workers and that they told offensive jokes. She also alleges that Radcliff made inappropriate flirtatious comments to her. She admits to being flirtatious with Barton and having an intimate relationship with another co-worker.
Puckett also asserts that she complained periodically to Harrison, the assistant branch manager, but that the environment never improved. In March or April 2002, Puckett contends that she and others complained to CHR management regarding Czekai’s behavior. Shortly thereafter, Amy Taber and Tim Manning from CHR HR visited the Salt Lake City branch and individually interviewed employees regarding Czekai’s behavior. During her interview, Puckett did not report to Taber any issues or instances relating to sexual harassment. Puckett claims she did not report them because she feared retaliation. According to Puckett, after Taber and Manning left, the Salt Lake City branch became quiet and tense, and Czekai remained as manager. Several months later, Puckett called Taber to ask about the outcome of the investigation. Taber informed Puckett that the investigation had been closed and that disciplinary action had been taken.
*42 CHR contends that it is entitled to summary judgment as to Puckett because she cannot demonstrate that Czekai’s behavior was based on sex or that the harassment was severe or pervasive. Here, Puckett’s allegations regarding Czekai are substantially similar to those that the Court has previously found to be based on sex. Because the Court has already concluded that a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Czekai’s behavior was based on sex, the Court turns to whether Puckett demonstrates that her alleged harassment was severe and pervasive.
First, the Court looks to whether Puckett subjectively perceived this conduct to be harassment. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Puckett, the record reveals that she subjectively perceived the alleged harassment to be so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment.
The Court next turns to whether her subjective perception was objectively reasonable. See id. Here, Puckett puts forth Czekai’s behavior directed at her and her co-workers. In particular, Puckett’s complaints include his demeaning remarks, differing treatment of male and female co-workers, viewing of pornography, and use of offensive language and threatening conduct. Accordingly, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the conduct alleged was frequent, was physically threatening, and given her phone calls to EAP, interfered with her ability to do her job. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-23 (listing factors and noting that the effect of the alleged harassment on the employee’s psychological well-being is one relevant factor). As such, a reasonable fact finder could also conclude that the conduct involved here was sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67. The Court therefore denies CHR’s motion for summary judgment on Puckett’s sexual harassment claim.
12. Gwen Carlson Carlson has worked for CHR since September 1996 and began working in sales in November 1998. In October 1999, she and her branch manager, Jeff Scovill, discussed that she needed to begin looking for different position because her job performance in sales was deficient. In February 2001, Carlson assumed her current position as the Domestic Drayage Coordinator in the Minneapolis branch. Since September 1996, she has had three branch managers: Diane Johnson, from 1996 to 1999; Scovill, from 1999 to early 2003; and Matt Castle from early 2003 to present.
CHR contends inter alia that it is entitled to summary judgment on Carlson’s sexual harassment claim because Carlson cannot satisfy her burden to show that the alleged harassment was so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment. CHR also moves for summary judgment on Carlson’s compensation and promotion claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court considers each in turn.
a. Carlson’s sexual harassment claim *43 Carlson contends that she has been subjected to sexual harassment based on events occurring between November 1998 and September 2001. She alleges that her co-workers, both male and female, used foul language, engaged in offensive conversations, displayed inappropriate materials, and viewed pornography on their work computers. Carlson also asserts that she received inappropriate emails and that she experienced difficulties with Scovill. In support of her claims, Carlson kept a
29

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
diary from February 1999 to April 2001, in which she detailed her daily life in the branch and wrote down co-workers’ conversations that she had overheard. In addition, Carlson surreptitiously downloaded examples of pornographic or offensive emails by accessing two of her male co-workers’ computers.
First, with regard to her claims regarding foul language and conversations, the following examples are excerpts from Carlson’s diary of conversations that occurred during summer 2000. First, she wrote down a conversation between Brain Harms and Matt Castle:
Harms: “Are you going out with me and Patrick tonight?
Castle: “I can’t go out with you I need to get my dog from the vet. He had to have her [sic ] butt shaved.
Harms: “What? ? Have you been lubing him up and hitting him too hard? You gotta stop doing that shit with your dog.”
(Carlson EEOC Charge at A5.) Carlson reports that at some point later, Harms stated to Scovill: “Hey Jeff, Matt has been fucking his dog so bad he had to get his ass shaved so he can’t join us for dinner.”
A second example occurred between Bonnie Buechele and Harms:
Buechele: “You fucking switched chairs with me first you asshole.”
Harms: “Fuck you. I did not switch chairs.”
(Id.) Carlson provides a third example, consisting of a conversation between Harms, Castle and Scovill regarding their golf game:
Harms: “He is over here cocking off about how he is going to beat me.”
Scovill: “Fuck him, ... I’ll beat both your asses.”
Harms: “He’s been mouthing off since yesterday.”
(Id. at A6.) A final example is a conversation between Heidi Halverson, Harms, Adam Hall, and Scovill:
Halverson: “Did he call him pumpkin?”
Scovill: “Me, no, he called him butt head.”
Hall: “I don’t mind if he calls me pumpkin.”
Scovill: “Are you ready to do this?”
Hall: “Ok.”
Harms: “I will call you scrunch nuts then.”
(Id. at A6.)
Next, Carlson alleges that offensive materials were displayed in the office. First, a “Prayer for the Stressed” was posted in the sales area. The “prayer” asked for “the courage to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people I had killed today because they pissed me off.” It continued by asking for help remembering “when I am having a really bad day, and it seems that people are trying to piss me off, that it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to extend my middle finger and to tell them to bite me!” Second, in December 2000, Carlson saw a card that was displayed on Jeff Enger’s file cabinet. The card, which was given to Enger as part of the branch’s Secret Santa gift exchange, depicted a large naked woman and had the phrase “It takes a whole lotta man ... to satisfy a whole lotta woman” written on the front.21 (Id. at A17.) Carlson contends that the card was signed by Harms, “go for it stud.” (Id.) Carlson also found a number of other Secret Santa gifts offensive, including a Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition desktop calendar and a band-aid box labeled “bondage tape” with a roll of duct tape inside.
*44 Carlson further alleges that her co-workers viewed pornography on their computers. Around October 1999, she recalls 30

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
seeing an image on Castle’s computer showing “a line-up of men on the beach in speedo swimsuits and women on their knees performing oral sex on the men.” (Id. at A2.)
With regard to conduct directed toward her, Carlson recalls receiving two offensive emails. Buechele sent the first email to her; it listed crayon colors such as “Long John Silver,” “Spousal abuse black and blue,” and “Spank me pink.” Carlson asked Buechele not to send her emails of that nature again. The second email came from an unknown source and it depicted a man crawling in the desert and a sign that said “water this way, half a mile” and another sign that said “women with big breasts, this direction, 22 miles.” (Carlson Tr. 154-55.)
Carlson also asserts that she had personal difficulties with Scovill, and that their difficulties were two-fold. First, she contends that he allowed the allegedly hostile environment to exist, in part by his participation and in part by neglecting his responsibilities as branch manager. In August 2000, Carlson called Johnson, who at that time was managing CHR’s Laredo branch, and reported that she suspected that Scovill was having an extra-marital affair with a customer, that she was concerned about the branch’s financial reliance on one large account, and that she felt that there was inappropriate behavior in the workplace. On August 28, Scovill confronted Carlson in his office and asked if she had reported him to Joe Mulvehill, Scovill’s supervisor. She explained that she spoke with Johnson, who then spoke with Mulvehill.
Second, Carlson contends that Scovill impeded her progress in finding a job within CHR, and that he retaliated against her for speaking to Johnson and for a later visit she made to Greg Goven, senior vice-president of CHR, regarding Scovill. According to Carlson, Scovill retaliated by moving her desk, excluding her from a group meeting, taking her off of the sales group email list and not giving her any new work.22 On October 24, 2000, Scovill and Carlson discussed her complaints and “cleared the air.” Between November 2000 and January 2001, Carlson contends, however, that she continued to search unsuccessfully for a new position within CHR. Her search ended in February 2001, when Scovill presented her with the option of creating the position of Domestic Drayage Coordinator.
On March 4, 2001, Carlson called CHR’s toll-free hotline and reported the existence of a hostile environment at her branch. According to Carlson’s diary, she called the hotline after she perceived that CHR was not responding to Perkey’s February 23 complaint. (Carlson EEOC Charge at A20.) From March to August, CHR took progressive remedial steps, including the suspension of Scovill. In part, Scovill was suspended for his failure to attend to Carlson’s complaints. Since September 2001, Carlson testified that she is not aware of co-workers viewing pornography or engaging in offensive conversations, though she contends that she has received unsolicited pornographic “spam” emails from unknown sources outside of CHR.
*45 CHR contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on Carlson’s sexual harassment claim because she cannot satisfy her burden to demonstrate that the harassment was so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of employment. First, the Court looks to whether Carlson subjectively perceived her alleged conduct to be harassment. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Carlson, the record reveals that she subjectively perceived the alleged harassment to be so severe or pervasive as to alter a term or condition of her employment.
The Court next turns to whether her subjective perception was objectively reasonable. See id. Here, Carlson complains about the general branch environment, specifically that male and female co-workers viewed pornographic images, engaged in offensive conversations, and used vulgar language. Although Carlson’s diary describes the content in detail, with the exception of two emails, none of the conversations, language or pornography was directed at her. See Bainbridge, 378 F.3d at 760. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Carlson, the Court concludes that she fails to demonstrate that her workplace was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21; see Faragher, 524 U.S. at 778 (noting that Title VII is not meant to redress “the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender related jokes and occasional teasing”); LeGrand, 394 F.3d at 1101 (noting that conduct that is “merely rude or unpleasant” is not sufficient to meet this standard). While the conversations and language occurred regularly, the conduct in its totality was not severe, physically threatening or humiliating and did not unreasonably interfere with her ability to do her job. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21. Accordingly, although the atmosphere was sophomoric and crude, the Court concludes that Carlson fails to demonstrate a sexually hostile environment sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67; Duncan, 300 F.3d at 935. Because the conduct does not rise to the level necessary to be actionable, the Court grants CHR’s motion for summary judgment on Carlson’s sexual harassment claim.
b. Carlson’s compensation and promotion claims CHR contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on Carlson’s compensation and promotion claims because she has
31

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Title VII provides an administrative procedure through which a complaining employee must proceed before filing a lawsuit in federal court. Williams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works, 21 F.3d 218, 222 (8th Cir.1994) (citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974)). To exhaust administrative remedies, an individual must: (1) timely file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC setting forth the facts and nature of the charge; and (2) receive notice of the right to sue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), (c), (e). A plaintiff “may seek relief for any discrimination that grows out of or is like or reasonably related to the substance of the allegations in the administrative charge.” Nichols v. Am. Nat. Ins. Co., 154 F.3d 875, 886-87 (8th Cir.1998). In determining whether an alleged discriminatory act falls within the scope of a Title VII claim, the administrative complaint must be construed liberally “in order not to frustrate the remedial purposes of Title VII.” Cobb v. Stringer, 850 F.2d 356, 359 (8th Cir.1988). However, “[a]llowing a complaint to encompass allegations outside the ambit of the predicate EEOC charge would circumscribe the EEOC’s investigatory and conciliatory role, as well as deprive the charged party of notice of the charge, as surely as would an initial failure to file a timely EEOC charge.” Williams, 21 F.3d at 223 (quotations omitted). “The breadth of the civil suit is, therefore, as broad as the scope of any investigation that reasonably could have been expected to result from the initial charge of discrimination.” Stuart v. Gen. Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621, 630-31 (8th Cir.2000).
*46 Here, the parties agree that Carlson filed a timely EEOC charge, that she exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to her sexual harassment claim, and that she received her notice of right to sue from the EEOC. Accordingly, the issue before the Court here is whether her initial EEOC charge encompasses her gender discrimination claims for compensation and promotion.
Carlson completed her charge of discrimination in June 2001. The face of Carlson’s EEOC charge form states: “CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check the appropriate box(es ))” and then provides nine boxes, “RACE, COLOR, SEX, RELIGION, AGE, RETALIATION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, DISABILITY, OTHER (specify ).” Carlson checked the “SEX” and “RETALIATION” boxes. In the particulars, she stated: “I really believe the hostile work environment is a symptom of sex discrimination throughout the company (e.g., number of females in management, pay disparity, double standards, enforcement of company policy, company benefits-ask about company advancement motto). See other charges of record.” On page two of her EEOC intake form, Carlson also checked that the line corresponding to “refused promotion.”
An investigation by the EEOC ensued. As part of the investigation, the EEOC solicited from CHR a reply to Carlson’s charge. In response, CHR submitted a multi-part letter denying any wrongdoing. By letter dated August 30, 2001, Counsel for Carlson responded to CHR’s letter as follows:
Sexual Discrimination Charge: CHR’s attorney does not even address the sexual discrimination claim made and documented by Ms. Carlson. CHR’s own records and statistics confirm that discrimination exists at CHR.... The sexually hostile work environment is a symptom of CHR’s sexual discrimination against women and minorities. A review of the floppy disks and titles that the employees of CHR exchanged demonstrate an attitude of degradation of both women and minorities.... The employees [listed in an attached exhibit] will confirm sexual discrimination. A simple pay analysis will further confirm that sexual discrimination permeates CHR.
(Emphasis in original). In March 2002, before the EEOC investigation concluded, Carlson withdrew her charge to pursue her claims in federal court.
The record reveals that Carlson marked sex discrimination and mentioned pay disparities in the particulars of her EEOC charge, and that she marked “refused promotion” on her intake questionnaire. Moreover, her counsel’s subsequent letter to the EEOC raised the issue of gender discrimination related to compensation. Although none of these documents is artfully crafted, an investigation into gender discrimination based on compensation and promotion reasonably could have been expected to result from Carlson’s initial charge of discrimination. See Stuart, 217 F.3d at 630-31. The Court therefore concludes that Carlson exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to her compensation and promotion claims. Accordingly, the Court denies CHR’s motion for summary judgment as to this issue.
D. Constructive discharge *47 CHR also moves for summary judgment on the constructive discharge claims of Debra Kinniry, Sandra Nelson, Andrea Prout, Jennifer Smyrl and Jessica Vetter. In response, Plaintiffs assert that “none of the plaintiffs has asserted a separate count (or claim for relief) based on constructive discharge.” Pls.’ Comb. Mem. Opp’n at 1 n. 2. Given Plaintiffs’ concession, the Court grants CHR’s motions.
32

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. CHR’s motions for partial summary judgment [Docket Nos. 501, 505, 509, 513, 517, 521, 525, 529, and 537] are GRANTED.
2. CHR’s motion for partial summary judgment [Docket No. 533] is DENIED.
3. CHR’s motion for partial summary judgment [Docket No. 541] is GRANTED as to Carlson’s sexual harassment claim, and DENIED as to Carlson’s compensation and promotion claims.
4. CHR’s motion for partial summary judgment [Docket No. 545] is GRANTED as to Smyrl’s constructive discharge claim, and DENIED as to Smyrl’s sexual harassment claim.
5. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [Docket No. 573] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
6. The Court certifies the following two classes for purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief:
A. All females employed on a full-time salaried basis at any domestic CHR branch office at any time since August 17, 2000, who have been or may be subjected to CHR’s challenged compensation policies and practices.
B. All females employed at any domestic CHR branch office at any time since August 17, 2000, who have more than two years’ experience in a sales and/or operations position and who have been or may be subjected to CHR’s challenged promotion policies and practices.
7. Plaintiffs’ motion to file excess pages [Docket No. 612] is GRANTED.
8. Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment [Docket No. 617] is DENIED AS MOOT.
9. CHR’s motion to exclude the testimony of Victoria Fuehrer [Docket No. 670] is GRANTED.
10. The parties’ supplemental briefs on the issue of notice shall be received no later than 14 days from the date of this Order. The briefs shall be no longer than 10 pages in length and shall be limited in scope to the issue of notice. There shall be no reply briefs.

Footnotes

1

Plaintiffs’ claims under the Federal Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (2000) (FLSA), are being pursued in a concurrent

litigation.

2

Thousands of pages of documents have been filed by the parties in connection with the motions in this case. The Court has been

vexed to discover that it could not always rely on counsel’s statements with respect to the record. This has added substantially-and

unnecessarily-to the time required to decide the motions. See Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Baltes, 15 F.3d 660, 662-63 (7th

Cir.1994) (observing that judges are not archaeologists sifting through masses of papers in search of revealing tidbits; that burden

is on the parties, and judges have limited resources).

3

Since the onset of this litigation, CHR has expanded from 100 to at least 134 branches.

4

Although no longer available, at times during the liability period at issue CHR had a company-car program for sales employees.

Sales employees were eligible for the program after 18 months of employment. The cash value to recipients was approximately

$5700 per year and as the program was phased out, the recipients received cash instead.

5

Employees are encouraged, but not required, to make annual marketing plans that use SMART goals. (SMART stands for

“Specific, Measurable, Action Oriented, Result Oriented, and Time Based.”) Performance reports showing the loads booked and

margins achieved for branches and individual employees are posted on-line so that employees may track their progress in

achieving their goals.

33

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

6

Allocation of stock options operates under a similar procedure to the compensation review, with three exceptions. First, the process

takes place months after the compensation review. Second, input from the operational vice presidents is considered and they have

authority to add names. Third, stock option grants require approval by the board of directors before distribution.

7

To establish liability based on a pattern or practice of disparate treatment, Plaintiffs must ultimately demonstrate that intentional

discrimination was CHR’s “standard operating procedure the regular rather than the unusual practice.” Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v.

United States, 431 U.S. 324, 336, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977). Disparate treatment occurs where “[t]he employer simply

treats some people less favorably than others because of their race, color religion, sex or national origin. Proof of discriminatory

motive is critical, although it can in some situations be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment.” Id. at 335 n. 15.

Statistical evidence is one of the most common methods of proof for a disparate treatment claim. Craik v. Minn. State Univ. Bd.,

731 F.2d 465, 470 (8th Cir.1984). However, statistics alone are not dispositive. Catlett v. Miss. Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 828

F.2d 1260, 1265 (8th Cir.1987).

Plaintiffs’ claims of disparate impact “involve employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different

groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.” Teamsters,

431 U.S. at 335 n. 15. “Under a disparate-impact theory of discrimination, ‘a facially neutral employment practice may be

deemed illegally discriminatory without evidence of the employer’s subjective intent to discriminate that is required in a

disparate-treatment case.” ’ Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 53, 124 S.Ct. 513, 157 L.Ed.2d 357 (2003) (quoting Wards

Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 645-46, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989), superceded on other grounds, Civil

Rights Act of 1991 § 105, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k) (2000)); see also Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 335 n. 15 (noting that proof of

discriminatory motive is not required under a disparate impact theory).

8

Class actions alleging a hostile environment are of a relatively recent vintage. See Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 824 F.Supp.

847, 875 (D.Minn.1993) (noting that it was the first class action alleging hostile environment based on sexual harassment to make

it to a liability determination). A notable difference between hostile environment and other disparate treatment claims is that hostile

environments and sexual harassment are not susceptible to statistical analyses and therefore, while plaintiffs’ ultimate burden

remains the same, plaintiffs generally must rely on anecdotal evidence and non-statistical experts.

9

The Eighth Circuit described multiple regression analysis as follows:

Statistical significance is a measure of the probability that an observed disparity is not due to chance. A finding that that a

disparity is statistically significant at the .05 or .01 level means that there is a 5 per cent or 1 percent probability, respectively

that the disparity is due to chance. Baldus & Cole, Statistical Proof of Discrimination § 9.02, at 290 (1980). Normally, courts

and social scientists, when confronted with such low probabilities, conclude that something other than chance is causing the

disparity. The courts must decide whether that something is illegal discrimination or some other, nondiscriminatory influence.

The Supreme Court recognized a variation of this principle when it noted that “[a]s a general rule ..., if the difference between

the expected value and the observed number is greater than two or three standard deviations,” the disparity is not due to

chance. Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 496-97, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977). For large samples, this test “is

essentially equivalent to a rule requiring significance at a level in the range below 0.05 or 0.01.” Baldus & Cole, supra, §

9.03, at 297.

Craik, 731 F.2d at 475 n. 13.

10

CHR also argues that the record does not support Plaintiffs’ claims of CHR’s centralized policy of discrimination, and specifically

the allegations regarding Mulvehill and Butzow. These arguments, however, address the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims and therefore

the Court will not consider them at this time. See Eisen, 417 U.S. at 178.

11

Having decided that only a Rule 23(b)(2) class is appropriate at this time, the Court will not address Plaintiffs’ alternative request

that the Court certify a hybrid Rule 23(b)(2)/ 23(b)(3) class.

12

The Court sets the following schedule. The parties shall simultaneously submit briefs on the issue no later than 14 days from the

date of this Order. The briefs shall be no longer than 10 pages in length and shall be limited in scope to the issue of notice. There

shall be no reply briefs.

13

For each Plaintiff, CHR moves on some combination of these three elements. Accordingly, the Court assumes for the purposes of

these motions that each Plaintiff has established the first and second elements.

14

In cases where the harasser is a supervisor, “[a]n employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an

actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee.”

Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807. “When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense

to liability or damages.” Id. The affirmative defense is comprised of two elements: “(a) that the employer exercised reasonable care

to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take

advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Id.

15

CHR also argues that other plaintiff-specific conduct is not based on sex. The Court considers those arguments as they arise in

relationship to each Plaintiff.

34

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

16

Perkey testified that Carlson was showing her how, despite CHR’s firewall software to block out pornographic websites and spam,

Carlson could still receive or access pornography. (Perkey Tr. at 182-84.)

17

Any claims Porter may have regarding race discrimination are not before the Court.

18

Porter specifically recalls two explicit images, but cannot remember which image she viewed in which branch-either Chicago

North or Los Angeles. She describes one image depicting the Flintstones cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts, and another

image showing a man trying to penetrate an elephant.

19

The Court need not decide here the issue of CHR’s liability, if any, with respect to carriers who are not CHR employees. The Court

assumes, for purposes of this motion only, that Porter’s allegations regarding her carriers’ comments contribute to her claims of

harassing conduct.

20

EAP is a confidential service that is not coordinated with the toll-free hotline used to report violations of CHR policies.

21

Both Perkey and Carlson remarked on the same card, but remember slightly different versions of what it said. The Court describes

it for each as they recall it.

22

Carlson’s retaliation claim is not part of the litigation currently before the Court.

35

 
 Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 2671105 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Minnesota.
Gwen CARLSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., Defendant. No. CIV 02-3780 JNE/JJG. | Sept. 18, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms Cynthia J. Totten, Michael D. Lieder, Steven M. Sprenger, Sprenger & Lang, Washington, DC, Phillip J. Trobaugh, Seymour J. Mansfield, Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, PA, Susan M. Coler, Mara R. Thompson, Sprenger & Lang PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs. B. Todd Jones, Janet C. Evans, Kari Thoe Crone, Stacey P. Slaughter, Thomas B. Hatch, Thomas J. Undlin, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Minneapolis, MN, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, IL, Lisa L. Heller, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants. Opinion
ORDER
ERICKSEN, J. *1 Having considered the parties’ filings concerning the proposed settlement, and the filings of any other persons, including any members of the two classes who chose to comment on the proposed settlement, and having conducted a fairness hearing on September 18, 2006, at which persons with comments were invited to voice their opinions about the proposed settlement, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
BACKGROUND 1. Defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (C.H.Robinson) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
2. The named Plaintiffs are a group of 12 women (Named Plaintiffs). They are current or former employees of C.H. Robinson and each works or worked in its domestic branch network.
3. On June 13, 2001, Plaintiff Gwen Carlson filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against C.H. Robinson asserting sex discrimination claims with respect to the work environment, compensation, and promotions. Subsequently, the other named Plaintiffs filed similar charges of discrimination. All named Plaintiffs received “right to sue” letters from the EEOC.
4. On October 2, 2002, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint initiating this action. In their Complaint, as later amended, Plaintiffs asserted, among other things, individual and class claims of sex discrimination based on their respective charges of discrimination.
1

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
5. On February 27, 2003, the Court entered a Stipulated Order granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their Second Amended Complaint adding two additional named plaintiffs.
6. On June 17, 2003, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the sex discrimination claims of named Plaintiffs Marti Justet and Stacey Hottois based on their failure to timely file charges of discrimination.
7. On March 5, 2003, the parties commenced discovery. During the course of the litigation, the parties undertook substantial discovery. They served and responded to interrogatories; produced and reviewed more than 100,000 pages of paper documents and thousands of e-mails; consulted with a host of expert witnesses who prepared reports, including statisticians/labor economists, who analyzed C.H. Robinson’s computer-readable employment data; took or defended more than 100 depositions; and, assembled voluminous anecdotal information from witnesses that was exchanged in the form of sworn declarations. The discovery period closed on March 19, 2004.
8. On May 28, 2004, Plaintiffs filed their motion to maintain their Title VII sex discrimination claims as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. C.H. Robinson opposed Plaintiffs’ motion. On March 31, 2005, the Court issued an Order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion to maintain their Title VII sex discrimination claims as a class action. The Court denied the motion with respect to the hostile work environment claims, and granted the motion with respect to the compensation and branch manager promotion claims. In addition, the Court severed the issues of liability and declaratory or injunctive relief from Plaintiffs’ requests for monetary damages and certified only the issue of liability and request for declaratory or injunctive relief as a Rule 23(b)(2) class action. The Court appointed Sprenger & Lang, PLLC to serve as class counsel. The Court certified separate classes for purposes of the two certified claims, defined as follows: *2 • All females employed on a full-time salaried basis at any domestic C.H. Robinson branch office at any time since August 17, 2000, who have been or may be subjected to C.H. Robinson’s challenged compensation policies and practices (Compensation Class); and
• All females employed at any domestic C.H. Robinson branch office at any time since August 17, 2000, who have more than two years experience in a sales and/or operations position and who have been or may be subjected to C.H. Robinson’s challenged promotions polices and practices (Promotions Class).
9. In the same Order, the Court granted ten of C.H. Robinson’s motions for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ individual hostile work environment claims and denied two of C.H. Robinson’s motions for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ individual hostile work environment claims.
10. A class liability trial on the certified pay and promotion claims (Class Claims) was scheduled to begin on April 11, 2006.
11. On April 4, 2006, the Court held a final pretrial conference and issued rulings on the numerous evidentiary motions and the general conduct of trial.
12. On April 10, 2006, class counsel and counsel for C.H. Robinson agreed on a class action settlement in principle with the assistance of John Borg, who was appointed by the Court as a Special Master to serve as a mediator in this case. On April 11, 2006, class counsel and counsel for C.H. Robinson advised the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle with respect to the Class Claims and the individual discrimination claims of the Plaintiffs (Counts I, II, and IV of the Second Amended Complaint), excluding all Fair Labor Standards Act claims (Count III of the Second Amended Complaint).
13. At the parties’ request, the Court continued the class liability trial pending final approval of the proposed settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e).
14. On June 9, 2006, the parties filed their joint motion for preliminary approval of a Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree containing the terms of their settlement, respective supporting memoranda as well as a host of related exhibits.
15. On June 12, 2006, the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree (Consent Decree). The Order provided for, among other things, notice of the proposed settlement to be given to class members. The Court approved the notice and claim form as meeting the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 to inform class members of the terms of the settlement and of the steps class members needed to take to file claims and to object to or exclude themselves from the settlement. The Court also approved a two-pronged plan for providing notice to class members,
2

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
involving the direct mailing of notice and the posting of notice on a website maintained by class counsel.
PROVISION OF NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS 16. Shortly after June 12, 2006, class counsel posted the Court’s Order as well as the notice and claim form on its case web site, www . chrwgendercase.com.
*3 17. On June 22, 2006, C.H. Robinson provided class counsel with two class lists entitled Compensation Class and Promotion Class. Each list contained the names and last known addresses of class members as determined from C.H. Robinson payroll records.
18. On June 29 and 30, 2006, class counsel mailed the notice and claim form to 1,836 individuals. Included amongst these 1,836 individuals are those whose names appeared on either class list provided by C.H. Robinson in June 2006 as well as 56 additional individuals whose names appeared on previous class lists provided by C.H. Robinson in June 2005.
19. The U.S. Postal Service returned approximately 183 notice packages to class counsel as “undeliverable.” Using Smartlinx®, a Lexis Nexis0 electronic database product, class counsel used its best efforts to locate current addresses for the individuals whose notices were returned and resend the notices and claim forms. When class counsel was unable to obtain a current address using Smartlinx®, it requested C.H. Robinson to independently investigate and provide an updated address. Upon receiving updated addresses from C.H. Robinson, class counsel resent the notice and claim form.
20. As of the September 5, 2006, class counsel has received 231 claim forms, 22 valid and timely requests for exclusion, one untimely and invalid request for exclusion and no objections or comments to the parties’ proposed class settlement.
21. The actions of class counsel and C.H. Robinson to inform class members of the settlement conform to their obligations under the June 12, 2006, Order and are sufficient to advise class members of the settlement to the extent reasonably practicable.
EVALUATION OF THE SETTLEMENT 22. The settlement was reached through arms-length negotiations facilitated by a court-appointed Special Master.
23. The programmatic relief provided by the settlement addresses the significant issues raised in the Complaint. Among other things, C.H. Robinson must: (1) appoint an EEO Director and two EEO specialists; (2) implement documented annual performance evaluations for all salaried employees; (3) discontinue its use of the “Stein” tests and inventories; (4) post all openings for branch managers at new branches; (5) implement a women’s peer networking circle; (6) implement a voluntary mentoring program for female sales and operations employees with the goal of developing more female employees for management positions; (7) conduct annual employee surveys; (8) adopt client entertainment guidelines prohibiting client entertainment at inappropriate venues; and (9) report on its implementation of the programmatic relief and consider feedback from class counsel and an independent class monitor.
24. The allocated portions of the $15,000,000.00 monetary fund created pursuant to the settlement will adequately compensate class members for any claimed losses.
25. Each class faced at least three substantial risks in this case in addition to the risks, expenses, and delay normally associated with employment discrimination class actions. First, if Plaintiffs’ statistical analyses were rejected, the classes would be almost certain to lose and, thus, not obtain the advantage of burden-shifting under Teamsters at any subsequent individual remedial mini-trials. Second, the Court had not yet been persuaded that either economic damages or punitive damages could be determined or awarded on a class-wide basis. And finally, economic damages, whether awarded on a class-wide or other basis, may have been greatly reduced if Plaintiffs were unable to establish a continuing violation and, thus, extend the back pay liability period.
*4 26. Regardless of the outcome of the class liability trial, litigation would have continued to be protracted and expensive, especially if an appeal were taken and a large number of individual damages hearings went forward.
27. At the time the settlement was reached, both parties were fully prepared to try the Class Claims to a jury. Class counsel 3

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
was well positioned to evaluate benefits of settlement against the risks of continuing litigation. The settlement was reached on the eve of trial, at which time class counsel had: reviewed the numerous documents produced by C.H. Robinson during the course of the litigation and was thoroughly familiar with those the parties intended to offer at trial; analyzed C.H. Robinson’s employment data regarding compensation and promotions; prepared its witnesses for trial; and deposed C.H. Robinson’s key management personnel and experts who were scheduled to testify at trial.
28. The Court’s Order required that all claim forms to participate in the settlement’s monetary relief provision as well as opt-outs from and objections to the settlement from class members be postmarked by August 25, 2006.
29. As of September 5, 2006, class counsel had received 231 claim forms, no objections to or comments about the settlement and 22 timely and valid opt-outs, as well as one untimely and invalid opt-out, from the settlement. Only one of the 22 timely and valid opt-outs offered any reason for why she desired to opt out-because she didn’t feel she was a victim of discrimination. The lack of objections, the relatively small number of opt-outs and the number of claimants show strong support for the settlement from class members.
30. Class counsel has extensive experience in prosecuting employment discrimination class actions. Class counsel and the class representatives believe that this settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
31. Both the programmatic and monetary benefits of the settlement will be shared by Named Plaintiffs and class members. Named Plaintiffs will be treated the same as other class members with respect to the settlement of the Class Claims. To the extent that they are entitled to receive additional settlement monies outside of the class claims process, they are required to give additional consideration-that is, a broader release of claims than the release to be signed by other class members, including the relinquishment of their individual appellate rights, and, in three instances, the voluntary termination of their employment with C.H. Robinson.
32. The changes in policies and practices mandated by the programmatic relief provisions of the Consent Decree will be equally available to Named Plaintiffs and all members of the two classes. The Consent Decree does not contain any injunctive provisions, such as job promotions, specifically benefiting any of the Named Plaintiffs. The programmatic relief provisions are designed to enhance C.H. Robinson’s human resources policies to further equal employment opportunities for its employees. The Consent Decree does not provide for any class-wide preferential treatment via quotas or for the displacement of any incumbent from a job.
*5 33. The Consent Decree provides that the Class Claims Portions of the Fund will be allocated to members of the classes who timely file claim forms based on a formula to be developed by class counsel and approved by the Court that awards points for different factors contributing to the strength and dollar value of their individual claims. The details of the formula, as well as the specific awards, must be submitted to the Court for approval before any disbursements are made.
34. The Consent Decree establishes a Legal & Administrative Expense Portion from which class counsel seeks an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $5,325,000, and cost reimbursement in the amount of $1,602,216, plus allocable interest, to cover all fees and expenses already incurred and to be incurred in the future. The Legal & Administrative Expense Portion also provides for a set aside of $65,000 for the Settlement Administrators to pay fees, costs and expenses to the Settlement Monitor and/or Settlement Claims Service.
35. Class counsel expended almost 30,000 hours investigating and prosecuting the Title VII sex discrimination claims over a four-year period.
36. Class counsel achieved substantial monetary relief and substantial programmatic relief.
37. Class counsel took substantial risks in accepting the matter on a straight contingency basis. Most significantly, class counsel faced the risk of expending millions of dollars of time and advancing litigation costs without any recovery.
38. In addition, the case presented a number of difficult and novel legal questions including, but not limited to, the propriety of class certification of employment discrimination claims against a company with highly decentralized business operations. Class counsel received no assistance from the EEOC.
39. Class counsel demonstrated considerable skill and determination throughout this litigation, and was fully prepared to try the case if a fair and reasonable settlement could not be reached.
4

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
40. Class counsel’s acceptance of this case prohibited it from taking on other litigation matters.
41. The case was not likely viewed as desirable by the vast majority of attorneys in this District. The case was referred to class counsel with only a few days remaining before the expiration of Plaintiff Gwen Carlson’s notice of right to sue.
42. Class counsel has advanced case costs of at least $1,602,216.00 in connection with investigating, prosecuting and settling the Title VII claims in this action. These expenses for court and witness fees, court reporters, travel and lodging, experts and consultants, long distance phone calls, and numerous other costs ordinarily paid for by clients were reasonably necessary to prosecute successfully the Title VII claims.
43. Third-party expenses associated with administering the claims process, complying with tax reporting obligations for the settlement fund and issuing award checks are separately provided for in the Consent Decree.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
JURISDICTION AND VENUE *6 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 1367.
2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because C.H. Robinson maintains its principal place of business in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, which lies within the District of Minnesota.
NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS 3. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(1)(B), the Court is required to direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by a proposed settlement. The form and method of notice must be adequate to inform the class members of the terms of the settlement, and provide them with an opportunity to object to the proposed settlement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(4)(A).
4. The form and method of notice were adequate in this case to inform the class members of the terms of the settlement and to advise them of their rights to opt out or object.
EVALUATION OF THE SETTLEMENT 5. Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires judicial approval of class action settlements. A court may approve a settlement after finding that the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(1)(C); see, e.g., Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604, 606 (8th Cir.1988); In re Flight Transp. Corp. Sec. Litig., 730 F.2d 1128, 1135 (8th Cir.1984).
6. In determining whether a proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, a district court must consider four factors: (1) the merits of the plaintiff’s case, weighed against the settlement terms; (2) the defendant’s financial condition; (3) the complexity and expense of further litigation; and (4) the amount of opposition to the settlement. In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 369 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir.2005); Van Horn, 840 F.2d at 607. As set forth below, the Court concludes that each of these factors favors a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
7. The settlement provides substantial monetary and programmatic relief to the classes which justify the settlement in view of the substantial risks that the classes would not have prevailed at the class liability trial, would not have been further certified for purposes of monetary relief, or the damages recovered would have been substantially less than those sought.
8. Even if the classes prevailed at the class liability trial, class members likely would not obtain any individual monetary relief without several more years of litigation, including a likely appeal involving novel issues of law and numerous Teamsters mini-trials. Litigation expenses would continue to increase as a result of continued litigation.
5

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
9. At the time the parties reached the settlement, discovery was fully completed, and the parties were set to commence a five week jury trial.
10. Because they are experienced litigators, the Court gives substantial weight to class counsel’s view that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. See Isby v. Bayh, 75 F.3d 1191, 1200 (7th Cir.1996).
*7 11. The lack of objections, the small number of opt-outs, and the substantial number of claims filed reflects strong approval for the settlement. Due to the lack of objections, the parties do not expect appeals to be taken from any order finally approving the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree.
12. The class claims portion of the monetary relief to the members of the classes will be distributed pursuant to formulas to be proposed by class counsel and approved by the Court. An allocation plan such as the one at issue here that is subject to close scrutiny at every stage is fair and reasonable even though the precise details are not yet determined. See In re “Agent Orange” Prod. Liab. Litig., 818 F.2d 145, 170 (2d Cir.1987); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 643 F.2d 195, 224 (5th Cir.1981).
13. The settlement fairly and reasonably allocates the relief obtained from C.H. Robinson among the Named Plaintiffs and class members.
14. The award of attorney’s fees in a class action settlement is committed to the discretion of the district court. Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140, 1157 (8th Cir.1999). The district court may calculate the fees by multiplying the hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate and adjusting the product. Johnston v. Comerica Mortgage Corp., 83 F.3d 241, 244 (8th Cir.1996). The district court also has the discretion to calculate the fees by awarding a fraction of the common fund obtained by the attorneys. Petrovic, 200 F.3d at 1157; Johnston, 83 F.3d at 244-45. Here, the Court elects to calculate the fees by awarding a percentage of the common fund. The Eighth Circuit has not set forth factors that a district court should consider to determine an appropriate percentage. In re Xcel Energy, Inc., Sec., Derivative & “ERISA” Litig., 364 F.Supp.2d 980, 992 (D.Minn.2005). In a non-exhaustive list, the Third Circuit has identified several factors: (1) the size of the fund created and the number of persons benefited; (2) whether class members raised substantial objection to the settlement terms or fees requested; (3) the skill and efficiency of the attorneys; (4) the complexity and duration of the litigation; (5) the risk of nonpayment; (6) the amount of time devoted to the case by plaintiff’s counsel; (7) awards in similar cases; (8) the value of benefits accruing to class members attributable to the efforts of class counsel as opposed to other groups, such as government agencies; (9) the percentage fee that would have been negotiated had the case been subject to a private contingent fee agreement when counsel was retained; and (10) any innovative terms of the settlement. In re AT & T Corp., 455 F.3d 160, 165-66 (3d Cir.2006).
15. Several of the factors identified by the Third Circuit are useful in this case. As noted above, the settlement creates a $15,000,000.00 fund. Of more than 1,800 people who received notice, more than 200 submitted claim forms. Twenty-two people timely opted-out. No objections to the settlement or class counsel’s fee request have been made.
*8 16. In the course of the litigation, class counsel demonstrated considerable skill and determination. Class counsel was fully prepared to try the case if a fair and reasonable settlement could not be reached. Class counsel devoted more than 30,000 hours over four years to the gender discrimination claims. Class counsel did not receive assistance from the EEOC.
17. In addition to monetary relief, the settlement provides for substantial programmatic relief.
18. Courts in this circuit have awarded attorney fees ranging from 25% to 36% of a common fund. In re Xcel, 364 F.Supp.2d at 998 (summarizing cases). The Eighth Circuit affirmed an award to class counsel of 36% of a settlement fund where class counsel “obtained significant monetary relief on behalf of the class.” In re U.S. Bancorp Litig., 291 F.3d 1035, 1038 (8th Cir.2002). In this case, the requested fee-$5,325,000-amounts to 35.5% of the settlement fund. The Court regards the settlement fund as significant monetary relief. Accordingly, the requested fee is within the range established by other cases.
19. Based on these factors, the Court concludes that the fee requested by class counsel is reasonable and appropriate.
20. Class counsel’s request for reimbursement of $1,602,216 in case costs is reasonable. These costs were reasonably necessary to prosecute the Title VII claims.
21. For all of these reasons, the Court holds that the settlement as reflected in the Consent Decree is fair, reasonable and adequate, is consistent with all applicable precedent, and should be approved.
6

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
ORDER Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree [Docket No. 1045] is GRANTED. 2. Class counsel’s motion for an award of attorney fees and reimbursement of case costs [Docket No. 1044] is GRANTED. 3. Class counsel is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $5,325,000 and cost reimbursement in the amount of $1,602,216, plus allocable interest as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree. 4. The Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree [Docket No. 1019] is APPROVED, and shall become effective when either the time for appeal has run without an appeal being filed or any appeal (including any requests for rehearing or rehearing en banc, petitions for certiorari or appellate review) has been finally resolved. 5. The persons identified as numbers 1 through 22 on Exhibit A hereto have excluded themselves from the monetary relief provisions in the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree. They shall not be eligible for any awards from the Settlement Fund. The individual identified as number 23 on Exhibit A hereto has not submitted a valid or timely request for exclusion and is subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree. Exhibit A shall be filed under seal to protect the confidentiality of the specific information regarding each individual class member who requested exclusion. *9 6. Counts I, II, and IV of the Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 1056] are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, except that the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction limited to enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree. Nothing herein shall affect the overtime pay claims set forth in Count III of the Second Amended Complaint.
7

 
 Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 2830015 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Minnesota.
Gwen D. CARLSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., Defendant. Trever Johnson, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Defendant.
Civ. Nos. 02-3780 (JNE/JJG), 02-4261 (JNE/JJG). | Sept. 26, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Michael Lieder, Esq., and Steven Sprenger, Esq., Sprenger & Lang PLLC, appeared for Plaintiffs Gwen Carlson, et al.
Seymour Mansfield, Esq., and Charles Horowitz, Esq., Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, PA, appeared for Plaintiffs Trever Johnson, et al.
Janet Evans, Esq., and Thomas Hatch, Esq., Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., appeared for Defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
Opinion
ORDER
JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge.
*1 In consolidated actions, past and present employees of C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHR), assert on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated that CHR owes them overtime pay because CHR allegedly misclassified them as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (2000). On May 20, 2003, the Court conditionally certified both cases-Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Civ. No. 02-3780, and Johnson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Civ. No. 02-4261-to proceed as collective actions. CHR now moves to decertify the putative collective actions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants CHR’s motion.
I. BACKGROUND
CHR is a transportations logistics company with more than 100 branches located in more than forty states. It divides its business into six “lines”: Produce (buys, sells, and transports produce-includes Corporate Procurement Distribution Services (CPDS) which specializes in large national customers’ inventory and logistics of their businesses); Transportation (general trucking services); ROSS (transportation and management of time sensitive printed materials); Intermodal (transportation by rail); International Sales (transportation by ocean freight, air freight, rail freight, trucking, and rail); and T-Chek (a wholly owned subsidiary that operates credit services for drivers).
CHR’s basic business structure grants a large amount of autonomy to each branch. Each branch operates based on its formulation of “profit centers.” A profit center is an individual group that accounts for its own profits and losses. A branch may incorporate several profit centers, each distinguished by its line, or a branch may operate as one profit center that services several lines. Typically, if a branch contains more than one profit center, each profit center has its own manager, and the branch has an overall manager.
1

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
CHR salaried employees are generally categorized as sales, operations, or support. Salaried employees have individualized compensation packages that are reviewed annually and are comprised of four elements: base salary, contractual bonus, growth pool bonus, and stock option grants. The annual compensation review process begins with a meeting between the branch manager and the employee to review and amend each employee’s compensation package and contract. This typically includes reviewing the employee’s past performance and discussing the employee’s future goals.
After developing the compensation packages, the branch manager submits them to a CHR compensation manager for review. At that point, the CHR compensation manager and the branch manger discuss and review each employee’s compensation package. In a meeting that may last several hours depending on how many employees are in the branch, the branch manager describes the choices and decisions he has made with regard to compensation. At least five minutes are spent discussing each employee.
Branch managers are responsible for determining whether an employee is paid on a salaried or hourly basis and whether employees are classified as exempt under the FLSA. These decisions are made at an employee’s initial hiring, as well as on-going reassessments when employees are promoted or transfer positions. An employee’s exemption status may be adjusted as a result of the compensation review process. Branch managers are also responsible for setting their branch policy with regard to sick leave and employees’ hours.
*2 In early October 2002, Gwen Carlson and several other women (Carlson Plaintiffs) brought suit against CHR alleging that CHR had misclassified them as exempt under the FLSA. In early November 2002, Trever Johnson and several other men (Johnson Plaintiffs) filed similar claims against CHR. In February 2003, the Court denied the Carlson Plaintiffs and the Johnson Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion for Leave to Send Notices to Putative Classes. After revising the definition of the putative collective actions, the Carlson Plaintiffs and the Johnson Plaintiffs (collectively, Named Plaintiffs) again moved for leave to send notice to members of the putative collective actions. In May 2003, the Court granted the Named Plaintiffs’ motion. In Carlson, the Court approved a definition based on CHR’s categories for salaried employees:
All present and former female salaried employees of C.H. Robinson located in the United States who are/were employed in a sales, operations or support position in the transportation (including intermodal and international), produce, Ross Division, T-Chek or CPDS units, and who worked more than forty hours in any week without receiving overtime pay at any time between October 2, 1999 and the present.
The definition approved in Johnson was identical except that it applied to males and extended to November 7, 1999. More than 700 individuals (Opt-in Plaintiffs) consented to join the putative collective actions.
After extensive discovery, the parties filed motions for partial summary judgment. CHR filed motions directed toward Carlson and another Carlson Plaintiff, Tricia Porter. The Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs asserted that they were entitled to summary judgment on the issues of whether CHR misclassified them as exempt, whether CHR’s alleged violations of the FLSA were willful, and whether the alleged violations of the FLSA were made in good faith. In their motion for partial summary judgment, the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs divided themselves into four groups: (1) individuals who worked in sales and operations in the transportation logistics and sourcing branches; (2) support employees in those branches; (3) replenishment analysts in CPDS; and (4) individuals who worked in T-Chek. The Court granted CHR’s motion as to Carlson and denied its motion as to Porter. The Court also denied the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. Several months later, CHR moved to decertify the putative collective actions.
II. DISCUSSION
The FLSA requires employers to pay employees overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). Similarly situated employees may bring collective actions against employers to recover unpaid overtime compensation:
Any employer who violates [29 U.S.C. § 207] shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.... An action to recover [such] liability ...
2

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
may be maintained against any employer ... by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.
*3 Id. § 216(b). To determine whether plaintiffs are similarly situated, a district court typically employs a two-stage analysis:
The first determination is made at the so-called “notice stage.” At the notice stage, the district court makes a decision-usually based only on the pleadings and any affidavits which have been submitted-whether notice of the action should be given to potential class members.
Because the court has minimal evidence, this determination is made using a fairly lenient standard, and typically results in “conditional certification” of a representative class. If the district court “conditionally certifies” the class, putative class members are given notice and the opportunity to “opt-in.” The action proceeds as a representative action throughout discovery.
The second determination is typically precipitated by a motion for “decertification” by the defendant usually filed after discovery is largely complete and the matter is ready for trial. At this stage, the court has much more information on which to base its decision, and makes a factual determination on the similarly situated question. If the claimants are similarly situated, the district court allows the representative action to proceed to trial. If the claimants are not similarly situated, the district court decertifies the class, and the opt-in plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. The class representatives-i.e. the original plaintiffs-proceed to trial on their individual claims.
Mooney v. Aramco Servs., Inc., 54 F.3d 1207, 1213-14 (5th Cir.1995) (footnote omitted), overruled on other grounds by Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003); see Comer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544, 546-47 (6th Cir.2006); Cameron-Grant v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., Inc., 347 F.3d 1240, 1243 n. 2 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam); Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1102-03 (10th Cir.2001). At the second stage, the district court conducts a fact-intensive inquiry of several factors, including: (1) the extent and consequence of disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to defendant which appear to be individual to each plaintiff; and (3) fairness and procedural considerations. See Thiessen, 267 F.3d at 1102-03. Employees bear the burden of demonstrating that they are similarly situated. Hipp v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208, 1217 (11th Cir.2001). The decision to certify or decertify a collective action under section 216(b) is within the district court’s discretion. See Thiessen, 267 F.3d at 1102; Mooney, 54 F.3d at 1213.
CHR asserts that decertification is appropriate. It maintains that the dominant issue at trial will be whether CHR properly classified employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions. CHR relies primarily on the administrative exemption. See 29 U .S.C. § 213(a)(1). “This exemption is an affirmative defense on which an employer has the burden of proof.” Fife v. Harmon, 171 F.3d 1173, 1174 (8th Cir.1999). Under the applicable regulations, CHR will have to prove three facts to establish that the administrative exemption applies to an employee: (1) the employee was paid on a salary basis of at least $250 per week; (2) the employee’s primary duty consisted of office or non-manual work directly related to management policies or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and (3) the employee’s performance of such primary duty included work requiring the exercise of discretion and independent judgment. See McAllister v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co., 325 F.3d 997, 1000 (8th Cir.2003); 29 C.F.R. § 541.214(a) (2004).1
*4 An employee is paid on a salary basis if he receives a predetermined amount of compensation each pay period that is not subject to reduction because of the “quality or quantity of work performed.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a); see Guerrero v. J.W. Hutton, Inc., 458 F.3d 830, 835 (8th Cir.2006). If the employee absents himself from work for a day or more for personal reasons, other than sickness or accident, deductions may be made without affecting the employee’s salaried status. 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a)(2); see Guerrero, 458 F.3d at 835. “Deductions may also be made for absences of a day or more occasioned by sickness or disability ... if the deduction is made in accordance with a bona fide plan, policy or practice of providing compensation for loss of salary occasioned by both sickness and disability.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a)(3).
Identification of administrative work is not a straightforward exercise. See Bothell v. Phase Metrics, Inc., 299 F.3d 1120, 1126 (9th Cir.2002) (discussing regulations that attempt to “clarify the elusive meaning of ‘administration’ ”). In general, administrative work may be distinguished from the “production” work of a company. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.205(a). More specifically, “[t]he administrative operations of the business include the work performed by so-called white-collar employees engaged in ‘servicing’ a business as, for, example, advising the management, planning, negotiating, representing the company, purchasing, promoting sales, and business research and control. ‘Servicing’ denotes employment activity ancillary
3

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
to an employer’s principal production activity.” Id. § 541.205(b); see Haywood v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 121 F.3d 1066, 1072 (7th Cir.1997); Martin v. Cooper Elec. Supply Co., 940 F.2d 896, 904-05 (3d Cir.1991). These activities are considered exempt whether they service the business of the employer or of the employer’s customers. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.205(d) (“ ‘Management policies or general business operations’ may be those of the employer or the employer’s customers.”).
In assessing an employee’s “primary duty,” the amount of time spent performing administrative activities is relevant but not dispositive. Spinden v. GS Roofing Prods. Co., 94 F.3d 421, 427 (8th Cir.1996); 29 C.F.R. § 541.206(b) (incorporating 29 C.F.R. § 541.103). Other appropriate factors include the “relative importance of the [administrative] duties as compared with other types of duties, the frequency with which the employee exercises discretionary powers, his relative freedom from supervision, and the relationship between his salary and the wages paid other employees for the kind of nonexempt work performed by the [administrator].” 29 C.F.R. § 541.103.
According to CHR, the duties performed by employees within the groups identified in the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment vary substantially. CHR also maintains that factual variations preclude collective adjudication of whether the Named Plaintiff and the Opt-in Plaintiffs are paid on a salary basis. Consequently, CHR argues, collective adjudication of their FLSA claims is not appropriate.
*5 The Named Plaintiffs and a subset of the Opt-in Plaintiffs respond to CHR’s motion. The Named Plaintiffs and the subset explain that approximately 130 Opt-in Plaintiffs “have withdrawn from the litigation, are not represented by counsel, are not encompassed in the collective action definition, or intend to proceed separately from the collective action.” The Named Plaintiffs and the subset explain the “unrepresented” Opt-in Plaintiffs’ exclusion on the ground that their counsel have no authority to represent the “unrepresented” Opt-in Plaintiffs.2 Although the Named Plaintiffs and the subset do not incorporate the “unrepresented” Opt-in Plaintiffs into the opposition to CHR’s motion, the Named Plaintiffs and the subset maintain that the “unrepresented” Opt-in Plaintiffs should be allowed “to proceed collectively.”
The Named Plaintiffs and the subset propose a three-stage trial covering five issues. In the first stage, the parties would contest two issues: (1) whether the duties of the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs fall within the administrative exemption; and (2) if not, whether CHR’s violation of the FLSA was willful or in good faith. The second stage would also encompass two issues: (1) whether CHR paid the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs who worked in certain branches on a salary basis; and (2) if not, whether CHR’s violation of the FLSA was willful or in good faith. Finally, the third stage would determine the number of hours worked by the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs in excess of forty per week.
The Named Plaintiffs and the subset contend that four groups are similarly situated with respect to the first two issues. The four groups are: (1) Transportation Sales Plaintiffs; (2) Produce Sales Plaintiffs; (3) Support Plaintiffs; and (4) Replenishment Analyst Plaintiffs. The Named Plaintiffs and the subset contend that employees within these groups perform similar duties. The Named Plaintiffs and the subset characterize eight groups of employees as similarly situated for the purposes of the second stage. The groups consist of employees at the following branches: (1) Chicago Central; (2) Detroit; (3) Minneapolis North; (4) Nashville; (5) New Orleans; (6) Portland; (7) Rochester; and (8) T-Chek.3 The Named Plaintiffs and the subset propose to try the third stage based on a representative sample.
The Named Plaintiffs and the subset, having allegedly formed groups of similarly situated employees, contend that the dominant issue at trial, whether the administrative exemption applies, can be adjudicated fairly and efficiently in a collective action. They contend that CHR’s defense based on the statute of limitations will become “a largely clerical matter” after the jury determines whether CHR willfully violated the FLSA. They also contend that individualized assessments of the number of hours worked by an employee will not be necessary because CHR will be able to contest the issue based on a representative sample or on a branch-by-branch basis. The Named Plaintiffs and the subset conclude by arguing that their claims can be tried efficiently only on a collective basis, that decertification would result in several hundred actions, and that decertification would be grossly unfair, inefficient, and costly.
A. Employment and factual settings *6 Having summarized the parties’ arguments, the Court turns to whether the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly situated. With regard to the employment and factual settings, a substantial number of the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs either did not attempt to demonstrate that they perform duties similar to those performed by other plaintiffs or conceded that their job duties differ from those of other plaintiffs. For example, the “unrepresented” Opt-in Plaintiffs comprise eighty individuals. No attempt to articulate their job duties has been made. In addition, most of the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs who worked in T-Chek acknowledged that their “duties were dissimilar to the duties” of other
4

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
plaintiffs. Accordingly, approximately 100 of the more than 700 Named Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs either have not articulated what they do or acknowledged significant differences in their duties. The Court turns to the remaining Named Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs.
1. Transportation Sales Plaintiffs The Transportation Sales Plaintiffs include approximately 500 individuals, the vast majority of the remaining Named Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs. The group describes itself as individuals “who worked in transportation logistics branches whom [CHR] classified as salaried sales employees and 61 [individuals] who worked in the transportation logistics branches whom [CHR] classified as operations or support employees.” The individuals worked in approximately 100 branches. Many characterize their work as including most or all of the following duties: (1) receive communication from a customer about the customer’s freight needs, typically on a load-by-load basis; (2) enter information about the load into CHR’s computers; (3) determine appropriate mode of transportation for the load; (4) contact carriers from CHR’s approved list and obtain a carrier’s commitment to provide transportation at a price; (5) inform the customer of CHR’s price; and (6) monitor the freight to its destination and assist the carrier with problems that arise.
Notwithstanding the general characterization of the duties of the Transportation Sales Plaintiffs, the record reveals that many individuals within the group performed duties other than or in addition to these six duties. For example, in her capacity as a domestic drayage coordinator, Gwen Carlson spent a significant portion of her time advising sales employees as to best methods for drayage logistics and recommending solutions for their drayage needs. She also analyzed carrier lanes, created performance metrics, and appraised warehouse facilities. Indeed, the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs now concede that Carlson had “unique duties.”
CHR also points to Robert Ainza to highlight distinctions in the duties performed by the Transportation Sales Plaintiffs. According to CHR, he spent at least 50% of his time acting as quality control manager at his branch. In response, the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs state that Ainza “no longer seeks to proceed collectively because his primary duties, while nonexempt, did not fit within the sales or support rubric.”
*7 Connie Shew provides yet another example of the variations in the employment of the Transportation Sales Plaintiffs. From June 2000 to March 2001, she worked on-site at one of CHR’s customers as the liaison between CHR, the customer, and the carriers. While working on-site, she states that her responsibilities did not change. Nevertheless, she typically worked approximately fifteen hours per week more than she worked while working in CHR’s branch office.
Armond Kocsis’s declaration reveals further variations in the duties of the Transportation Sales Plaintiffs. He worked in CHR’s St. Louis branch. In addition to the six duties set forth above, Kocsis devoted 5% to 10% of his time to collecting past-due payments from CHR’s customers and to resolving problems his colleagues experienced with their computers. Moreover, once or twice per year, his manager assigned “special projects” to him. He described one project as an analysis of the cost factors for moving freight on rail. Although Kocsis characterized the time devoted to special projects as insignificant, he acknowledged that they “took up some time” while he performed them.
The Transportation Sales Plaintiffs also differ with regard to solicitation of new customers. Some of the Transportation Sales Plaintiffs did little to no solicitation of new customers. For instance, in her affidavit, Dhyia Thompson, employed in CHR’s Chicago Central branch, states that she “did no business building or soliciting of accounts, but built relationships with open carriers that were already in the [CHR] carrier system.” In his affidavit, Thomas Hagan states that he worked in CHR’s Chicago South and Atlanta San Antonio branches. His manager in San Antonio did not require anyone to solicit new customers. While in Chicago South, Hagan spent approximately one hour per week making cold calls. Similarly, Kristi Hamlin, who worked in CHR’s Fort Wayne branch, states that she spent less than 5% of her time soliciting new customers and cultivating the customer base. Richard Harper, who worked in CHR’s Atlanta branch, stated that he did not solicit new customers.
Other Transportation Sales Plaintiffs devoted more time to solicitation of new customers. For instance, Courtney Collins, who worked in CHR’s Chicago Central branch, states in her affidavit that she spent up to five hours per week soliciting new customers. Andrew Carne, formerly employed in CHR’s Iowa City branch, states that he spent up to 25% of his time each week on miscellaneous tasks such as contacting potential customers, handling customer complaints, and responding to damage claims. Craig Bowden spent as much as 85% of his time outside of the office in pursuit of new customers. In response, the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs admit that Bowden “did have an additional primary duty.” They also state that Bowden “wishes to pursue his [FLSA] claim, if at all, outside the collective action.”
5

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
In short, the Court’s review of the record reveals substantial variations in the duties performed by the Transportations Sales Plaintiffs. Many within the group performed duties other than or in addition to the six duties set forth above.
2. Produce Sales Plaintiffs *8 The Produce Sales Plaintiffs include approximately forty individuals who worked in CHR’s produce sourcing branches. CHR classified most of them as sales employees; a few were classified operations or support employees. The Produce Sales Plaintiffs assert they that have similar employment settings for essentially the same reasons as the Transportation Sales Plaintiffs. The Produce Sales Plaintiffs contend that they perform some or all of the six duties performed by the Transportation Sales Plaintiffs plus the purchase and sale of produce. The record reveals substantial variations in the duties of the Produce Sales Plaintiffs.
In his affidavit, Monty McHugh, who was employed at CHR’s Cleveland branch, states that he spent approximately three hours each morning calling customers to determine what products the customers wanted to buy and the price they were willing to pay. He spent the next four hours calling growers and packers to purchase products to fill the customers’ orders. He called truckers on CHR’s approved list for the next two to three hours to arrange transportation for the products. On some evenings and nights, he received calls seeking assistance with loading trucks, orders that were not ready, and incorrect purchase order numbers. He also received calls in the early morning hours about problems with deliveries. He estimates that the foregoing duties occupied approximately 70% to 75% of his time each week. He spent his remaining time at work by assisting CHR’s central office with inputting information about carriers, repacking product at a customer’s location, and addressing damage claims.
In his affidavit, Jeffery Cichosz, who was employed at CHR’s Eden Prairie branch, states that he spent the first part of his day checking messages from customers, calling drivers, and “put[ting] out any fires these drivers may have encountered during shipment of the load.” He then called one of CHR’s customers to determine what shipments the customer needed to make. He obtained rates from carriers and set up the shipment. Cichosz also addressed claims arising out of rejected loads. He asserts that the foregoing duties occupied 90% to 95% of his time. Cichosz also served as “Ambassador” with one other employee. In that capacity, he acted as a liaison between branch management and other sales representatives. He spent approximately 5% to 10% of his time relaying concerns between branch management and sales representatives.
Jeffrey Salmon, another employee at the Eden Prairie branch, describes his typical duties as follows. Upon arriving at work, he first checked for customer orders or price quotes from growers. He then assessed the market prices for the fruits for which he was responsible and researched associated freight costs. After compiling relevant pricing information, Salmon contacted customers. If a customer placed an order, Salmon bought fruit from a grower. Although he did not set up transportation for the fruit, Salmon addressed problems encountered by the carrier during shipment or by the customer upon delivery of the fruit. He assisted his customers with accounts receivables. Approximately once per month, Salmon compiled business reviews for customers or growers.
*9 Like the Transportation Sales Plaintiffs, the Produce Sales Plaintiffs differ with regard to solicitation of new customers. Some of the Produce Sales Plaintiffs did not solicit new customers. For example, Cichosz states the he “was not responsible for acquiring new customers.” Similarly, James Kiehn, who works in CHR’s Seattle branch, states that he does not engage in “outside sales.” On the other hand, some of the Produce Sales Plaintiffs solicited new customers. For instance, Shane Jernigan, who worked in CHR’s branches in Minneapolis, Miami, and Calgary, states that he spent approximately 10% to 15% of his time on miscellaneous tasks, including sales calls to potential customers.4
In short, the Court’s review of the record reveals substantial variations in the duties performed by the Produce Sales Plaintiffs. Many within the group performed duties other than the six duties set forth above.
3. Support Plaintiffs The Support Plaintiffs describe themselves as fifty-six individuals “who worked in the transportation logistics, produce (including CPDS), and T-Chek branches whom [CHR] classified as salaried support employees ... [or] operations employees.” They assert that they primarily performed clerical and other support functions. Although they acknowledge that the “nature of the clerical work varied somewhat from one branch to another,” they assert they should proceed collectively.
6

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
Some Support Plaintiffs engaged primarily in data entry. For instance, Stephanie Smith, who worked in CHR’s Dallas branch, states that she spent the vast majority of her time entering shipping orders and delivery information into CHR’s computer system. Occasionally, she called carriers for information about a claim for damaged freight. She also answered calls to the branch telephone and prepared reports on orders and loads. Like Smith, Tammy Penwell, formerly employed at CHR’s Eden Prairie branch, states that data entry occupied most of her time.
Other Support Plaintiffs performed several duties in addition to data entry. For example, Kelley Lyons, formerly employed at CHR’s Eden Prairie branch, states that she entered information into CHR’s computer system about orders for shipping freight that was smaller than a truckload. Another employee secured transportation for the order. Lyons and the other employee then monitored the freight to its delivery. Lyons then generated bills and sent them to CHR’s customer. Like Lyons, Donna Rosch entered data into CHR’s computer system. Rosch also worked in a “call center handling customer service calls,” prepared shipping labels, and covered for a receptionist.
Other duties performed by the members of the Support Plaintiffs include processing accounts payable or receivable; assisting trucking companies with vehicle licenses and permits, fuel tax reports, audits of trip logs, and the processing of trip reports; assisting importers with paperwork; and providing quotations for less-than-load shipments to CHR’s sales representatives. In short, the Support Plaintiffs perform a wide variety of duties.
4. Replenishment Analyst Plaintiffs *10 The Replenishment Analyst Plaintiffs describe themselves as seven individuals who worked as replenishment analysts in CPDS. In very general terms, their duties consisted of maintaining produce inventory in distribution centers. For example, Nicholas Brandt described his duties as follows:
The first thing I would do is check out the inventory in my assigned distribution centers. I would review how long the produce had been in place and assess whether I believed more inventory needed to be ordered. I then would speak with the distribution center’s buyer, the person who ultimately decided whether or not to purchase additional produce inventory, and inform the buyer how much inventory I believed needed replenishment. Once a decision had been made as to what inventory to replenish, I contacted growers on [CHR’s] list to find out the selling price of a particular product. I did not bargain or negotiate rates with the grower’s representative. I would then contact a carrier and coordinate the carrier’s shipment of the product from the grower to the distribution center. I generally did not negotiate rates with the carriers I used.
The duties of other Replenishment Analyst Plaintiffs varied with respect to ordering produce or contacting carriers. For instance, Jennifer Halpaus neither located the produce to fill orders nor contacted carriers. Like Halpaus, Deborah Syverson does not call carriers. For the past several years, however, Syverson states that she has “done a little produce sourcing.” Nevertheless, she maintains that she is “at the beginning level of calling growers to order produce.” Syverson also assisted new replenishment analysts “by showing them the ropes and answering their questions while they learned the job.” In short, the duties of the Replenishment Analyst Plaintiffs vary.
4. Salary basis Earlier in this litigation, the Court concluded that CHR, on a company-wide basis, had neither engaged in an actual practice of improper deductions nor adopted a policy that created a significant likelihood of such deductions. Accordingly, the practice at each branch must be examined to determine whether employees were subject to improper deductions.
B. CHR’s defenses As noted above, the administrative exemption will be the dominant issue at trial. The regulations summarized above reveal that a fact-intensive inquiry determines whether the administrative exemption applies to an employee. In this case, the factual and employment settings of the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs vary considerably. Given the failure to articulate the job duties of approximately eighty of the Opt-in Plaintiffs; the admitted differences in the duties of approximately twenty of the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs; the substantial differences in the job duties performed by the Transportation Sales Plaintiffs, the Produce Sales Plaintiffs, the Support Plaintiffs, and the Replenishment Analysts; and the variations
7

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
across branches with respect to deductions from salaries, the Court concludes that the administrative exemption cannot be adjudicated collectively.
B. Fairness and procedural considerations *11 Having concluded that substantial differences exist in the employment and factual settings of the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs such that the dominant issue at trial-whether the administrative exemption applies to an employee-cannot be adjudicated collectively, the Court reaches the inevitable conclusion that fairness and procedural considerations also favor decertification. The Court cannot fairly and efficiently administer collective actions that require individualized inquiry into the exempt status of several hundred individuals.
In short, the Court finds that the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs are not similarly situated. The Court therefore grants CHR’s motion. In fairness to the Opt-in Plaintiffs, the Court stays the decertification of the collective actions for thirty days. The Court anticipates that counsel for the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs will use this period to advise the Opt-in Plaintiffs of the Court’s decision to grant CHR’s motion to decertify.

III. CONCLUSION Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. CHR’s Motion to Decertify Plaintiffs’ Claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act [Docket No. 729 in Civ. No. 02-3780; Docket No. 524 in Civ. No. 02-4261] is GRANTED. 2. The Opt-in Plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. This Order is STAYED for thirty (30) days.

Footnotes

1

Revisions to the regulations that define the administrative exemption took effect on August 23, 2004. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.200

(2006). Other than requiring that the employee be paid on a salary basis of at least $455 per week, the revised regulations articulate

the administrative exemption in terms similar to those set forth above. See id. The Court cites the regulations applicable before

August 23, 2004.

2

At the motion hearing, counsel for the Named Plaintiffs and the subset discounted the alleged failure to execute retainer

agreements as a reason for excluding the “unrepresented” Opt-in Plaintiffs from the opposition to CHR’s motion. Counsel instead

advanced the “unrepresented” Opt-in Plaintiffs’ alleged failure to communicate their job duties as a reason for their exclusion. The

Court notes that the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment did not distinguish the Opt-in

Plaintiffs who had executed a retainer agreement from those who had not.

3

According to the Named Plaintiffs and the subset, eleven of the fourteen employees who worked in T-Chek do not seek to

challenge their exempt status based on their job duties in this collective action because many of their duties differed from the duties

of other plaintiffs. The Named Plaintiffs and the subset ask that the FLSA claims of the eleven employees be dismissed without

prejudice if the eleven employees do not prevail on their salary-basis challenge.

4

Although Jernigan is not one of the Produce Sales Plaintiffs, he was eligible to join the collective action. Jernigan states that his

colleagues performed the same duties he did. Consequently, the record reveals that some of the Produce Sales Plaintiffs engaged in

outside sales calls.

8

 
 Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 1 of 84
ATYADM, CLOSED, CONSOL, CV, LEAD, PHV, PROTO, T7
U.S. District Court District of Minnesota (DMN) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:02−cv−03780−JNE−JJG

Carlson, et al v. C.H. Robinson World Assigned to: Judge Joan N. Ericksen Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Special Master

Date Filed: 10/02/2002 Date Terminated: 07/05/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Thomas S Fraser

represented by Thomas S Fraser Fredrikson &Byron, PA 200 S 6th St Ste 4000 Mpls, MN 55402−1425 612−492−7028 Fax: 612−492−7077 Email: tfraser@fredlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gwen D Carlson

represented by Cynthia J Totten Sprenger &Lang 1614 20th St NW Washington, DC 20009 202−265−8010 Fax: 202−332−6652 Email: ctotten@sprengerlang.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Ramp Deceased 00000 TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latif−NA Doman Not Admitted LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence P Schaefer Schaefer Law Firm, LLC 220 S 6th St Ste 1700 Mpls, MN 55402 612−341−1201 Fax: 612−339−3161 Email: lschaefer@schaeferlaw.com TERMINATED: 04/27/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D Lieder Sprenger &Lang, PLLC 1400 Eye St NW Ste 500 Washington, DC 20005 202−772−1159 Fax: 202−332−6652 Email: mlieder@sprengerlang.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 2 of 84
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phillip J Trobaugh Mansfield Tanick &Cohen, PA 220 S 6th St Ste 1700 Mpls, MN 55402−4511 612−339−4295 Fax: 612−339−3161 Email: ptrobaugh@mansfieldtanick.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seymour J Mansfield Mansfield Tanick &Cohen, PA 220 S 6th St Ste 1700 Mpls, MN 55402−4511 612−339−4295 Fax: 612−339−3161 Email: smansfield@mansfieldtanick.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M Sprenger Sprenger &Lang, PLLC 1400 Eye St NW Ste 500 Washington, DC 20005 202−772−1160 Fax: 202−332−6652 Email: ssprenger@sprengerlang.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan M Coler Halunen &Associates 1650 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Mpls, MN 55402 612−605−4098 Fax: 612−605−4099 Email: coler@halunenlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa K Patton Strusinski, Libby &Assoc. P.A. 1740 Rice Street Ste 280 INACTIVE St Paul, MN 55113 651−487−1208 Fax: 651−487−0662 Email: tpatton99@comcast.net TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mara R Thompson Attorney at Law 4585 Weston Lane North Plymouth, MN 55446 (763) 577−0679 Email: thompson.mara@comcast.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 3 of 84

Plaintiff Mari Danielson TERMINATED: 11/14/2002
Plaintiff Carol Flannigan

represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael D Lieder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa K Patton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Latif−NA Doman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phillip J Trobaugh

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 4 of 84

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seymour J Mansfield (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan M Coler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa K Patton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara R Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Amy Hossenlopp

represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latif−NA Doman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip J Trobaugh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 5 of 84

Seymour J Mansfield (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan M Coler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa K Patton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara R Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Stacey Hottois

represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latif−NA Doman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip J Trobaugh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seymour J Mansfield (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 6 of 84

Plaintiff
Beth Johnson TERMINATED: 11/14/2002

Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan M Coler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa K Patton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mara R Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY
David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael D Lieder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Teresa K Patton (See above for address)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 7 of 84

TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marti Justet TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael D Lieder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Teresa K Patton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Sandy Nelson

represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latif−NA Doman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 8 of 84

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip J Trobaugh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seymour J Mansfield (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan M Coler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa K Patton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara R Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Cathy Perky

represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latif−NA Doman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip J Trobaugh (See above for address)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 9 of 84

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seymour J Mansfield (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan M Coler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa K Patton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara R Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tricia Porter

represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latif−NA Doman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip J Trobaugh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seymour J Mansfield

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 10 of 84

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan M Coler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa K Patton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara R Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Andrea Prout

represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latif−NA Doman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip J Trobaugh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seymour J Mansfield (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 11 of 84

Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan M Coler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa K Patton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara R Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lee Ann Puckett

represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latif−NA Doman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip J Trobaugh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seymour J Mansfield (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 12 of 84

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan M Coler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa K Patton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara R Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Angela Roberts

represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latif−NA Doman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip J Trobaugh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seymour J Mansfield (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan M Coler (See above for address)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 13 of 84

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa K Patton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara R Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jennifer Smyrl on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Cynthia J Totten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Ramp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latif−NA Doman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence P Schaefer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip J Trobaugh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seymour J Mansfield (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Sprenger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan M Coler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa K Patton

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 14 of 84
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mara R Thompson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.

represented by B Todd Jones United States Attorney's Office 300 S 4th St Ste 600 Mpls, MN 55415 612−664−5600 Fax: 612−664−5787 Email: b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas R Boettge Leonard Street and Deinard, PA 150 S 5th St Ste 2300 Mpls, MN 55402 612−335−7252 Fax: 612−335−1657 Email: douglas.boettge@leonard.com TERMINATED: 06/15/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald L Maatman , Jr Seyfarth Shaw LLP − IL 131 S Dearborn St Ste 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 312−460−5000 Fax: 312−460−7000 Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet C Evans Robins Kaplan Miller &Ciresi LLP 800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2800 Mpls, MN 55402−2015 612−349−8500 Fax: 612−339−4181 Email: jcevans@rkmc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kari Thoe Crone MN Court of Appeals 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. INACTIVE St. Paul, MN 55155 651−297−1000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa L Heller

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG

As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 15 of 84
Robins Kaplan Miller &Ciresi LLP 9500 Paces Ferry Rd NE Ste 2600 Atlanta, GA 30326−1119 404−760−4600 Email: llheller@rkmc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robyn E Anderson 2020 Vagabond Lane N. INACTIVE Plymouth, MN 55447 612−508−1923 TERMINATED: 06/13/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacey P Slaughter Robins Kaplan Miller &Ciresi LLP 800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2800 Mpls, MN 55402−2015 (612) 349−8289 Fax: (612) 339−4181 Email: spslaughter@rkmc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B Hatch Robins Kaplan Miller &Ciresi LLP 800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2800 Mpls, MN 55402−2015 612−349−8500 Fax: 612−339−4181 Email: tbhatch@rkmc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J Undlin Robins Kaplan Miller &Ciresi LLP 800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2800 Mpls, MN 55402−2015 612−349−8706 Fax: 612−339−4181 Email: tjundlin@rkmc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Paul Morgan 2260 Summit Ave St. Paul, MN 55105 (651) 497−3803 Email: jpmorgan@usfamily.net TERMINATED: 04/21/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/02/2002
10/02/2002

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT − Summons issued. Assigned to Judge Joan E. Lancaster per individual civil rights list and referred Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff. Receipt # 425721 for $150.00 (41 pgs) (MKC) (Entered: 10/05/2002)
NOTICE given to Admissions Clerk to send PHV to out of state attorney: Michael Lieder, Cynthia Totten (MKC) (Entered: 10/05/2002)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 16 of 84

10/03/2002 10/16/2002 10/22/2002
10/28/2002 10/31/2002 10/31/2002
10/31/2002 11/12/2002 11/14/2002 11/14/2002 11/14/2002 11/14/2002 11/14/2002 11/15/2002 11/18/2002
11/19/2002
11/19/2002 11/19/2002 11/19/2002 11/22/2002 11/22/2002
11/22/2002 11/22/2002

2 ORIGINAL SUMMONS AND RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant C.H. Robinson World on 10/2/02 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 10/11/2002)
8 CONSENT TO JOIN LAWSUIT by 2 individuals 3pgs (JMH) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
3 STIPULATION AND ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) that defendant has to and including 12/9/02 to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint 3pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/21/2005 (jlv). (Entered: 10/29/2002)
7 CONSENT OF 19 individuals to Join Lawsuit 19pg(s) (JMH) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
4 PETITION AND ORDER for admission pro hac vice ( Clerk Richard D. Sletten ) on behalf of plaintiffs by Michael D. Lieder 2pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (SJH) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
5 PETITION AND ORDER for admission pro hac vice ( Clerk Richard D. Sletten ) on behalf of plaintiffs by Cynthia J. Totten 2pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (SJH) Modified on 11/07/2002 (Entered: 11/07/2002)
6 PETITION AND ORDER for admission pro hac vice ( Clerk Richard D. Sletten ) on behalf of plaintiff by Steven M Sprenger 2pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (SJH) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
9 CONSENT of 6 individuals to join lawsuit [1−1] 6pg(s) (SJH) (Entered: 11/19/2002)
11 AMENDED COMPLAINT [1−1] by plaintiff; jury demand; terminating Beth Johnson, Mari Danielson. 46 pg(s) (VEM) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
12 MOTION by plaintiff to consolidate cases with CV 02−426. ( to Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) 2 pg(s) (VEM) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
13 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to consolidate cases with CV 02−426. [12−1] 5 pg(s) (VEM) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
14 EXHIBIT 1 by plaintiff to motion to consolidate cases. [12−1] 46 pg(s) (VEM) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
15 EXHIBIT 2 by plaintiff to motion to consolidate cases. [12−1] 9pg(s) (VEM) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
10 LETTER (Chief Magistrate Judge Jonathan Lebedoff) in regards that pltf's motion to consolidate has been administratively terminated 1pg(s) (SJH) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
16 STIPULATION AND ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) that defendant has to and including 1/7/03 to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint 3pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
17 LETTER dated 11/19/02 from Lawrence P. Schaefer withdrawing to motion to consolidate cases with CV 02−426. ( to Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) [12−1] 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
18 MOTION by plaintiffs to consolidate this case with 02−4261 ( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) 3pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
19 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion to consolidate this case with 02−4261 5pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
20 EXHIBITS by plaintiff [19−1] to memo in support of unopposed motion to consolidate (DFL) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
22 CONSENTS OF 13 INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LITIGATION 13pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
23 MOTION by defendant for order governing its communications with employees ( to Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) , ret. 12/13/02 at 10:00 a.m. 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
24 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion for order governing its communications with employees [23−1] 15pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
25 AFFIDAVIT of Jody Butler regarding motion for order governing its communications with employees [23−1] 30pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 12/02/2002)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 17 of 84

11/22/2002 11/22/2002 11/22/2002 11/26/2002 11/27/2002
12/04/2002 12/06/2002 12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/13/2002 12/18/2002
12/31/2002 01/03/2003 01/03/2003 01/10/2003 01/10/2003 01/10/2003 01/10/2003 01/16/2003 01/21/2003

26 AFFIDAVIT of Amy Taber regarding motion for order governing its communications with employees [23−1] 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
27 AFFIDAVIT of Douglas R. Boettge regarding motion for order governing its communications with employees [23−1] 22pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
28 AFFIDAVIT of Laura Gillund regarding motion for order governing its communications with employees [23−1] 4pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
21 NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff / 11/25/02) status hearing set for 10:00 a.m. on 12/13/02 1pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
29 STIPULATION AND ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) granting motion to consolidate this case with 02−4261 [18−1] for discovery and pretrial matters with respect to the FLSA claims; consolidation for trial is reserved for future consideration; 0:02−cv−3780 with member case 0:02−cv−4261 3pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
30 CONSENTS OF 10 INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LITIGATION [1−1] 10 pg(s) (SJH) (Entered: 12/07/2002)
31 JOINT MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion for order governing its communications with employees. [23−1] ( 13 pgs) (MKC) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
32 LETTER RE: SVC OF DISPOSITIVE MOTION PAPERS by plaintiffs for leave to send notice of putative classes SVC LTR ( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
41 Joint MOTION by plaintiffs' for leave to send notices to putative classes.( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) ret. 2/3/03 at 2:00pm. 7pg(s) (RJL) Modified on 01/24/2003 (Entered: 01/24/2003)
34 MINUTES:( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff / ) taking under advisement dft's motion for order governing its communications with employees. [23−1] 2 pg(s) (JVN) (Entered: 12/28/2002)
33 ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff / 12/18/02) granting in part and denying in part motion for order governing its communications with employees [23−1] as set forth fully in the body of this order 15pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) Modified on 09/05/2003 (Entered: 12/26/2002)
35 STIPULATION AND ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) that defendant has to and including 1/10/03 to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint 5pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
36 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by defendant that none exist. 2pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
37 CONSENTS OF 18 INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LITIGATION 18pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
38 LETTER RE: SVC OF DISPOSITIVE MOTION PAPERS by defendant for partial summary judgment on statute of limitations Grounds ( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
39 LETTER RE: SVC OF DISPOSITIVE MOTION PAPERS by defendant to dismiss Collective Action Allegations SVC LTR ( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
46 MOTION by defendant to dismiss plaintiffs; collective action allegations. ( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) 3pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
67 MOTION by defendant for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds. ( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) ret. 3/10/03 at 9:30am. 4pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
40 ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT by defendant; jury demand 36pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
42 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of joint motion for leave to send notices to putative classes. [41−1] 58pg(s) (SEPERATE) (RJL) Modified on 01/24/2003 (Entered: 01/24/2003)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 18 of 84

01/21/2003
01/21/2003
01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003
01/22/2003
01/27/2003 01/28/2003
01/28/2003 01/31/2003 02/03/2003
02/03/2003 02/05/2003

43 DECLARATION of 44 seperate individuals re in support of joint motion for leave to send notices to putative classes.( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) [41−1] 2+pg(s) (SEPERATE) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
44 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs' to defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' joint motion for leave to send notices to putative classes.( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) [41−1] 21pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
45 DECLARATION of Teresa K. Patton re in support of reply memorandum. [44−1] 73pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
47 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to dismiss plaintiffs' collective action allegations. [46−1] 42pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
48 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to motion for leave to send notices to putative classes. [41−1] 42pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
49 AFFIDAVIT of Gregory D. Goven. 17pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
50 AFFIDAVIT of Mary P. Gorski. 4pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
51 AFFIDAVIT of James Lemke. 4pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
52 AFFIDAVIT of Edward Leshin. 5pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
53 AFFIDAVIT of Marshalaa Pieschke. 5pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
54 AFFIDAVIT of Steve Raetz. 4pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
55 AFFIDAVIT of Jeff Scovill. 6pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
56 AFFIDAVIT of Jagjit Singh. 4pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
57 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer G. Wilmot. 3+pg(s)(SEPERATE) (RJL) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
58 ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff / 1/21/03) that defendant provide all prospective employee interviewees with notification when discussing either case covered by the order governing defendant's communications with its employees and defendant's interviewee notification; and defendant draft order governing defendant's communications with its employees and an interviewee notification consistent with this order and submit them to the court for its signature by 1/31/03, after approval by plaintiffs; however, if the parties cannot agree to language for paragraph 5, the parties must schedule a telephone conference with the court for the week of 1/27/03 7pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
59 CORRECTED MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to motion to dismiss plaintiff's collective action allegations [46−1], to motion for leave to send notices to putative classes [41−1] 22pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
60 NOTICE of hearing pretrial conference set for 8:45 a.m. on 3/5/03 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
61 NOTICE by defendant setting hearing for motion to dismiss plaintiffs; collective action allegations. ( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) [46−1] at 2:00 p.m. on 2/3/03 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
62 REPLY MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to dismiss plaintiffs; collective action allegations [46−1] 19pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
63 ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff / 1/31/03) governing CH Robinson's communications with its employees 6pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
64 MINUTES: ( Judge Joan E. Lancaster / Anderson, Jeanne) denying motion for leave to send notices to putative classes [41−1] denying motion to dismiss plaintiffs; collective action allegations [46−1] denying letter motion for partial summary judgment on statute of limitations Grounds [38−1] 1pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
65 EXHIBIT LIST 13pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
66 ORDER ( Judge Joan E. Lancaster / 2/4/03) denying plaintiff's motion for leave to send second notices to putative classes [41−1] denying defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs; collective action allegations [46−1] 2pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 02/10/2003)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 19 of 84

02/07/2003 02/07/2003
02/07/2003 02/07/2003 02/07/2003 02/07/2003
02/07/2003 02/07/2003 02/07/2003 02/10/2003 02/10/2003 02/19/2003 02/19/2003 02/19/2003 02/19/2003 02/19/2003 02/20/2003 02/25/2003 02/26/2003 02/27/2003 02/28/2003 02/28/2003 03/03/2003

68 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds. [67−1] 6pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
69 MOTION by defendant for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on count II to the amended complaint.( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) ret. 3/10/03 at 9:30am. 2pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
70 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on count II to the amended complaint.[69−1] 4pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
71 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs' in opposition to motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds. [67−1] 11pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
72 REPLY MEMORANDUM by defendant to motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds. [67−1] 6pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
73 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition and response to motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on count II to the complaint. [69−1] 7pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
74 REPLY MEMORANDUM by defendant to motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on count II to the amended complaint. [69−1] 5pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
75 AFFIDAVIT of Douglas R. Boettge regarding motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds. [67−1] 9pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
76 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer G. Wilmot regarding motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds. [67−1] 62pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
77 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LAW SUIT 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
78 TRANSCRIPT OF civil motions held 2/3/03 before Judge Joan E. Lancaster ( Anderson, Jeanne M.) 88pg(s) (SEPARATE) (DFL) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
79 Joint MOTION by plaintiffs' for leave to amend complaints.( to Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) ret. 3/5/03 at 8:30am. 3pg(s) (RJL) Modified on 02/25/2003 (Entered: 02/25/2003)
80 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs' in support of joint motion for leave to amend complaints. [79−1] 9pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
81 ATTACHMENT A by plaintiffs' to joint memorandum in support of motion to amend. [80−1] 47pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
82 ATTACHMENT B by plaintiffs' to joint memorandum in support of motion to amend. [80−1] 9pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
83 DECLARATION of Teresa K. Patton re motion for leave to amend complaints. [79−1] 2+pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
84 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUALS TO JOINT LITIGATION 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
86 CONSENT OF SHANNON D. BAKER TO JOIN LITIGATION 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
87 MEMORANDUM by defendant C H Robinson World in response to motion for leave to amend complaints and submitting stipulated order [79−1] 4pg(s) (GJS) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
85 STIPULATION AND ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) granting motion for leave to amend complaints [79−1] 3pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
88 LETTER/BRIEF FILED by plaintiff, Re: case management 5pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
89 REPORT OF RULE 26(f) MEETING 17pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
90 BRIEF FILED by plaintiff in support of the Joint Rule 16(f) report 4pg(s) (DFL) Modified on 03/07/2003 (Entered: 03/07/2003)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 20 of 84

03/04/2003 03/05/2003 03/05/2003
03/12/2003 03/12/2003 03/17/2003 03/17/2003 03/17/2003 03/18/2003 03/18/2003 03/18/2003 03/21/2003 03/25/2003
03/25/2003 04/11/2003 04/14/2003 04/14/2003 04/14/2003 04/14/2003 04/14/2003

91 LETTER dated 3/3/03 from Teresa K. Patton withdrawing motion to amend 1pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
92 MINUTES: ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) re: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 1pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
93 PRETRIAL ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff 3/5/03) amendments and adding parties set for 5/1/03 ; discovery set for 10/1/03 ; non−dispositive motions set for 4/1/04 ; dispositive motions set for 5/1/04 ; ready for trial set 6/1/04 3pg(s) (cc: counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
94 AMENDED NOTICE by defendant setting hearing for motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on count II to the amended complaint ( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) [69−1] at 10:00 a.m. on 3/18/03 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
95 AMENDED NOTICE by defendant setting hearing for motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds. ( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) [67−1] at 10:00 a.m. on 3/18/03 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
96 Joint renewed MOTION by plaintiffs' for leave to send notice to putative collective action members.( to Judge Joan E. Lancaster ) ret. 4/7/03 at 2:00pm. 2pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
97 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for leave to send notice to putative collective action members. [96−1] 21pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
98 DECLARATION of Teresa K. Patton re motion for leave to send notice to putative collective action members. [96−1] 116pg(s) (RJL) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
99 MINUTES:( Judge Joan E. Lancaster / Jeanne Anderson) hearing re: motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds. [67−1]. Taken under advisement. (1 pg) (MKC) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
100 WITHDRAWAL OF MOTIONS OF DEFENDANT FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON COUNT 2 OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. (1pg) (MKC) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
101 STIPULATION. (2 pg(s) (MKC) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
102 LETTER/BRIEF dated 3/21/03 from Steven M. Sprenger, Re: protective order 25pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 03/25/2003)
103 ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff / 3/25/03) defendant's proposed protective order is adopted with the modifications set forth in the body of this order; defendant draft a protective order and submit to the court for signature, after approval by plaintiffs, by 4/11/03; and since this order applies to two cases, defendant shall submit two originals for the court's signature 7pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
104 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LITIGATION 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
105 CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIVE ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) (6 pgs) (cc: all counsel) (MKC) (Entered: 04/15/2003)
106 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to motion for leave to send notice to putative collective action members. [96−1] 41pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 04/18/2003)
107 AFFIDAVIT of Kari Thoe Crone regarding motion for leave to send notice to putative collective action members. [96−1] 5+pg(s) separate (DFL) (Entered: 04/18/2003)
108 AFFIDAVIT of Amy C. Taber regarding motion for leave to send notice to putative collective action members. [96−1] 6pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 04/18/2003)
109 AFFIDAVIT of Mary P. Gorski regarding motion for leave to send notice to putative collective action members. [96−1] 8pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 04/18/2003)
110 AFFIDAVIT of Jagjit Singh regarding motion for leave to send notice to putative collective action members. [96−1] 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 04/18/2003)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 21 of 84

04/14/2003 04/14/2003 04/14/2003 04/17/2003 04/30/2003 04/30/2003 04/30/2003 05/08/2003 05/13/2003
05/13/2003
05/13/2003 05/15/2003 05/15/2003
05/15/2003 05/19/2003 05/20/2003
05/20/2003 05/28/2003 05/28/2003
05/28/2003
05/28/2003 05/28/2003

111 DECLARATION of Sharon Getzke re motion for leave to send notice to putative collective action members. [96−1] 35pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 04/18/2003)
112 DECLARATION of Sharon Getzke re motion for leave to send notice to putative collective action members. [96−1] separate and sealed (DFL) (Entered: 04/18/2003)
113 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion for leave to send notice to putative collective action members. [96−1] 19pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 04/18/2003)
114 EXHIBIT D [111−1] to declaration of Sharon Getzke. separate and sealed. (DFL) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
115 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to supplement the record ( to Judge Joan N. Ericksen ) . 3pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
116 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion for leave to supplement the record. [115−1] 3pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
117 STIPULATION, Re: filing of amended complaint. 5pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
118 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LITIGATION. 1pg(s) (DFL) Modified on 05/16/2003 (Entered: 05/14/2003)
119 RESPONSE by defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. to plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement the record and plaintiffs' motion to submit proposed forms of notice. [115−1] 7 pg(s) (JMM) (Entered: 05/19/2003)
120 EXHIBIT A by defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. in response to plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record and proposed forms of notice. [115−1] 2 pg(s) (JMM) (Entered: 05/19/2003)
127 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
121 MOTION by plaintiff Gwen D Carlson to compel ( to Judge Joan N. Ericksen ). ret. 5/29/03 at 9:30 a.m. 2 pg(s) (JMM) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
122 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Gwen D Carlson in support of motion to compel production of documents and to clarify the number of requests they have produced. [121−1] 37 pg(s) (JMM) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
123 DECLARATION of Teresa K. Patton re motion to compel. [121−1] 3 + pg(s) SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
124 JOINT SUPPLEMENT re memorandum in support of joint motion to compel product of documents, etc. [122−1] 5pg(s) (DFL) Modified on 05/27/2003 (Entered: 05/23/2003)
125 MINUTES: ( Judge Joan N. Ericksen / Anderson, Jeanne) granting motion for leave to send notice to putative collective action members; parties have until 5/28/03 to agree upon a notice. ORDERED ON THE MINUTES. NO FURTHER ORDER WILL BE ISSUED. [96−1] 1pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
126 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
128 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
129 MOTION by plaintiffs to amend communications order , for order for return of documents and for sanctions ( to Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) , ret. 6/17/03 at 9:00 a.m. 3pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
130 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to amend communications order [129−1], of motion for order for return of documents [129−2], of motion for sanctions. [129−3] 10pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
131 EXHIBIT 1 to memo in support of motion to amend, etc. [130−1] 4pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
132 DECLARATION of Teresa K. Patton re motion to amend communications order [129−1], re motion for order for return of documents [129−2], re motion for sanctions. [129−3] 12pg(s)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 22 of 84

05/29/2003 06/01/2003 06/02/2003
06/06/2003 06/06/2003
06/06/2003
06/06/2003
06/06/2003 06/06/2003 06/06/2003 06/06/2003 06/10/2003 06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/13/2003
06/13/2003 06/16/2003
06/16/2003 06/17/2003 06/17/2003
06/17/2003

(DFL) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
133 MINUTES: ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) taking under advisement on the motion to compel [121−1]; order to follow. 1pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
165 CONSENTS OF TWO INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 5pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
134 NOTICE OF COLLECTION ACTION CLAIMS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT − approved by ( Judge Joan N. Ericksen / 6/2/03) 8pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
135 MOTION by defendant for communications order ( to Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) , ret. 6/17/03 at 9:00 a.m. 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
136 MEMORANDUM by deft in opposition to motion to amend communications order [129−1], for order for return of documents [129−2] &for sanctions. [129−3]. 13pg(s) (DFL) Modified on 02/10/2004 (Entered: 06/10/2003)
137 AFFIDAVIT of Janet C. Evans regarding motion to amend communications order [129−1], regarding motion for order for return of documents [129−2], regarding motion for sanctions. [129−3] 25pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
138 AFFIDAVIT of Bryan Foe regarding motion to amend communications order [129−1], regarding motion for order for return of documents [129−2], regarding motion for sanctions. [129−3] 5pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
139 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to motion for communications order. [135−1] 10pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
140 DECLARATION of David L. Ramp re motion for communications order. [135−1] 2+pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
142 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to motion for communications order. [135−1] 10 pg(s) (JMM) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
143 DECLARATION of David L. Ramp re motion for communications order. [135−1] 36 pg(s) (JMM) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
141 CONSENT OF TWO INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 5pg(s) ( (Entered: 06/11/2003)
144 AFFIDAVIT of Mary P. Gorkski regarding motion for communications order. [135−1] 3+ pg(s) (JMM) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
145 CONSENTS OF FOUR INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 9pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
146 ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff / 6/13/03) granting in part and denying in part motion to compel production of documents. [121−1] 25pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
147 CONSENTS OF EIGHT INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 17pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
148 TRANSCRIPT OF plaintiff's joint notice of motion and motion to compel held 5/29/03 by Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ( Neil K. Johnson). 34 pg(s) (SEPARATE) (JMM) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
149 CONSENTS OF 12 INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 25pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
NOTICE by defendant C H Robinson World of association of counsel Stacey Slaughter (MMC) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
150 ORDER ( Judge Joan N. Ericksen / 6/17/03) granting motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings on count II to the amended complaint. [69−1] 4pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (DFL) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
151 CONSENTS OF FIVE INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 11pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/20/2003)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 23 of 84

06/17/2003
06/18/2003
06/18/2003 06/19/2003 06/20/2003 06/23/2003 06/24/2003 06/25/2003 06/26/2003 06/30/2003 06/30/2003 06/30/2003 06/30/2003 07/01/2003 07/01/2003
07/03/2003 07/07/2003 07/09/2003 07/10/2003 07/14/2003 07/14/2003 07/17/2003

154 MINUTES: ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) taking under advisement on the motion to amend communications [129−1], taking under advisement on the motion for order for return of documents [129−2], taking under advisement on the motion for sanctions [129−3]; written order will follow. 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
152 ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff / 6/18/03) re: Plaintiff's motion to amend communications order [129−1] for order for return of documents [129−2] and for sanctions is DENIED AS MOOT IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. [129−3] Defendant's motion for communications order is granted in part, denied in part. [135−1] (7 pgs) (cc: all counsel) (MKC) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
153 CONSENTS OF THREE INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 7pg(s) (DFL) Modified on 06/26/2003 (Entered: 06/25/2003)
155 CONSENTS OF EIGHT INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LITIGATION. 15pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
156 CONSENTS OF TWO INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 5pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
157 CONSENTS OF 10 INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 19pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
158 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 07/01/2003)
160 CONSENTS OF TWO INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 5pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 07/01/2003)
159 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 07/01/2003)
161 APPEAL from Magistrate Judge's Order( to Judge Joan N. Ericksen ) by defendant concerning order of 6/13/03 [146−1] 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
162 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of appeal from Magistrate Judge's Order. [161−1] 11pg(s) (DFL) Modified on 07/21/2003 (Entered: 07/07/2003)
163 AFFIDAVIT of Jody M. Butler regarding appeal from Magistrate Judge's Order. [161−1] 16pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
164 AFFIDAVIT of Kari Thoe Crone regarding appeal from Magistrate Judge's Order. [161−1] 10pg(s) (DFL) Modified on 07/21/2003 (Entered: 07/07/2003)
166 MINUTES: ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ), Re: "Opt−in discovery". 1pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
167 LETTER dated 7/1/03 to counsel from Magistrate Judge Lebedoff, Re: summarizing the clarifications extended to counsel relative to concerns following the 6/13/03 order and other matters. 2pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
168 CONSENTS OF 3 INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LITIGATION. (7 PGS) (MKC) (Entered: 07/11/2003)
169 CONSENTS OF 4 INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LITIGATION. (8 PGS) (MKC) (Entered: 07/11/2003)
170 CONSENTS TO JOIN by two individuals 4pg(s) (SJH) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
171 CONSENTS TO JOIN by three individuals 7pg(s) (SJH) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
172 Copy of LETTER (Chief Magistrate Judge Jonathan Lebedoff / 7/11/03) re Court's letter dated 7/1/03 1pg(s) (SJH) Modified on 07/16/2003 (Entered: 07/16/2003)
173 CONSENT TO JOIN LITIGATION by five individuals 11pg(s) (SJH) Modified on 07/18/2003 (Entered: 07/16/2003)
174 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 2pg(s) (DFL) Modified on 07/24/2003 (Entered: 07/23/2003)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 24 of 84

07/18/2003 07/22/2003 07/23/2003 07/25/2003 07/28/2003 07/31/2003 08/01/2003 08/04/2003 08/05/2003 08/06/2003 08/07/2003 08/08/2003 08/11/2003 08/12/2003 08/12/2003
08/13/2003 08/14/2003 08/15/2003 08/18/2003 08/19/2003 08/19/2003 08/21/2003 08/22/2003 08/27/2003

175 CONSENTS OF THREE INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 9pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
176 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 3 pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 07/25/2003)
177 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 3pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
178 CONSENTS OF TWO INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 5pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
179 CONSENTS OF FOUR INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 8pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
180 CONSENTS OF FIVE INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 11pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
181 CONSENTS OF SIX INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 13pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
182 CONSENTS OF SIX INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 13pg(s) (DFL) Modified on 02/10/2004 (Entered: 08/07/2003)
183 CONSENTS OF FIVE INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 11pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
184 CONSENTS OF TWO INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 5pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
185 CONSENTS OF FIVE INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 11pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
186 CONSENTS OF EIGHT INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LITIGATION. 17pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
187 CONSENTS OF 18 INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LITIGATION. 37pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
188 CONSENTS OF SEVEN INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 14pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
189 TRANSCRIPT OF hearing held 6/17/03 before Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ( Thorsgaard, Lisa M. (Neil K. Johnson Reporting Agency). 34pg(s) (SEPARATE) (DFL) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
190 CONSENTS OF SEVEN INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 15pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
191 CONSENTS OF NINE INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 19pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
192 CONSENTS OF 11 INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 23pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
193 CONSENTS OF 41 INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 83pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
194 CONSENTS OF THREE INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LAW SUIT. 7pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
195 CONSENTS OF THREE INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN LITIGATION. 7pg(s) (DFL) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
196 CONSENT by four parties to join the litigation. 9pg(s) (GJS) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
199 CONSENT to join by Beth Shaw 3pgs (JMR) Modified on 09/22/2003 (Entered: 09/09/2003)
197 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND PRETRIAL ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff) Re: Discovery deadline extended all other pretrial deadlines remain the same. 3+pg(s)(cc: all counsel) (GJS) (Entered: 09/05/2003)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 25 of 84

08/27/2003
08/28/2003 09/08/2003 09/10/2003 09/10/2003 09/10/2003 09/10/2003 09/10/2003 09/10/2003 09/24/2003 10/07/2003 10/30/2003 10/30/2003 10/30/2003 10/30/2003 11/06/2003 11/06/2003 11/10/2003
11/10/2003

198 ORDER (Judge Joan N. Ericksen) The part of the 6/17/03, order 150 stating that "C.H. Robinson's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings 69 is granted" is Amended to state: "C.H. Robinson's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings 67 is granted." C.H. Robinson's motion for partial judgment , on the pleadings is Granted. (c: attys.) 1pg (JMR) Modified on 09/22/2003 (Entered: 09/05/2003)
200 CONSENT to join by Rhea Nadler (JMR) Modified on 09/22/2003 (Entered: 09/09/2003)
204 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 3 pg(s) (JMM) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
202 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 2 pg(s) (JMM) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
203 CONSENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL TO JOIN LAWSUIT. 2 pg(s) (JMM) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
205 SUGGESTION ON RECORD OF PARTY'S, Mary McNearney, DEATH 2pgs (JMR) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
Association of counsel Teresa Kathleen Patton and David L Ramp on behalf of pltfs. (JMR) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
Pro hac vice request to Admission Clerk on behalf of attys., Steven Sprenger and Cynthia Totten (JMR) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
206 STIPULATION AND ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff / 9/9/03 ) for document preservation 5pg(s)(cc: all counsel) (JMR) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
207 PETITION AND ORDER for admission pro hac vice ( Clerk Richard D. Sletten ) on behalf of defendant C H Robinson World, Inc. by Lisa L Heller. 1 pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (HLL) Modified on 10/07/2003 (Entered: 10/06/2003)
208 Pltf's., Sadie Bjornstad, withdrawal from lawsuit 2pgs (JMR) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
209 Joint Notice and MOTION by plaintiffs to compel privilege log and related relief based on the papers served with this motion and the scheduled hearing ( to Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) ret. 11/13/03 at 8:30 a.m. 3pgs (JMR) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
210 Joint MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion to compel privilege log and related relief based on the papers served with this motion and the scheduled hearing [209−1] 7pg(s) (JMR) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
211 DECLARATION of Steven M. Sprenger re motion to compel privilege log and related relief based on the papers served with this motion and the scheduled hearing [209−1] 9pg(s) (JMR) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
212 DECLARATION of Teresa K. Patton re motion to compel privilege log and related relief based on the papers served with this motion and the scheduled hearing [209−1] 3pgs + exhibits (separate) (JMR) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
213 RESPONSE by defendant C H Robinson World to plaintiff's joint motion to compel. [209−1] (2 pgs) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
214 ORDER (Judge Joan N. Ericksen / 11/6/03) The claims of Marti Justet in this action are dismissed without prejudice. 1pg(s) (cc: all counsel) (JMR) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/6/2004 (akl). (Entered: 11/13/2003)
215 STIPULATION AND ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) re: Plaintiff's motion to compel is withdrawn and hearing is cancelled; Parties shall be permitted to examine the privilege logs and challenge the adequacy of the logs and any document listed they believe is subject to discovery. Plaintiff's may take certain depositions after the 11/14/03 fact discovery deadline. Defendant may take certain depositions by videoconference after the 11/14/03 discovery deadline but no later than 12/19/03; Defendant may have an extension trhough 12/3/03 to respond to plaintiff's second set of interrogatories; Plaintiff shall have through 12/10/03 to serve experts reports and defendant shall have through 1/28/04 to serve its expert reports. (6 pgs) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/6/2004 (akl). (Entered: 11/15/2003)
216 STIPULATION AND ORDER GOVERNING C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE INC'S COMMUNICATIONS WITH ITS EMPLOYEES ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff )

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 26 of 84

12/29/2003
01/06/2004 01/06/2004 01/06/2004 01/07/2004 01/12/2004 01/15/2004 01/26/2004 01/30/2004
02/02/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/16/2004

(3 pgs)(cc: all counsel) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/6/2004 (akl). (Entered: 11/15/2003)
217 STIPULATION AND ORDER ( Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) regarding scheduling the depositions of Erica Chayka, JoAnn McGill and William Mackiewicz beyond the original scheduled deadline. 4pg(s)(cc: all counsel) (JMR) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/6/2004 (akl). (Entered: 12/31/2003)
218 Joint MOTION by plaintiffs to compel ( to Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff ) or for alternative relief ret. 1/20/04 at 8:30 a.m. 2pgs (JMR) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
219 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of joint motion to compel or for alternative relief [218−1], [218−2] 17pg(s) (JMR) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
220 AFFIDAVIT of Charles Horowitz regarding pltfs' joint motion to compel [218−1], [218−2] 6pg(s) + exhibits (separate) (JMR) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
221 Supplemental AFFIDAVIT of Charles Horowitz regarding joint motion to compel [218−1] 5pg(s) (JMR) (Entered: 01/08/2004)
222 LETTER to Ms. Lenner from Charles Horowitz dated 12/9/03 regarding withdrawal of pltfs motion to compel pursuant to resolution of discovery issues 1pg (JMR) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
223 CONSENT of Holly McDaniel to join lawsuit 3pgs (JMR) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
224 Pltf. withdrawal from lawsuit by Cheryl Altman 2pg(s) (JMR) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
225 STIPULATION AND PRE−TRIAL ORDER (Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff) which vacates the Court's initial Pre−Trial Order as amended, and adopts the schedule as set forth in this order in regards to briefing schedules for expert and rebuttal expert disclosures, expert depositions, motions for summary judgment , a motion to decertify collective action, pltfs' class motion, and regarding a Rule 16 conference, and the possibility of a settlement conference which the parties agree to use their best efforts to schedule said conference before 5/31/04. (c: attys.) 8pgs (JMR) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/6/2004 (akl). (Entered: 02/02/2004)
226 NOTICE by pltf. Norma Petet revoking consent to join lawsuit and withdrawal from same 2pg(s) (JMR) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
227 Joint MOTION to Compel documents contained in deft's privilege log by pltfs 3pgs (JR) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
228 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 227 MOTION to Compel: Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2004 08:30 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 9E before Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G Lebedoff. (JR) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
229 MEMORANDUM in Support re 227 MOTION to Compel filed by pltfs. (JR) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
230 DECLARATION of Eden Brown Gaines re 229 Memorandum in Support of pltfs' Motion to compel the production of documents contained in deft's privilege log. 4 pgs + exhibits (JR) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
231 DECLARATION of Steven M. Sprenger supporting 227 MOTION to Compel the production of documents contained in deft's privilege log (separate) (JR) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
232 EXHIBIT 4 to declaration of Steven M. Sprenger 231 in support of pltfs' motion to compel production of documents contained in deft's privilege log.(sealed) (separate) (JR) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
233 EXHIBIT F to Declaration of Eden Brown Gaines 230 in support of pltfs' motion to compel production of documents contained in deft's privilege log.(sealed) (separate)(JR) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
234 EXHIBIT I to declaration 230 of Eden Brown Gaines in support of pltfs' motion to compel production of documents contained in deft's privilege log. (sealed) (separate)(JR) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
235 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 227 MOTION to Compel, filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 28pgs (SJH) (Entered: 03/20/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 27 of 84

03/16/2004
03/16/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004
03/22/2004
03/22/2004
03/22/2004
03/22/2004 03/22/2004
03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004
03/22/2004

236 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition of Thomas J. Undlin, with attached exhibits, re 227 MOTION to Compel, filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 182 pgs (separate)(SJH) (Entered: 03/20/2004)
237 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition, of Charles O. Lentz, re 227 MOTION to Compel, filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 3pgs (SJH) (Entered: 03/20/2004)
239 MOTION for Order to retain the confidential status of selected documents by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 4 pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
NOTICE of Hearing on 239 MOTION for Order to retain the confidential status of selected documents: Motion Hearing set for 4/13/2004 at 2:30 PM in Minneapolis Courtroom 9E before Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G Lebedoff. (JMM) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
240 MEMORANDUM in Support re 239 MOTION for Order to retain the confidential status of selected documents filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 16 pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
241 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Scott A. Satterlee re 239 MOTION for Order to retain confidential status of selected documents filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
242 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Douglas Boettge re 239 MOTION for Order to retain confidential status of selected documents filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
243 MOTION for Summary Judgment by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2 pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
244 NOTICE of Hearing on 243 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 5/24/2004 at 10:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
245 MEMORANDUM in Support re 243 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 25 pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
246 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Kari Thoe Crone re 243 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 3+ pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
247 EXHIBIT D to Affidavit of Kari Thoe−Crone by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
248 EXHIBIT E to Affidavit of Kari Thoe Crone by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
249 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Laura Stevermer re 243 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2 pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
250 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Amy C. Taber re 243 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2 pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
251 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Laurice Lewis re 243 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2+ pgs SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
252 EXHIBIT A to Affidavit of Laurice J. Lewis by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
253 CDs/E−Briefs re: Memoradum of Law and supporting materials. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
254 MOTION for Summary Judgment dismissing Fair Labor Standards Act Claim of Plaintiff Tricia Porter by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2 pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
255 NOTICE of Hearing on 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment dismissing Fair Labor Standards Act Claim of Plaintiff Tricia Porter: Motion Hearing set for 5/24/2004 at 10:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Magistrate Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pgs(JMM) Modified on 4/5/2004 (Mehl, Jackie). (Entered: 03/25/2004)
256 MEMORANDUM in Support re 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment dismissing Fair Labor Standards Act Claim of Plaintiff Tricia Porter filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 33 pgs

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 28 of 84

03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004
03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004

(JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
257 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Kari Thoe Crone re 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 4+ pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
258 EXHIBIT D to Affidavit of Kari Thoe−Crone by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
259 EXHIBIT E to Affidavit of Kari Thoe Crone by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
260 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Laurice Lewis re 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2+ pgs SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
261 EXHIBIT B to Affidavit of Laurice J. Lewis by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
262 EXHIBIT D to Affidavit of Laurice J. Lewis by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
263 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Laura Stevermer re 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2 pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
264 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Amy Taber re 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2 pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
265 CDs/E−Briefs re: Memorandum of Law and supporting materials. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 3 pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
NOTICE of Hearing on 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 5/24/2004 at 10:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
267 MEMORANDUM in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
268 DECLARATION of David Ramp in support of 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 15 pgs (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
269 EXHIBITS 1−3 to Declaration of David L. Ramp by Plaintiffs. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
270 EXHIBIT 4−5 to Declaration of David L. Ramp by Plaintiffs. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
271 EXHIBITS 101−125 to Declaration of David Ramp by Plaintiffs. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
272 EXHIBITS 126−158 to Declaration of David L. Ramp by Plaintiffs. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
273 EXHIBITS 201−266 to Declaration of David L. Ramp by Plaintiffs. 2+ pgs SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
274 EXHIBITS 267−339 to Declaration of David L. Ramp by Plaintiffs. 2+ pgs SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
275 EXHIBITS 401−425 to Declaration of David L. Ramp by Plaintiffs. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
276 EXHIBITS 426−475 to Declaration of David L. Ramp by Plaintiffs. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
277 EXHIBITS 476−487 to Declaration of David L. Ramp by Plaintiffs. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
278 EXHIBITS 488−541 to Declaration of David L. Ramp by Plaintiffs. SEALED AND SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 29 of 84

03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004

279 EXHIBITS 601−603/701−710 to Declaration of David L. Ramp by Plaintiffs. SEPARATE (JMM) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
280 DECLARATION of Keith A. Aiken in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
281 DECLARATION of Shannon Baker in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 8 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
282 DECLARATION of Danielle M. Barron in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 14 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
283 DECLARATION of James J Bartolotta, Jr in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
284 DECLARATION of James Bartolotta in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
285 DECLARATION of Kimberly Bethel in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 5 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
286 DECLARATION of Brent Birdsong in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
287 DECLARATION of Chad Birdsong in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
288 DECLARATION of Michael T. "Todd" Blackburn in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
289 DECLARATION of Michael T. "Todd" Blackburn in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
290 DECLARATION of Craig Bowen in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 2 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
291 DECLARATION of Craig Bowen in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
292 DECLARATION of E. Marianne Buck in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 6 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
293 DECLARATION of Erica Chayka in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 7 pgs (GML) Modified on 4/6/2004 (GML). (Entered: 04/06/2004)
294 DECLARATION of Shannon Davis in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 11 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
295 DECLARATION of Jose DeRosa in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) Modified on 4/6/2004 (GML). (Entered: 04/06/2004)
296 DECLARATION of Sharon Dodson−McDonald in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 7 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
297 DECLARATION of Marc Dorau in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
298 DECLARATION of Ariel Durniok in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 13 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
299 DECLARATION of Latrina Dye in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 8 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
300 DECLARATION of Enrico Fantozzi in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
301 DECLARATION of Wendy Ferger in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 7 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
302 DECLARATION of Mirek Gaca in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 30 of 84

03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004
03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004

303 DECLARATION of Julie Gallagher (Chouinard) in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 11 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
304 DECLARATION of David Gault in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
305 DECLARATION of Michael B. "Brent" Godwin in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
306 DECLARATION of Michael B. "Brent" Godwin in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
307 DECLARATION of Keith Gordon in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
308 DECLARATION of Keith Gordon in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 2 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
309 DECLARATION of Jeff Green in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintffs. 2 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
310 DECLARATION of Kristina Harness in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 7 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
311 DECLARATION of Evelyn Hernandez in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 3 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
312 DECLARATION of Randall Hibbs in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) Modified on 4/6/2004 (GML). (Entered: 04/06/2004)
313 DECLARATION of Randall Hibbs in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
314 DECLARATION of Jeanna S. Wescott Hood in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 10 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
315 DECLARATION of Chad Hubble in support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 2 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
316 DECLARATION of Chad Hubble in support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
317 DECLARATION of Michelle Hadler Janovitz in support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plantiffs. 12 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
318 DECLARATION of Laura Jeneault in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 14 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
319 Copy of DECLARATION of Trevor Johnson in Connection with Motion for Sending of Court Approved Notice re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 4 pgs (GML) Modified on 4/7/2004 (GML). (Entered: 04/07/2004)
320 DECLARATION of Jonathan Kirby in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
321 DECLARATION of Amie Kucab in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 6 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
322 DECLARATION of Kip Lass in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
323 DECLARATION of Nissa Laurelli in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 10 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
324 DECLARATION of David Ludivig in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 2 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
325 DECLARATION of David Ludivig in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 31 of 84

03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004

326 DECLARATION of Brian McVay in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
327 DECLARATION of Timothy Morris in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
328 DECLARATION of Scott Newland in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 2 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
329 DECLARATION of Scott Newland in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
330 DECLARATION of Suzanne Oroxco in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 6 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
331 DECLARATION of Chris O'Shea in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 8 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
332 DECLARATION of Patricia Parrish in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 7 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
333 DECLARATION of Katheryn Phillips in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 7 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
334 DECLARATION of Sandra Powell in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 3 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
335 DECLARATION of Jack Prentice in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 2 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
336 DECLARATION of Jack Prentice in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
337 DECLARATION of Christopher Reed in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
338 DECLARATION of Christopher Reed in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
339 DECLARATION of Ingrid Reeves in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 5 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
340 DECLARATION of Dan R. Robinson, III in support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 2 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
341 DECLARATION of Dan R. Robinson, III in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
342 DECLARATION of Jay Rzepinski in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 2 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
343 DECLARATION of Jay Rzepiniski in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
344 DECLARATION of Melissa Schmidt in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 5 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
345 DECLARATION of Shawn Sieck in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
346 DECLARATION of Aaron Smith in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
347 DECLARATION of Stephanie Smith in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 8 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
348 DECLARATION of Daniel F. Sweeney re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 10 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
349 DECLARATION of Maggie Tanner in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 7 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 32 of 84

03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/23/2004
03/23/2004 03/23/2004 03/23/2004 03/23/2004 03/23/2004

350 DECLARATION of James A. Taylor in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 11 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
351 DECLARATION of Scott Warembourg in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
352 DECLARATION of Scott Warembourg in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
353 DECLARATION of Michael Weiss in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 2 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
354 DECLARATION of Debra Wentworth in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 7 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
355 DECLARATION of Daniel Whitlach in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 2 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
356 DECLARATION of Catherine Wilcox in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 6 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
357 DECLARATION of Shannon Willis in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 8 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
358 DECLARATION of Casey Wilson in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 2 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
359 DECLARATION of Thea Winterbottom in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 13 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
360 DECLARATION of Rhonda Miller in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 7 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
361 DECLARATION of Cheryl Von Staden in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 13 pgs (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
362 DECLARATION of Casey Wilson in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg (GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
363 DECLARATION of Marc Dorau in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
364 DECLARATION of Rhea L. Nadler in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 16 pgs(GML) Modified on 4/7/2004 (GML). (Entered: 04/07/2004)
365 DECLARATION of Aaron Smith in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 2 pgs(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
366 DECLARATION of Kenneth L. Clarkson in Support re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. 1 pg(GML) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
238 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan G Lebedoff : Motion Hearing held on 3/23/2004 re 227 MOTION to Compel filed by Gwen D Carlson, Mari Danielson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Beth Johnson, Marti Justet, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. Motions taken under advisement as of: 3/23/04. Order to be issued. No R &R to be issued. (JR) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
Motions Taken Under Advisement: 227 MOTION to Compel (JR) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
371 Pltfs' MEMORANDUM in Support re 266 Pltfs' MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (JR. Sealed and Separate. Modified on 6/21/2004 (Gunderson−Gernes, Jill). (Entered: 04/09/2004)
372 Pltfs' MEMORANDUM in Support re 266 their MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Redacted Version)(JR) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
373 Supplemental DECLARATION of David Ramp in support of pltfs' joint motion for partial summary judgment. 266 (JR) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
374 EXHIBITS to the Supplemental Declaration of David L. Ramp in Support of Pltfs' Joint Motion For Partial Summary Judgment. 266 (separate) (JR) (Entered: 04/09/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 33 of 84

04/02/2004
04/02/2004 04/02/2004 04/02/2004 04/02/2004 04/06/2004
04/13/2004
04/13/2004
04/13/2004 04/16/2004 04/20/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/27/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004

367 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 239 MOTION for Order to retain confidential status of certain documents filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. separate and sealed (DFL) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
368 DECLARATION of David L. Ramp re 239 MOTION for Order. 3+pgs (DFL) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
369 EXHIBITS G and H to declaration of David L. Ramp. separate and sealed (DFL) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
370 EXHIBITS J and K to declaration of David L. Ramp. separate and sealed (DFL) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
375 AFFIDAVIT of Thomas Fraser. 3pgs (DFL) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
494 Amended Joint MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 239 Deft's MOTION for Order to Retain Confidential Status of Selected Documents filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (SEALED) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
376 ORDER appointing Mr. Thomas S. Fraser as special master in the matter of Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Compel Documents Contained in Defendant's Privilege Log (Doc. No. 227 in Civ. No. 02−3780 and Doc. No. 198 in Civ. No. 02−4261), as set forth fully in the body of this Order. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 04/13/04. (dak) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
377 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jonathan G Lebedoff : Motion Hearing held on 4/13/2004 re 239 MOTION for Order to retain the confidential status of selected documents. Motions taken under advisement as 4/13/04. Order to be issued. R &R to be issued. (JR) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
MOTIONS 227 MOTION to Compel REFERRED to Special Master Thomas S. Fraser. (JGG) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
Motions Taken Under Advisement: 239 (JR) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
378 STIPULATION AND ORDER to amend pretrial order in re responsive briefs for cross−motions for summary judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan G Lebedoff on 4/19/04. (JR) Modified on 4/27/2004 (Mehl, Jackie). (Entered: 04/22/2004)
379 Plaintiffs' Joint MOTION To Preclude Expert Report and Testimony of F. Timothy Trujillo. 2 pg(s).(LJD) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 379 MOTION To Preclude Expert Report and Testimony of F. Timothy Trujillo: Motion Hearing set for 6/14/2004 10:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (LJD) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
380 MEMORANDUM in Support of Plaintiffs' Joint re 379 MOTION To Preclude Expert Report and Testimony of F. Timothy Trujillo. 28 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
381 AFFIDAVIT of Charles Horowitz in Support of Plaintiffs' Joint re 379 MOTION To Preclude Expert Report and Testimony of F. Timothy Trujillo. SEPERATE. 2+ pg(s). (LJD) Modified on 4/23/2004 (Duda, Lisa). (Entered: 04/22/2004)
382 AFFIDAVIT of Andrew T. Jackola re 379 MOTION To Preclude Expert Report and Testimony of F. Timothy Trujillo. 2 pg(s).(LJD) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
383 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 239 Motion for Order to retain confidential staus of selected documents as explained fully in the body of this order. Signed by Judge Jonathan G Lebedoff on 4/27/2004. (DFL) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
384 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 50pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
385 AFFIDAVIT of Robyn E. Anderson in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
386 AFFIDAVIT of Gayle M. Parish in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 34 of 84

04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004

387 AFFIDAVIT of John P. Morgan in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 4+pgs, separate (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
388 AFFIDAVIT of Jeff Ambrose in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., sealed and separate. (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
389 AFFIDAVIT of Dan Anderson in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.; sealed and separate. (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
390 AFFIDAVIT of Gordon Anderson in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
391 AFFIDAVIT of Leslie Beard in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 4pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
392 AFFIDAVIT of Steve Bertossi in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
393 AFFIDAVIT of Mark Bogucki in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
394 AFFIDAVIT of Craig Bower in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
395 AFFIDAVIT of Lawrence Buchanan in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 4pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
396 AFFIDAVIT of Lewis Canouse in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
397 AFFIDAVIT of Cameron Carrier in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
398 AFFIDAVIT of Mark Casey in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 8pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
399 AFFIDAVIT of Matt Castle in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
400 AFFIDAVIT of William Cipponeri in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
401 AFFIDAVIT of Bryan Crock in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
402 AFFIDAVIT of Alex Denisenko in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
403 AFFIDAVIT of Pat Depover in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
404 AFFIDAVIT of Brad Dexter in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
405 AFFIDAVIT of David Dezellar in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
406 AFFIDAVIT of Thomas Donovan in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
407 AFFIDAVIT of Scott Douthitt in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
408 AFFIDAVIT of Amy Ebert in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 3pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 35 of 84

04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004

409 AFFIDAVIT of Nick Elia in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
410 AFFIDAVIT of Greg Fallon in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
411 AFFIDAVIT of Gerran Ferrey in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.; 8pgs, unexecuted (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
412 AFFIDAVIT of Bryan Foe in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
413 AFFIDAVIT of Joe Foley in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
414 AFFIDAVIT of Joe Franco in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
415 AFFIDAVIT of Troy Gean in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
416 Copy of AFFIDAVIT of Gregory D. Goven in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 17pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
417 Copy of AFFIDAVIT of Mary P. Gorski in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 4pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
418 AFFIDAVIT of Mary Gorski in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
419 AFFIDAVIT of Duane "Dewey" Groebner in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
420 AFFIDAVIT of Bruce Gustas in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
421 AFFIDAVIT of Marco Gutierrez in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 9pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
422 AFFIDAVIT of Kevin Haas in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 8pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
423 Facsimile copy of AFFIDAVIT of Kevin Haas in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Original to be filed at later date. 8pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
424 AFFIDAVIT of Stephanie Harrison in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
425 AFFIDAVIT of Kevin Harthan in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
426 AFFIDAVIT of Greg Holcomb in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
427 AFFIDAVIT of Dan Holden in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
428 AFFIDAVIT of Robert James in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
429 AFFIDAVIT of Chuck Johnson in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
430 AFFIDAVIT of Diane Johnson in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 4pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 36 of 84

04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004

431 AFFIDAVIT of Chris Kaminski in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 4pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
432 AFFIDAVIT of Doug Klimko in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
433 AFFIDAVIT of Vaughn Lawrence in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
434 AFFIDAVIT of James L. Luxmore in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
435 AFFIDAVIT of James Macy in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
436 AFFIDAVIT of Phil Magill in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 4pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
437 AFFIDAVIT of Tim Manning in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 8pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
438 EXHIBIT(S) to Affidavit of Tim Manning in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
439 AFFIDAVIT of Roger McCoy in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
440 AFFIDAVIT of Kevin Meguire in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
441 AFFIDAVIT of Mike Migoski in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 4pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
442 AFFIDAVIT of David Mitchell in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
443 AFFIDAVIT of Sean Nelsen in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
444 AFFIDAVIT of Steven Nelson in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
445 AFFIDAVIT of James Newman in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 8pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
446 AFFIDAVIT of Dave Nystie in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 8pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
447 AFFIDAVIT of Todd Ortman in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
448 AFFIDAVIT of Matt Ostrowski in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc; sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
449 AFFIDAVIT of Chad Palmsteen in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6+pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
450 AFFIDAVIT of Wayne Parry in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 3pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
451 AFFIDAVIT of Mac Pinkerton in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 8pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
452 AFFIDAVIT of Rick Pittman in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
453 AFFIDAVIT of Greg Quast in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 8pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 37 of 84

04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004

454 AFFIDAVIT of Stevee Raetz in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 8+pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
455 AFFIDAVIT of Fred Rand in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 9pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
456 AFFIDAVIT of Mike Randall in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
457 AFFIDAVIT of Troy Renner in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc; sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
458 AFFIDAVIT of Brian Robinson in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 4pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
459 AFFIDAVIT of Jim Round in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
460 AFFIDAVIT of Brian Ruffino in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
461 AFFIDAVIT of Gene Schiesser in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
462 AFFIDAVIT of Dannit Schneider in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.; sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
463 AFFIDAVIT of Brian Schue in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
464 AFFIDAVIT of Scott Shannon in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
465 AFFIDAVIT of David Sheppard in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.; sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
466 AFFIDAVIT of Kevin Sherwood in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
467 AFFIDAVIT of Phil Shook in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.; sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
468 AFFIDAVIT of Eric Simon in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
469 Copy of AFFIDAVIT of Jagjit Singh in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Original to be filed at later date. 4pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
470 Facsimile copy of AFFIDAVIT of Kim Smith in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Original to be filed at later date. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
471 AFFIDAVIT of Kevin Stencil in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
472 AFFIDAVIT of John Strange in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
473 AFFIDAVIT of Laura Stevermer in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 3pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
474 Copy of previously filed AFFIDAVIT of Amy C. Taber in SUPPORT OF 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
475 AFFIDAVIT of Amy Taber in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 38 of 84

04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004
04/30/2004
04/30/2004

476 AFFIDAVIT of Thomas Thompson in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
477 AFFIDAVIT of John Walsh in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
478 AFFIDAVIT of Brent Weber in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 7pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
479 AFFIDAVIT of Jim Wilharm in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 4pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
480 AFFIDAVIT of Kevin Wilner in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 6pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
481 AFFIDAVIT of Mick Winker in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 8pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
482 AFFIDAVIT of Hunter Winton in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 8pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
483 Facsimile copy of AFFIDAVIT of Al Zwach in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.; Original to be filed at later date. sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
484 AFFIDAVIT of Steve Zwiener in OPPOSITION TO 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
485 EXHIBITS 200−217 to 385 Affidavit of Robyn E. Anderson in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
486 EXHIBITS 300−320 to 385 Affidavit of Robyn E. Anderson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.; separate (Exhibit 319 filed separately, under seal) (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
487 EXHIBIT #319 to 385 Affidavit of Robyn E. Anderson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.; sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
488 EXHIBITS 400−412 to 385 Affidavit of Robyn E. Anderson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. separate (Exh. 401 filed separately and under seal) (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
489 EXHIBIT 401 to 385 Affidavit of Robyn E. Anderson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.; sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
490 EXHIBITS 500−501 to 385 Affidavit of Robyn E. Anderson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
491 EXHIBIT #600 to 385 Affidavit of Robyn E. Anderson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
492 EXHIBIT #601 to 385 Affidavit of Robyn E. Anderson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
493 EXHIBIT #602 to 385 Affidavit of Robyn E. Anderson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
495 Joint MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 243 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Gwen D Carlson and Tricia Porter. sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
496 EXHIBITS to 495 Plaintiffs Gwen D Carlson's and Tricia Porter's Joint Opposition to Defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.'s Motions for Summary Judgment Dismissing Fair Labor Standards Act Claims. Exhibits C,D,F and G docketed separately. 1+pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
497 DECLARATION of Gwen D. Carlson in Support of 495 Joint Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Gwen D Carlson and Tricia Porter. 4pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
498 DECLARATION of Tricia Porter in Support of 495 Joint Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Gwen D Carlson and Tricia Porter. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/11/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 39 of 84

04/30/2004 04/30/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004
05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004
05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004

499 DECLARATION of Leslie Rusnacko in Support of 495 Joint Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Gwen D Carlson and Tricia Porter. 2pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
500 EXHIBIT D to 495 Plaintiffs Gwen D Carlson's and Tricia Porter's Joint Opposition to Defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.'s Motions for Sumary Judgment Dismissing Fair Labor Standards Act Claim. sealed and separate (CK) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
549 Original AFFIDAVIT of William Cipperoni by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (sealed and separate) (CK) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
550 Original AFFIDAVIT of Gerran Ferrey by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 8pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
551 Original AFFIDAVIT of Kevin Haas by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 8pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
552 Original AFFIDAVIT of Kim Smith by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 5pgs (CK) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
553 Original AFFIDAVIT of Al Zwach by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (sealed and separate) (CK) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
501 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Plaintiff, Sandra Nelson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
502 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 501 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Plaintiff Sandra Nelson: Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2004 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
503 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's 501 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Individual Plaintiff, Sandra Nelson's, Claims of Hostile Environment. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
504 AFFIDAVIT of Stacey P. Slaughter in Support of the 501 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Individual Plaintiff, Sandra Nelson's, Claims of Hostile Environment. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
505 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Plaintiff, Carol Flannigan by Defendant, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
506 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 505 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Plaintiff, Carol Flannigan: Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2004 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
507 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's 505 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Plaintiff Carol Flannigan. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
508 AFFIDAVIT OF Stacey P. Slaughter in Support of Defendant's 505 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claims of Plaintiff Carol Flannigan. SEALED AND SEPARATE.(LJD) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
509 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Plaintiff Debbie Kinniry by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
510 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 509 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2004 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
511 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's 509 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claims of Plaintiff Debra Kinniry. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
512 AFFIDAVIT OF Stacey P. Slaughter in Support of Defendant's 509 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Plaintiff Debra Kinniry. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 40 of 84

05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004
05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004
05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004

513 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Angela Roberts by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
514 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 513 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Angela Roberts: Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2004 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
515 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's 513 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Angela Roberts. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
516 AFFIDAVIT OF Stacey P. Slaughter is Support of 513 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Plaintiff Angela Robers. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
517 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Plaintiff Andrea Prout by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
518 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 517 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Andrea Prout: Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2004 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
519 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's 517 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Andrea Prout. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
520 AFFIDAVIT of Stacey P. Slaughter is Support of 517 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment of Individual Plaintiff, Andrea Prout. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
521 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff, Amy Hossenlopp, by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
522 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 521 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff, Amy Hossenlopp: Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2004 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
523 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's 521 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff, Amy Hossenlopp. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
524 AFFIDAVIT of Stacey P. Slaughter in Support of Defendant's 521 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff, Amy Hossenlopp. SEALED AND SEPARATE.(LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
525 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff, Cathy Perkey, by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
526 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 525 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Cathy Perkey: Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2004 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
527 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's 525 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Cathy Perkey. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
528 AFFIDAVIT of Stacey P. Slaughter In Support of Defendant's 525 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plainitiff Cathy Perkey. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
529 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Jessica Vetter by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 41 of 84

05/10/2004
05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004
05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004
05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004
05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004

530 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 529 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment of Individual Plaintiff Jessica Vetter: Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2004 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
531 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's 529 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Jessica Vetter. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
532 AFFIDAVIT of Stacey P. Slaughter in Support of Defendant's 529 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment of Individual Plaintiff Jessica Vetter. SEALED AND SEPARATE.(LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
533 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Lee Ann Puckett by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
534 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 533 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Lee Ann Puckett: Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2004 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
535 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's 533 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Lee Ann Puckett. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
536 AFFIDAVIT of Stacey P. Slaughter In Support of 533 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim by Individual Plaintiff Lee Ann Puckett. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
537 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Tricia Porter by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
538 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 537 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Tricia Porter: Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2004 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
539 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's 537 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claims of Individual Plaintiff Tricia Porter. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
540 AFFIDAVIT of Stacey P. Slaughter In Support of 537 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claims of Individual Plaintiff Tricia Porter. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Gwen Carlson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
542 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Gwen Carlson: Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2004 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
543 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's 541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claims of Individual Plaintiff Gwen Carlson. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
544 AFFIDAVIT of Stacey P. Slaughter In Support of 541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claims of Individual Plaintiff Gwen Carlson. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
545 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Jennifer Smyrle by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
546 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 545 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Jennifer Smyrl: Motion Hearing set for

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 42 of 84

05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004

7/26/2004 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. 2 pg(s). (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
547 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's 545 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Jennifer Smyrl. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
548 AFFIDAVIT of Stacey P. Slaughter In Support of Defendant's 545 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Hostile Environment Claim of Individual Plaintiff Jennifer Smyrl. SEALED AND SEPARATE. (LJD) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
554 Amended AFFIDAVIT of Stacey Slaughter in SUPPORT OF 541 Defendant's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment re Gwen Carlson with Exhibit C filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate). (HLL) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
555 Supplemental AFFIDAVIT of Robyn E Anderson in Support of Memorandum of Defendant in OPPOSITION TO 266 Plaintiffs' MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Separate). (HLL) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
556 EXHIBIT 214A to the 555 Supplemental Affidavit of Robyn E Anderson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
557 EXHIBIT of Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Individual Plaintiff's Claims of Hostile Environment: Sandra Nelson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate). (HLL) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
558 EXHIBIT of Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Individual Plaintiff's Claims of Hostile Environment: Carol Flannigan by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
559 EXHIBIT of Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Individual Plaintiff's Claims of Hostile Environment: Amy Hossenlopp by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
560 EXHIBIT of Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Individual Plaintiff's Claims of Hostile Environment: Jessica Vetter by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
561 EXHIBIT of Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Individual Plaintiff's Claims of Hostile Environment: Debra Kinniry by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
562 EXHIBIT of Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Individual Plaintiff's Claims of Hostile Environment: Gwen Carlson by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
563 EXHIBIT of Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Individual Plaintiff's Claims of Hostile Environment: Cathy Perkey by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
564 EXHIBIT of Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Individual Plaintiff's Claims of Hostile Environment: Tricia Porter by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
565 EXHIBIT of Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Individual Plaintiff's Claims of Hostile Environment: Andrea Prout by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
566 EXHIBIT of Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Individual Plaintiff's Claims of Hostile Environment: Lee Ann Puckett by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
567 EXHIBIT of Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Individual Plaintiff's Claims of Hostile Environment: Angela Roberts by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
568 EXHIBIT of Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Individual Plaintiff's Claims of Hostile Environment: Jennifer Smyrl by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Sealed) (Separate) (HLL) (Entered: 05/19/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 43 of 84

05/18/2004 05/19/2004 05/19/2004 05/19/2004 05/20/2004 05/20/2004 05/20/2004 05/21/2004 05/21/2004 05/21/2004 05/21/2004
05/21/2004 05/21/2004 05/21/2004 05/21/2004
05/21/2004
05/24/2004 05/24/2004

571 AFFIDAVIT of Service by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re DEFENDANT MOTIONS for Partial Summary Judgment. (GJS) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
569 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. by Hand Delivery for the Supplemental Affidavit of Robyn E. Anderson (Anderson, Robyn) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
570 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. by Hand Delivery of the Supplemental Affidavit of Robyn E. Anderson (Anderson, Robyn) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
572 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. by Federal Express for Supplemental Affidavit of Robyn E. Anderson (Anderson, Robyn) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
573 MOTION to Certify Class by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Ramp, David) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
574 APPLICATION to File Conventionally. (Ramp, David) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
NOTICE re: Out State Attorney given to atty admissions clerk to send PHV to Latif Doman. (HLL) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
575 REPLY to Response to Motion re 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment on FLSA Claim of Tricia Porter filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
576 AFFIDAVIT of John P. Morgan in SUPPORT OF 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment on FLSA Claim of Tricia Porter filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C# 2 Exhibit D# 3 Exhibit E−G)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
577 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 575 Reply to Response to Motion, 576 Affidavit in Support of Motion on FLSA Claim of Tricia Porter (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
578 REPLY to Response to Motion re 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Ramp, David) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
579 REPLY to Response to Motion re 243 MOTION for Summary Judgment on FLSA Claim of Gwen Carlson filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
580 AFFIDAVIT of John P. Morgan in SUPPORT OF 243 MOTION for Summary Judgment on FLSA Claim of Gwen Carlson filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
581 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 579 Reply to Response to Motion, 580 Affidavit in Support of Motion on FLSA Claim of Gwen Carlson (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
582 AFFIDAVIT of David L. Ramp in SUPPORT OF 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit No. 6, Part 1 of 3# 2 Exhibit No. 6, Part 2 of 3# 3 Exhibit No. 6, Part 3 of 3# 4 Exhibit Placeholder for Nos. 159, 801−880 FILED UNDER SEAL# 5 Exhibit Nos. 340−341, 711−718, 901−906)(Ramp, David)SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AT CLERK'S OFFICE ON MAY 21, 2004 Modified on 5/26/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 05/21/2004)
583 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re 579 Reply to Response to Motion, 582 Affidavit in Support of Motion, (Ramp, David) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
584 NOTICE of Appearance by David L Ramp on behalf of all plaintiffs (Ramp, David) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
585 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re 584 Notice of Appearance of Susan Coler (Ramp, David) (Entered: 05/24/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 44 of 84

05/25/2004 05/27/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004
05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004
05/28/2004
06/01/2004 06/01/2004 06/01/2004

587 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 227 Motion to Compel . Signed by Special Master Thomas Fraser on 5/25/2004. (DFL) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
586 ORDER granting 574 Application to File Information Conventionally . Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on May 27, 2004. (slf) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
588 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 573 MOTION to Certify Class: (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
589 MEMORANDUM in Support re 573 MOTION to Certify Class Redacted Version filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
590 AFFIDAVIT of Steven M. Sprenger in SUPPORT OF 573 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−C# 2 Exhibit Exhibit D# 3 Exhibit Exhibits E−F# 4 Exhibit Exhibit G# 5 Exhibit Exhibits H−I# 6 Exhibit Exhibits J−K# 7 Exhibit Exhibits L−M)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
591 MEMORANDUM in Support re 573 MOTION to Certify Class FILED UNDER SEAL filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENT REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 5/28/04 Modified on 6/2/2004 (Labat, Heather). (Entered: 05/28/2004)
592 AFFIDAVIT of Jacqueline A. Olson in SUPPORT OF 573 MOTION to Certify Class FILED UNDER SEAL filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENT REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 5/28/04 Modified on 6/2/2004 (Labat, Heather). (Entered: 05/28/2004)
593 EXHIBIT in Support of Motion for Class Certification FILED UNDER SEAL by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENTS REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 5/28/04 Modified on 6/2/2004 (Labat, Heather). (Entered: 05/28/2004)
594 EXHIBIT in Support of Motion to Maintain Action as a Class Action FILED CONVENTIONALLY by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, CONVENTIONALLY FILED DOCUMENTS REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 5/28/04 Modified on 6/2/2004 (Labat, Heather). Modified on 6/15/2004 (Labat, Heather). The following exhibit #s were placed under seal by filer per Protective Order: 402−403,421,427,433−436,440,444,451,468,473−474,477,481,485,488−490,498,505,507,509, 512,419,522,606,609,610−611, 615−617,620−621,625,644,647. Modified on 6/21/2004 (Gunderson−Gernes, Jill). (Entered: 05/28/2004)
595 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re 590 Affidavit in Support of Motion,, 591 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 592 Affidavit in Support of Motion,, 593 Exhibit,, 594 Exhibit,, 588 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 589 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
596 MOTION in Limine To Exclude the Expert Report And Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Morgan, John) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
597 MEMORANDUM in Support re 596 MOTION in Limine To Exclude the Expert Report And Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Morgan, John) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
598 AFFIDAVIT of John P. Morgan in SUPPORT OF 596 MOTION in Limine To Exclude the Expert Report And Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−G)(Morgan, John) SEALED DOCUMENT (EXHIBIT A) REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 6/1/04 Modified on 6/2/2004 (Labat, Heather). (Entered: 06/01/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 45 of 84

06/01/2004 06/01/2004 06/07/2004 06/07/2004 06/07/2004 06/07/2004 06/07/2004 06/07/2004 06/07/2004 06/14/2004
06/14/2004 06/16/2004 06/17/2004

599 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 596 MOTION in Limine To Exclude the Expert Report And Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer: Motion Hearing set for 6/14/2004 10:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (Morgan, John) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
600 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 596 MOTION in Limine To Exclude the Expert Report And Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer, 597 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 598 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 599 Notice of Hearing on Motion (Morgan, John) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
601 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 379 MOTION To Preclude Expert Report and Testimony of F. Timothy Trujillo filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Morgan, John) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
602 AFFIDAVIT of John P. Morgan in OPPOSITION TO 379 MOTION To Preclude Expert Report and Testimony of F. Timothy Trujillo filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E)(Morgan, John) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
603 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 601 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 602 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion (Morgan, John) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
604 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 596 MOTION in Limine To Exclude the Expert Report And Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer NOT FILED UNDER SEAL filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Mansfield, Seymour) Modified on 6/8/2004 (vem). (Entered: 06/07/2004)
605 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Report and Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer (Mansfield, Seymour) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
606 CORRECTED MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 596 MOTION in Limine To Exclude the Expert Report And Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Mansfield, Seymour) Modified on 6/8/2004 (vem). (Entered: 06/07/2004)
607 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl Plaintiffs' Corrected Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Report and Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer (Mansfield, Seymour) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
608 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Motion Hearing held on 6/14/2004 re 243 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 596 MOTION in Limine To Exclude the Expert Report And Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 379 MOTION To Preclude Expert Report and Testimony of F. Timothy Trujillo filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Beth Johnson, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. ALL MOTIONS WERE TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (slf) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
Motions Taken Under Advisement: 243 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 596 MOTION in Limine To Exclude the Expert Report And Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer, 266 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 379 MOTION To Preclude Expert Report and Testimony of F. Timothy Trujillo (slf) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
609 NOTICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. of Removal of Counsel (Anderson, Robyn) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
610 SPECIAL MASTER'S SECOND ORDER re 587 Order on Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Compel Documents Contained in Defendant's Privelge Log . Signed by Special Master Thomas Fraser on 6/17/04. (HLL) (Entered: 06/17/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 46 of 84

06/25/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004
07/28/2004

611 Letter from Janet C. Evans in response to Plaintiffs' letter of 6/14/2004. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
612 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages consisting of Two Consolidated Documents in Opposition to Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment and in Support of Plaintiffs' Cross−Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
613 MEMORANDUM in Support re 612 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages consisting of Two Consolidated Documents in Opposition to Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment and in Support of Plaintiffs' Cross−Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
614 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re 612 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages consisting of Two Consolidated Documents in Opposition to Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment and in Support of Plaintiffs' Cross−Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 613 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
615 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 612 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages consisting of Two Consolidated Documents in Opposition to Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment and in Support of Plaintiffs' Cross−Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
616 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 615 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, For Leave to File Two Excess−Page Consolidated Documents In Opposition to Defendant's Motions For Summary Judgment And In Support of Their Cross−Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
617 MOTION for Summary Judgment − Partial Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
618 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 617 MOTION for Summary Judgment − Partial Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim: (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
619 MEMORANDUM by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re 617 MOTION for Summary Judgment − Partial Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim NOTIFICATION OF FILING UNDER SEAL of Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim and in Opposition to Defendant's Motions for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Plaintiffs' Individual Hostile Work Environment Claims filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENTS REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 7/28/04 Modified TEXT on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
620 RESPONSE in Opposition re 525 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 509 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 529 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 513 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 501 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 617 MOTION for Summary Judgment − Partial Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim, 545 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 533 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 517 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 521 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 505 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 537 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment − Consolidated Responses to Defendant's Statement of Alleged Undisputed Material Facts filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 07/28/2004)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 47 of 84

07/28/2004
07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004 07/28/2004
07/28/2004

621 DECLARATION of Jacqueline Olson Re: Materials Filed Electronically 617 MOTION for Summary Judgment − Partial Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim, 619 Memorandum In Support of 617 Motion for Summary Judgment − Partial Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim and In Opposition to Defendant's Environment Claims. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−D# 2 Exhibit Exhibit E Part 1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit E Part 2# 4 Exhibit Exhibits F−H# 5 Exhibit Exhibits I−L# 6 Exhibit Exhibits M−P# 7 Exhibit Exhibit Q# 8 Exhibit Exhibit R# 9 Exhibit Exhibits S−U)(Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/29/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
622 DECLARATION of Gwen Carlson in Opposition to 541 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Hostile Work Environment Claim (Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
623 DECLARATION of Carol Flannigan in Opposition to 505 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Hostile Work Environment Claim (Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
624 DECLARATION of Amy Hossenlopp in Opposition to 521 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on her Hostile Work Environment Claim (Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
625 DECLARATION of Debra Kinniry in Opposition to 509 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Hostile Work Environment Claim (Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
626 DECLARATION of Sandra Nelson in Opposition to 501 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Hostile Work Environment Claim. (Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
627 DECLARATION of Cathy Perkey in Opposition to 525 Defendant's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Hostile Work Environment Claim . (Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
628 DECLARATION of Andrea Prout in Support of 619 Plaintiffs' Oppostion to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Prout and Named Plaintiffs' Hostile Environment Claims. (Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
629 DECLARATION of Tricia Porter in Oppostion to 537 Motion for summary judgment by the defendant. (Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
630 DECLARATION of Lee Ann Puckett in Opposition 533 to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
631 DECLARATION of Angela Roberts in Opposition to 513 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
632 DECLARATION of Jennifer Smyrl in Opposition to 545 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Hostile Work Environment Claim (Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
633 DECLARATION of Jessica Vetter in Response to 529 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on her Hostile Work Environment Claim (Coler, Susan) Modified text and links on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
634 EXHIBIT − Notification of FILING UNDER SEAL of various Exhibits in Support of Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim and in Opposition to Defendant's Motions for Partial Summary Judgment by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENTS REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 7/28/04 Modified TEXT on 7/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 07/28/2004)
635 EXHIBIT in Support of Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim and in Opposition to Defendant's Motions for Partial Summary Judgment by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Volume VIII# 2 Exhibit

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 48 of 84

07/28/2004
07/30/2004 07/30/2004 08/05/2004 08/05/2004 08/09/2004 09/01/2004 09/02/2004
09/02/2004

Vol IX, 901−925# 3 Exhibit Vol. IX, 932−944# 4 Exhibit Vol. IX, 945−952# 5 Exhibit Vol. IX, 953−982# 6 Exhibit Vol. X, 1001−1009# 7 Exhibit Vol. X, 1012, Part I# 8 Exhibit Vol. X, 1012, Part 2# 9 Exhibit Vol. X, 1012, Part 3# 10 Exhibit Vol. X, 1013−1028)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
636 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re 621 Declaration,,, 629 Declaration,, 622 Declaration,, 630 Declaration,, 623 Declaration,, 617 MOTION for Summary Judgment − Partial Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim, 631 Declaration,, 624 Declaration,, 632 Declaration,, 618 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 619 Memorandum,,,, 620 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,, 625 Declaration,, 633 Declaration,, 626 Declaration,, 634 Exhibit,, 635 Exhibit,,, 627 Declaration,, 628 Declaration, (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
637 MEMORANDUM by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 613 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 615 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, Supplemental Memorandum of Defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Two Excess−Page Consolidated Documents in Opposition to Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment and in Support of Their Cross−Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
638 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 637 Memorandum, Supplemental Memorandum of Defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Two Excess−Page Consolidated Documents in Opposition to Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment and in Support of Their Cross−Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
639 STIPULATION and Order Amending Pre−Trial Order by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
640 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 639 Stipulation, and Order Amending Pre−Trial Order (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
641 ORDER Amending Pre−Trial Order re 639 Stipulation, filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Jonathan G Lebedoff on 8/9/04. (HLL) (Entered: 08/09/2004)
642 APPLICATION to File Conventionally Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Maintain this Action as a Class Action and Affidavit of Wendy L. Larson. (Slaughter, Stacey) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
643 REPLY to Response to Motion re 525 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 509 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 529 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 513 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 501 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 545 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 533 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 517 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 521 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 505 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 537 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Notification of Conventional Filing of the Combined Reply Memorandum of Defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide,Inc. in Support of its Motions for Partial Sumary Judgment Dismissing Individual Plaintiffs' Hostile Environment Claims [FILED UNDER SEAL] filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Crone, Kari) SEALED DOCUMENTS REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 9/2/04 Modified text on 9/3/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 09/02/2004)
644 AFFIDAVIT of Kari Thoe Crone in SUPPORT OF 525 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 509 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 529 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 513 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 501 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 545 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 533 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 517 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 521 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 505 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 537 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Notification of Conventional Filing of the Affidavit of Kari Thoe Crone in Support of the Combined Reply Memorandum of Defendant

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 49 of 84

09/02/2004 09/09/2004 09/09/2004 09/09/2004 09/09/2004 09/09/2004 09/10/2004 09/29/2004
09/29/2004
09/29/2004 09/30/2004
09/30/2004

C.H. Robinson Worldwide,Inc. in Support of its Motions for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Individual Plaintiffs' Hostile Environment Claims [FILED UNDER SEAL] filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Crone, Kari) SEALED DOCUMENTS REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 9/2/04 Modified text on 9/3/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 09/02/2004)
645 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 644 Affidavit in Support of Motion,,,, 643 Reply to Response to Motion,,, Motions for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Individual Plaintiffs' Hostile Environment Claims (Crone, Kari) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
646 ORDER granting 642 Application to File Information Conventionally . Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on September 9, 2004. (slf) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
647 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 573 MOTION to Certify Class (FILED CONVENTIONALLY AND FILED UNDER SEAL) filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Slaughter, Stacey). SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED ON 9/9/04. Modified on 9/13/2004 (LJD). (Entered: 09/09/2004)
648 AFFIDAVIT of Jeffrey M. Bryan in OPPOSITION TO 573 MOTION to Certify Class (FILED CONVENTIONALLY) filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Slaughter, Stacey). DOCUMENTS RECEIVED ON 9/9/04. Modified on 9/13/2004 (LJD). (Entered: 09/09/2004)
649 AFFIDAVIT of Wendy L. Larson in OPPOSITION TO 573 MOTION to Certify Class (FILED CONVENTIONALLY AND FILED UNDER SEAL) filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Slaughter, Stacey). ALL DOCUMENTS RECEIVED ON 9/9/04. Modified on 9/13/2004 (LJD). (Entered: 09/09/2004)
650 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 647 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 648 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 649 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion (Slaughter, Stacey) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
651 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Individual Hostile Environment Claims is re−scheduled for 10/14/2004 at 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (slf) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
652 ERRATA to 634 Exhibit and 619 Memorandum NOTIFICATION OF FILING UNDER SEAL OF ERRATA TO PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLASS "PATTERN OR PRACTICE" HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIM AND IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: PLAINTIFFS' INDIVIDUAL HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMEN CLAIMS by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 833)(Coler, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENTS REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 9/29/04 (TWO ENVELOPES) Modified text on 9/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 09/29/2004)
653 ERRATA to 620 Response in Opposition to Motion, NOTIFICATION OF FILING UNDER SEAL of ERRATA TO PLAINTIFFS" CONSOLIDATED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT C.H. ROBINSON'S STATEMENT OF ALLEGED UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENTS REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 9/29/04 Modified text on 9/30/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 09/29/2004)
654 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re 652 Errata,,, 653 Errata, (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
655 REPLY to Response to Motion re 573 MOTION to Certify Class NOTIFICATION OF FILING UNDER SEAL of PLAINTIFFS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO MAINTAIN ACTION AS A CLASS ACTION filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENTS REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 9/30/04. Modified text on 10/1/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 09/30/2004)
656 Declaration of Jacqueline A. Olson in Support of 573 MOTION to Certify Class, 655 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 50 of 84

09/30/2004
09/30/2004 10/07/2004 10/07/2004 10/08/2004 10/08/2004 10/08/2004
10/08/2004 10/08/2004 10/08/2004 10/12/2004 10/14/2004

Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Part 1# 2 Exhibit A, Part 2# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit 550, 554, 555)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
657 EXHIBIT re 573 Motion to Certify Class NOTIFICATION OF FILING UNDER SEAL of Exhibits 108, 109, 344−46, 551−53, 556−57 in SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO MAINTAIN ACTION AS A CLASS ACTION by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) Modified Links on 10/1/2004 (JMM). SEALED DOCUMENTS REC'D IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 9/30/04 (THREE ENVELOPES). Modified text on 10/1/2004 (HLL). (Entered: 09/30/2004)
658 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re 655 Reply to Response to Motion,, 656 Declaration in Support,, 657 Exhibit,, (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
659 NOTICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL DAVID L. RAMP (Ramp, David) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
660 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re 659 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Ramp, David) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
661 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR. WRONG DOCUMENT ATTACHED. STIPULATION and Order Amending Pre−Trial Order by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Evans, Janet) Modified on 10/8/2004 (GML). (Entered: 10/08/2004)
662 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re 661 Stipulation, Stipulation and Order Amending Pre−Trial Order. (Evans, Janet) Modified on 10/13/2004 (Lexvold, Rena). (Entered: 10/08/2004)
663 ERRATA to 619 Memorandum, NOTIFICATION OF FILING UNDER SEAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL ERRATA TO PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Coler, Susan) Modified on 10/13/2004 (Lexvold, Rena). (Entered: 10/08/2004)
664 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re 663 Errata. (Coler, Susan) Modified on 10/13/2004 (Lexvold, Rena). (Entered: 10/08/2004)
665 STIPULATION and Order Amending Pre−Trial Order by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
666 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 665 Stipulation, Stipulation and Order Amending Pre−Trial Order (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
667 AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan G Lebedoff on 10/12/04. (RJL) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
668 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Motion Hearing held on 10/14/2004 re Motions for Partial Summary Judgment brought by Defendant, C.H. Robinson

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 51 of 84

10/20/2004 10/22/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004
10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/28/2004 11/05/2004 11/05/2004

Worldwide, Inc. [Nos. 501, 505, 509, 513, 517, 521, 525, 529, 533, 537, 541, 545)− are all taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (slf) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
669 AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER: Re: briefing for filing of papers on summary judgment motion.. Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Jonathan G Lebedoff on 10/20/2004. (DFL) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
678 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on October 14, 2004 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. Court Reporter: Maria Weinbeck. 150 pg(s). FILED CONVENTIONALLY. Transcript is also filed in case 02−cv−4261. Original transcript will be found in case 02−cv−3780. (LJD) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
670 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Portions of the Expert Report and Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Crone, Kari) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
671 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 670 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Portions of the Expert Report and Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer: Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2004 08:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 3 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (Crone, Kari) Modified on 10/25/2004 (Riemer, Rena). (Entered: 10/25/2004)
672 MEMORANDUM in Support re 670 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Portions of the Expert Report and Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Crone, Kari) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
673 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer A. Adler in SUPPORT OF 670 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Portions of the Expert Report and Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−C)(Crone, Kari) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
674 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 670 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Portions of the Expert Report and Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer, 671 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 672 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 673 Affidavit in Support of Motion (Crone, Kari) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
675 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 617 MOTION for Summary Judgment − Partial Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Evans, Janet)SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 12/25/04 Modified on 10/26/2004 (MKC). (Entered: 10/25/2004)
676 AFFIDAVIT of Gayle M. Parish in OPPOSITION TO 617 MOTION for Summary Judgment − Partial Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 100−104; 200−268; 300−307; 400−437; and 500−539 (Notification of Conventional Filing))(Evans, Janet)SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE OF 10/25/04. Modified on 10/26/2004 (MKC). (Entered: 10/25/2004)
677 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 675 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 676 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
679 NOTICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL TERESA K. PATTON (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
680 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl re 679 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
681 AFFIDAVIT of Service by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 675 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 676 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion. (JLB) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
682 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 670 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Portions of the Expert Report and Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer filed by all plaintiffs. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
683 DECLARATION of Eden Brown Gaines in Opposition to 670 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Portions of the Expert Report and Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B &C, FILED UNDER SEAL)(Coler, Susan) Sealed

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 52 of 84

11/05/2004 11/12/2004
11/16/2004 11/24/2004 11/24/2004
11/24/2004 01/03/2005 03/31/2005
03/31/2005

exhibit rec'd on 11/5/04. Modified on 11/8/2004 (JMM) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
684 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Cathy Perky re 683 Declaration in Opposition,, 682 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
685 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Motion Hearing held on 11/12/2004 re 670 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Portions of the Expert Report and Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 596 MOTION in Limine To Exclude the Expert Report And Testimony of Victoria Fuehrer filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 573 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky,, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl − all TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (slf) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
686 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on November 12, 2004 before Judge Joan N Ericksen. Court Reporter: Mari Weinbeck. 134 pg(s). FILED CONVENTIONALLY. Transcript also filed in case 02−cv−4261. Original Transcript will be found in case 02−cv−3780. (LJD) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
687 REPLY re 675 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 617 MOTION for Summary Judgment − Partial Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim, 619 Memorandum,,, Notification of Conventional Filing (FILED UNDER SEAL) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
688 Declaration of Steven M. Sprenger in Support of 675 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 617 MOTION for Summary Judgment − Partial Summary Judgment on Class Pattern or Practice Hostile Work Environment Claim, 619 Memorandum,,, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notification of Conventional Filing of Exhibit 1035 (FILED UNDER SEAL)# 2 Exhibit Notification of Conventional Filing of Exhibit 1036, 1037 and 1042 (FILED UNDER SEAL)# 3 Exhibit Exhibits 1038 and 1039# 4 Exhibit Exhibits 1040−1041 and 1043−1045# 5 Exhibit Exhibits A, B and C)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
689 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 687 Reply,, 688 Declaration in Support,, (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
690 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM CASE of attorney Teresa K. Patton on behalf of Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky (MMC) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
691 ORDER granting 243 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Gwen Carlson, denying 254 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Tricia Porter, denying 266 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting 379 Plaintiff's Motion to preclude the expert testimony of Timothy Trujillo, granting 596 CHR's Motion to preclude the expert testimony of Victoria Fuehrer insofar as she opines on FLSA exemption classifications and denying 596 CHR's Motion to preclude the expert testimony of Victoria Fuehrer insofar as she opines on accepted practices relating to willfulness. Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on 03/30/05. (dak) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
692 ORDER granting 501 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting 505 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting 509 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting 513 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting 517 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting 521 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting 525 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting 529 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, denying 533 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting 537 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting 541 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Carlson's sexual harassment claim and denying 541 as to Carlson's compensation and promotion claims, granting 545 CHR's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Smyrl's constructive discharge claim and denying 545 as to Smyrl's sexual harassment claim, granting in part and denying in part 573 Motion to Certify Class,

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 53 of 84

04/14/2005 04/14/2005
04/14/2005 04/14/2005 04/14/2005
04/21/2005 04/21/2005 04/27/2005
04/27/2005 04/27/2005 04/28/2005 04/28/2005 05/18/2005
05/19/2005 05/26/2005 06/13/2005

granting 612 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, finding as moot 617 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granting 670 CHR's Motion to exclude the testimony of Victoria Fuehrer. The parties' supplemental briefs on the issue of notice shall be received no later than 14 days from the date of this Order. The briefs shall be no longer than 10 pages in length and shall be limited in scope to the issue of notice. There shall be no reply briefs. Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on 03/31/05. (dak) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
693 BRIEF Plaintiffs' Memorandum Urging Sending of Notice to Hourly Employees and Provision of Names and Addresses of Salaried Employees. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Notice)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
694 DECLARATION re 693 Brief by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky Declaration of Steven M. Sprenger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Sprenger Declaration# 2 Exhibit B to Sprenger Declaration# 3 Exhibit C to Sprenger Declaration)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
695 MEMORANDUM by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. in Response to Court's Request for Supplemental Briefing on the Issue of Notice filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
696 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 695 Memorandum in Response to Court's Request for Supplemental Briefing on the Issue of Notice (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
697 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 693 Brief, 694 Declaration, (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
698 NOTICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. of Removal of Counsel (Crone, Kari) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
699 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 698 Notice (Other) (Crone, Kari) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
700 NOTICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky of Withdrawal of Plaintiffs' Counsel Lawrence P. Schaefer (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
701 NOTICE by Thomas S Fraser Special Master's Notice and Application for Compensation (Fraser, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
702 AFFIDAVIT re 701 Notice (Other) Special Master's Notice and Application for Compensation by Thomas S Fraser. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Fraser, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
703 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Thomas S Fraser re 701 Notice (Other), 702 Affidavit (Special Master's Notice and Application for Compensation) (Fraser, Thomas) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
704 NOTICE of Change of Address by Susan M Coler (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
705 NOTICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky Plaintiff Withdrawal from Lawsuit for Jasmine Kellogg (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
706 ORDER re 701 Notice and Application for Compensation filed by Special Master Thomas S Fraser . Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on May 19, 2005. (slf) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
707 NOTICE of Change of Address by Susan M Coler (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 05/26/2005)
708 MOTION to Compel Production of Names, Addresses and Social Security Numbers of Members of the Two Certified Title VII Classes by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/13/2005)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 54 of 84

06/13/2005
06/13/2005
06/13/2005 06/15/2005 06/15/2005 06/21/2005 06/27/2005 06/27/2005 06/27/2005 06/27/2005 06/27/2005 07/01/2005 07/07/2005

709 MEMORANDUM by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 708 MOTION to Compel Production of Names, Addresses and Social Security Numbers of Members of the Two Certified Title VII Classes filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
710 AFFIDAVIT of Steven M. Sprenger in SUPPORT OF 708 MOTION to Compel Production of Names, Addresses and Social Security Numbers of Members of the Two Certified Title VII Classes filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3 (Part 1)# 4 Exhibit 3 (Part 2)# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
711 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 708 MOTION to Compel Production of Names, Addresses and Social Security Numbers of Members of the Two Certified Title VII Classes, 709 Memorandum,,, 710 Affidavit in Support of Motion,, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
712 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. Amendment to 708 MOTION to Compel Production of Names, Addresses and Social Security Numbers of Members of the Two Certified Title VII Classes Amended Notice of Motion. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
713 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 712 Amended Document, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
714 MOTION for Hearing Motion to Set a Rule 16 Pretrial Conference and Memorandum in Support Thereof by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order# 2 Certificate of Service)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
715 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 709 Memorandum,,. (Attachments: # 1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
716 NOTICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 714 MOTION for Hearing Motion to Set a Rule 16 Pretrial Conference and Memorandum in Support Thereof Word Count Certification Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
717 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 708 MOTION to Compel Production of Names, Addresses and Social Security Numbers of Members of the Two Certified Title VII Classes filed by all defendants. (Crone, Kari) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
718 Declaration of Kari Thoe Crone in Support of 717 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A and B)(Crone, Kari) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
719 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 717 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 718 Declaration in Support (Crone, Kari) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
720 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Jonathan G Lebedoff : Motion Hearing held on 7/1/2005 re 708 Plaintiffs' MOTION to Compel Production of Names, Addresses and Social Security Numbers of Members of the Two Certified Title VII Classes. Motion taken under advisement; Order to be issued. (SEA) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
721 ORDER granting 708 Motion to Compel, Referring Motion 714 Motion for Hearing . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan G Lebedoff on 7/7/05. (JME) (Entered: 07/07/2005)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 55 of 84

07/19/2005 08/04/2005 08/23/2005
08/24/2005 08/31/2005 09/15/2005
09/16/2005 09/16/2005
09/16/2005 09/16/2005 09/16/2005 09/16/2005 09/16/2005 09/16/2005 09/16/2005 09/16/2005 09/16/2005

722 ORDER granting 714 Motion for Hearing a Rule 16 Pre−Trial Conference. The Pre−trial Conference will be held on August 4, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 3, St. Paul. Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on July 19, 2005. (slf) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
723 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Jury Trial scheduled for Tuesday, Aparil 11, 2006.Interim Pretrial Conference held on 8/4/2005. (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (slf) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
TEXT ENTRY ONLY − CLERK`S NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The Clerk of Court is directed to reassign the Magistrate Judge in this case. Case is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Janie S Mayeron for all further proceedings (4:05AD862). If you have questions regarding this assignment, please direct your inquiries to Katie Haagenson at #651−848−1190. Please note: the new case number is 02−3780 JNE/JSM. Please use this case number on your pleadings. Chief Magistrate Judge Jonathan G Lebedoff no longer assigned to case. Signed by Clerk Richard D Sletten on 8/23/05. (MKC) (Entered: 08/23/2005)
725 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Telephone Conference held on 8/24/2005. (Court Reporter No Reporter) (slf) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
724 CONDITIONAL ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF A SETTLEMENT MASTER . Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on August 31, 2005. (slf) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
726 STIPULATION and Order by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Thomas S Fraser, Mari Danielson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Beth Johnson, Marti Justet, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Crone, Kari) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
727 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 726 Stipulation, (Crone, Kari) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
728 ORDER re 726 Stipulation, filed by Thomas S Fraser, Gwen D Carlson, Mari Danielson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Beth Johnson, Marti Justet, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. . Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on September 16, 2005. (slf) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
730 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act: (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
731 MEMORANDUM in Support re 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
732 Declaration of Kari Thoe Crone in Support of 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
733 AFFIDAVIT of Ramona Bejar−Garcia in SUPPORT OF 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
734 Declaration of Edward Celler in Support of 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
735 AFFIDAVIT of Eric Foe in SUPPORT OF 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
736 Declaration of Stan King in Support of 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
737 Declaration of James Rasmussen in Support of 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 09/16/2005)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 56 of 84

09/16/2005 09/16/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/25/2005
10/28/2005 11/04/2005
11/04/2005 11/04/2005 11/04/2005 11/04/2005

738 Declaration of Tania Schue nee Schneider in Support of 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
739 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 731 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 732 Declaration in Support, 738 Declaration in Support, 733 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 734 Declaration in Support, 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 735 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 730 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 736 Declaration in Support, 737 Declaration in Support (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
740 STIPULATION re 728 Order, by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Thomas S Fraser, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Mansfield, Seymour) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
741 ORDER re 740 Stipulation to Modify Order Setting Briefing Schedule for C.H. Robinson's Motion to Decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act Claims, filed by Thomas S Fraser, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc . Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on 11/14/05. (SJH) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
TEXT ENTRY ONLY−CLERK'S NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The Clerk of Court is directed to reassign the Magistrate Judge in this case. Case is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jeanne J Graham for all further proceedings. In addition, any proceedings currently scheduled before the transferring Magistrate Judge will proceed in front of that Judge, unless directed otherwise. If you have questions regarding this assignment, please direct your inquiries to Mary Lenner at #651−848−1890. Please note: the new case number is 02−cv−3780 JNE/JJG. Please use this case number on your pleadings. Magistrate Judge Janie S Mayeron no longer assigned to case. Signed by Clerk Richard D Sletten on 10/25/05. (SJH) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
742 ORDER: On November 14 and 15, 2005, the settlement master will conduct a mediation. Counsel and representatives for the parties shall appear with full settlement authority. Any insurer that might provide coverage if a settlement is reached is expected to appear at the mediation with full settlement authority. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on October 28, 2005. (slf) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
743 DECLARATION of Michael D. Lieder in Opposition to 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 7# 2 Exhibit 161−166# 3 Exhibit 342−368# 4 Exhibit 369−400B# 5 Exhibit 542 and 544# 6 Exhibit 160, 543 and 545−548# 7 Exhibit 719−721# 8 Exhibit 722−726)(Coler, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 11/4/05 Modified on 11/9/2005 (mkc). (Entered: 11/04/2005)
744 AFFIDAVIT of Linda K. Diebes in OPPOSITION TO 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
745 DECLARATION of Daniel Ollivier in Opposition to 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
746 DECLARATION of Daniel Ollivier in Opposition to 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
747 DECLARATION of Leslie A. Rusnacko in Opposition to 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 11/04/2005)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 57 of 84

11/04/2005 11/04/2005 11/04/2005 11/08/2005
11/08/2005 11/10/2005
12/08/2005 12/08/2005 12/08/2005 12/14/2005 12/20/2005 01/11/2006 01/11/2006
01/11/2006
01/11/2006

748 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re Opposition to Motion to Decertify (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
749 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
750 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 749 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
751 STIPULATION and Request to Set a Date on Which C.H. Robinson Will File Its Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion to Decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act Claims by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Thomas S Fraser, Mari Danielson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Beth Johnson, Marti Justet, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
752 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 751 Stipulation, (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
753 ORDER re 751 Stipulation, filed by Thomas S Fraser, Gwen D Carlson, Mari Danielson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Beth Johnson, Marti Justet, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc . Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on November 10, 2005. (slf) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
754 REPLY re 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and L.R. 7.1 Certificate filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
755 Declaration of Gayle Parish in Support of 754 Reply filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
756 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 754 Reply, 755 Declaration in Support (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
757 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Status Conference by Phone in Chambers held on 12/14/2005. (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (slf) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
758 TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference held on 12/14/05 before Judge Joan N. Ericksen. Court Reporter: Maria Weinbeck. (44pgs) FILED CONVENTIONALLY (MKC) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
759 MOTION for Order to Determine Course of Proceedings with Respect to Liability for Punitive Damages by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
760 MEMORANDUM in Support re 759 MOTION for Order to Determine Course of Proceedings with Respect to Liability for Punitive Damages filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
761 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 759 MOTION for Order to Determine Course of Proceedings with Respect to Liability for Punitive Damages, 760 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
762 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 760 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 58 of 84

01/13/2006 01/17/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006 01/24/2006 02/06/2006 02/06/2006 02/06/2006 02/06/2006 02/06/2006 02/13/2006
02/16/2006
02/16/2006

Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
768 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on 8/4/05 before Judge Joan N. Ericksen. Court Reporter: Maria Weinbeck. (31pgs) FILED CONVENTIONALLY. (akl) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
767 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Status Conference held on 1/17/2006. (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (slf) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
763 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act: Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2006 02:00 PM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 12W before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
764 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 763 Amended Notice of Hearing on Motion, to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
765 NOTICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
766 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 765 Notice (Other) of Supplemental Authority (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
769 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on 1/17/06 before Judge Joan N. Ericksen. Court Reporter: Maria Weinbeck. (25pgs) FILED CONVENTIONALLY (akl) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
770 NOTICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky of Plaintiff, Lory Alami, Withdrawal from Lawsuit (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
771 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 770 Notice (Other) of Plaintiff, Lory Alami, Withdrawal from Lawsuit (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
772 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 759 MOTION for Order to Determine Course of Proceedings with Respect to Liability for Punitive Damages filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
773 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 772 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, for Order Determining Course of Proceedings with Respect to Liability for Punitive Damages (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
775 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Motion Hearing held on 2/6/2006 re 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (slf) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
774 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen on 2/13/2006: denying 759 MOTION for Order to Determine Course of Proceedings with Respect to Liability for Punitive Damages filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl. (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (Attachments: # 1 Main Document # 2 Main Document) (slf) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
776 MEMORANDUM by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky Of The Plaintiff Classes In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Engage In Post−Certification Ex Parte Communications With Class Members filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
777 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 776 Memorandum, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan,

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 59 of 84

02/16/2006 02/21/2006 02/21/2006 02/21/2006 02/21/2006 02/21/2006 02/21/2006 02/21/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/23/2006 02/28/2006 03/01/2006
03/01/2006

Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
778 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 776 Memorandum,, 777 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
779 ORDER RE: PRETRIAL PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on February 21, 2006. (slf) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
780 Witness List by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Part Two of Witness/Deposition/Exhibit List)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
781 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 780 Witness List, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
782 Witness List by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) Modified on 2/22/2006 **Pursuant to the E−Government Act, an unredacted version of this document has been filed under seal with the Clerk.(JME). Additional attachment(s) added on 2/22/2006 (JME). (Entered: 02/21/2006)
783 List of Deposition Testimony submitted by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
784 Exhibit List by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
785 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 784 Exhibit List, 783 List of Deposition Testimony, 782 Witness List (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
786 MOTION for Order to Set a Procedure for Post−Certification Communications with Class Members by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
787 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 786 MOTION for Order to Set a Procedure for Post−Certification Communications with Class Members: Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2006 01:00 PM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 12W before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
788 MEMORANDUM in Support re 786 MOTION for Order to Set a Procedure for Post−Certification Communications with Class Members filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate # 2 Exhibit A−G)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
789 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 788 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 787 Notice of Hearing on Motion,, 786 MOTION for Order to Set a Procedure for Post−Certification Communications with Class Members (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
790 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Motion Hearing held on 2/23/2006 re 786 MOTION for Order to Set a Procedure for Post−Certification Communications with Class Members filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (Court Reporter Dawn Hansen) (slf) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
791 ORDER re 786 MOTION for Order to Set a Procedure for Post−Certification Communications with Class Members filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. . Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on February 28, 2006. (Attachments: # 1)(slf) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
792 MEMORANDUM by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky Of The Plaintiff Classes Concerning Disputed Questions For Inclusion In Proposed Juror Questionnaire filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
793 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 792 Memorandum, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 60 of 84

03/01/2006 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006
03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006

Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
794 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 793 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate,, 792 Memorandum, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
795 MEMORANDUM by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Concerning Proposed Juror Questionnaire and Objections filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment to Memorandum# 2 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
796 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 795 Memorandum, (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
797 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Peter Glick by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
798 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 797 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Peter Glick: Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2006 10:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 12W before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
799 MEMORANDUM in Support re 797 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Peter Glick filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
800 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Bryan in Support of 797 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Peter Glick filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3)(Evans, Janet) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/6/06. Modified on 3/7/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
801 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 797 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Peter Glick, 798 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 799 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 800 Declaration in Support (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
802 MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to "Hostile Environment," "Hostile Work Environment," and "Sexual Harassment" by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
803 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 802 MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to "Hostile Environment," "Hostile Work Environment," and "Sexual Harassment": Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2006 10:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 12W before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
804 MEMORANDUM in Support re 802 MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to "Hostile Environment," "Hostile Work Environment," and "Sexual Harassment" filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
805 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Bryan in Support of 802 MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to "Hostile Environment," "Hostile Work Environment," and "Sexual Harassment" filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−6)(Evans, Janet) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/6/06. Modified on 3/7/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
806 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 805 Declaration in Support,, 803 Notice of Hearing on Motion,, 804 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 802 MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to "Hostile Environment," "Hostile Work Environment," and "Sexual Harassment" (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
807 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Alleged Use of Drugs or Alcohol by C.H. Robinson Employees by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
808 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 807 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Alleged Use of Drugs or Alcohol by C.H. Robinson Employees: Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2006 10:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 12W before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 61 of 84

03/06/2006 03/06/2006
03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006
03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006

809 MEMORANDUM in Support re 807 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Alleged Use of Drugs or Alcohol by C.H. Robinson Employees filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
810 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Bryan in Support of 807 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Alleged Use of Drugs or Alcohol by C.H. Robinson Employees filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4)(Evans, Janet) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/6/06. Modified on 3/7/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
811 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 809 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 808 Notice of Hearing on Motion,, 810 Declaration in Support,, 807 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Alleged Use of Drugs or Alcohol by C.H. Robinson Employees (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
812 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Sexual Harassment Allegations by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
813 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 812 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Sexual Harassment Allegations: Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2006 10:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 12W before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
814 MEMORANDUM in Support re 812 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Sexual Harassment Allegations filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
815 OBJECTION re 784 Exhibit List filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
816 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 815 Objection (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
817 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Bryan in Support of 812 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Sexual Harassment Allegations filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−5# 2 Exhibit 6)(Evans, Janet) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/6/06. Modified on 3/7/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
818 OBJECTION re 783 List of Deposition Testimony &Counter Designations filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
819 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 814 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 812 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Sexual Harassment Allegations, 817 Declaration in Support, 813 Notice of Hearing on Motion (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
820 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 818 Objection, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
821 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Victoria J. Fuehrer by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
822 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 821 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Victoria J. Fuehrer: Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2006 10:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 12W before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
823 MEMORANDUM in Support re 821 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Victoria J. Fuehrer filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
824 OBJECTION re 782 Witness List, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Part II (pages 51−100)# 2 Part III (pages

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 62 of 84

03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006
03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006
03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006

101−141))(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
825 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Bryan in Support of 821 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Victoria J. Fuehrer filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2)(Evans, Janet) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/6/06. Modified on 3/7/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
826 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 824 Objection, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
827 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 821 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Victoria J. Fuehrer, 825 Declaration in Support, 823 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 822 Notice of Hearing on Motion (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
828 JURY TRIAL NOTICE Jury Trial set for 4/11/2006 09:30 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 12W before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (slf) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
829 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Dr. John G. Veres and Other Evidence Relating to the "Stein Test" by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
830 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 829 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Dr. John G. Veres and Other Evidence Relating to the "Stein Test": Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2006 10:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 12W before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
831 MEMORANDUM in Support re 829 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Dr. John G. Veres and Other Evidence Relating to the "Stein Test" filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
832 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Bryan in Support of 829 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Dr. John G. Veres and Other Evidence Relating to the "Stein Test" filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2, Part 1# 3 Exhibit 2, Part 2# 4 Exhibit 3, Part 1# 5 Exhibit 3, Part 2# 6 Exhibit 3, Part 3# 7 Exhibit 4, Part 1# 8 Exhibit 4, Part 2# 9 Exhibit 5−7)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
833 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 830 Notice of Hearing on Motion,, 829 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Dr. John G. Veres and Other Evidence Relating to the "Stein Test", 831 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 832 Declaration in Support, (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
834 MOTION for Sanctions by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
835 MEMORANDUM in Support re 834 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
836 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 834 MOTION for Sanctions, 835 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−4)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
837 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 835 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 836 Declaration in Support,, 834 MOTION for Sanctions (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
838 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Janet R. Thornton by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
839 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 838 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Janet R. Thornton: Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2006 10:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 12W before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 63 of 84

03/06/2006
03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006
03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006
03/06/2006
03/06/2006
03/06/2006

840 **DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR − REFILED SEE 856 ** MEMORANDUM in Support re 838 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Janet R. Thornton filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Hatch, Thomas) Modified on 3/7/2006 (JLB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
841 Declaration of Thomas B. Hatch in Support of 838 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Janet R. Thornton filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
842 Declaration of Troy Renner in Support of 838 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Janet R. Thornton filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
843 Declaration of Elizabeth Becker in Support of 838 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Janet R. Thornton filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
844 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 843 Declaration in Support, 838 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Janet R. Thornton, 842 Declaration in Support, 839 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 841 Declaration in Support, 840 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony of Janet R. Thornton (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
845 OBJECTION re 780 Witness List, Objections to Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
846 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 845 Objection Objections to Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
847 OBJECTION re 780 Witness List, Counter−Designations to Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
848 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 847 Objection Counter−Designations to Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
849 OBJECTION re 780 Witness List, Objections to Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
850 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 849 Objection (s) to Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
851 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Robert Stobaugh by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
852 MEMORANDUM in Support re 851 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Robert Stobaugh filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Word Count Certification Pursuant to Rule 7.1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
853 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 852 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 851 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Robert Stobaugh filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/6/2006. Modified on 3/7/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
854 MOTION in Limine to Exclude C.H. Robinson's Deposition Exhibit #211 by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
855 MEMORANDUM in Support re 854 MOTION in Limine to Exclude C.H. Robinson's Deposition Exhibit #211 filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Word Count Certification Pursuant to Rule 7.1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 64 of 84

03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006
03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006
03/06/2006

856 MEMORANDUM in Support re 838 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Janet R. Thornton filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
857 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 855 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
858 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 855 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 857 Declaration in Support, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
859 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 853 Declaration in Support,, 852 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
860 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Reference to the Hall of Fame for Minnesota Businesses and Fortune's Most Admired List by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
861 MEMORANDUM in Support re 860 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Reference to the Hall of Fame for Minnesota Businesses and Fortune's Most Admired List filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Word Count Certification Pursuant to Rule 7.1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
862 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 860 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Reference to the Hall of Fame for Minnesota Businesses and Fortune's Most Admired List, 861 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/6/2006. Modified on 3/7/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
863 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 860 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Reference to the Hall of Fame for Minnesota Businesses and Fortune's Most Admired List, 861 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 862 Declaration in Support, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
864 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Certain Analyses from the Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Elizabeth Becker by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
865 MEMORANDUM in Support re 864 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Certain Analyses from the Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Elizabeth Becker filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Word Count Certification Pursuant to Rule 7.1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
866 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 864 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Certain Analyses from the Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Elizabeth Becker, 865 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/6/2006. Modified on 3/7/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
867 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 864 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Certain Analyses from the Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Elizabeth Becker, 866 Declaration in Support,, 865 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 65 of 84

03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006
03/06/2006 03/06/2006

868 MOTION in Limine For Order Excluding Evidence From Personnel Files Relating to Unsatisfactory Job Performance by female Employees and Any Testimony Based Thereon by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
869 BRIEF re 868 MOTION in Limine For Order Excluding Evidence From Personnel Files Relating to Unsatisfactory Job Performance by female Employees and Any Testimony Based Thereon filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
870 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 868 MOTION in Limine For Order Excluding Evidence From Personnel Files Relating to Unsatisfactory Job Performance by female Employees and Any Testimony Based Thereon filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/6/2006. Modified on 3/7/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
871 Declaration of Steven M. Sprenger in Support of 868 MOTION in Limine For Order Excluding Evidence From Personnel Files Relating to Unsatisfactory Job Performance by female Employees and Any Testimony Based Thereon filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
872 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 869 Brief, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
873 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 868 MOTION in Limine For Order Excluding Evidence From Personnel Files Relating to Unsatisfactory Job Performance by female Employees and Any Testimony Based Thereon, 871 Declaration in Support,, 872 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate,, 870 Declaration in Support,, 869 Brief, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
874 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Testimony of C.H. Robinson's Untimely Disclosed Witnesses by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
875 BRIEF re 874 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Testimony of C.H. Robinson's Untimely Disclosed Witnesses filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
876 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 874 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Testimony of C.H. Robinson's Untimely Disclosed Witnesses filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5 (Part 1 of 2)# 2 Exhibit 5 (Part 2 of 2)# 3 Exhibit 6−10)(Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/6/2006. Modified on 3/7/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
877 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 875 Brief, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
878 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 876 Declaration in Support,, 875 Brief,, 877 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate,, 874 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Testimony of C.H. Robinson's Untimely Disclosed Witnesses (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 66 of 84

03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006

879 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Defendant's Use of Untimely Produced Documents and All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
880 BRIEF re 879 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Defendant's Use of Untimely Produced Documents and All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
881 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 879 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Defendant's Use of Untimely Produced Documents and All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
882 Declaration of Leslie Rusnacko in Support of 879 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Defendant's Use of Untimely Produced Documents and All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
883 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 880 Brief, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
884 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 881 Declaration in Support,, 880 Brief,, 883 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate,, 882 Declaration in Support,, 879 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Defendant's Use of Untimely Produced Documents and All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
885 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Untimely Produced Electronic Performance and Branch Data, Including All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
886 BRIEF re 885 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Untimely Produced Electronic Performance and Branch Data, Including All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
887 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 885 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Untimely Produced Electronic Performance and Branch Data, Including All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/6/2006. Modified on 3/7/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
888 Declaration of Steven M. Sprenger in Support of 885 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Untimely Produced Electronic Performance and Branch Data, Including All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
889 Declaration of Leslie Rusnacko in Support of 885 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Untimely Produced Electronic Performance and Branch Data, Including All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
890 Declaration of Janet Thornton in Support of 885 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Untimely Produced Electronic Performance and Branch Data, Including All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 67 of 84

03/06/2006 03/06/2006
03/07/2006 03/07/2006 03/07/2006 03/07/2006 03/08/2006 03/08/2006 03/09/2006 03/17/2006 03/17/2006
03/17/2006 03/20/2006

Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/6/06. Modified on 3/7/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
891 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 886 Brief, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
892 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 889 Declaration in Support,, 885 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Untimely Produced Electronic Performance and Branch Data, Including All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon, 886 Brief,, 891 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate,, 888 Declaration in Support,, 890 Declaration in Support,, 887 Declaration in Support, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
893 STIPULATION and Order to Modify Order re Pretrial Procedures and Schedule by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
894 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 893 Stipulation, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
895 MOTION to Amend/Correct 779 Order by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Thomas S Fraser, Mari Danielson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Beth Johnson, Marti Justet, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
896 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 895 MOTION to Amend/Correct 779 Order (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
897 ORDER re 893 Stipulation, filed by Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl . Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on March 8, 2006. (slf) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
898 ORDER granting 895 Motion to Amend/Correct . Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on March 8, 2006. (slf) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
899 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 2/13/06 before Judge Joan N. Ericksen. Court Reporter: Maria Weinbeck. (31pgs) FILED CONVENTIONALLY (MKC) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
900 MEMORANDUM in Support re 864 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Certain Analyses from the Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Elizabeth Becker filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Word Count Certification Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
901 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 864 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Certain Analyses from the Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Elizabeth Becker, 900 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibit 1: FILED UNDER SEAL# 2 Placeholder for Exhibit 2: FILED UNDER SEAL)(Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/17/2006. Modified on 3/21/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/17/2006)
902 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 901 Declaration in Support,, 900 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
903 MOTION to Quash Topic Number Seven of Plaintiffs' Amended 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice and for Protective Order by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered:

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 68 of 84

03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/21/2006 03/21/2006 03/23/2006 03/23/2006
03/23/2006
03/23/2006
03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006

03/20/2006)
904 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 903 MOTION to Quash Topic Number Seven of Plaintiffs' Amended 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice and for Protective Order: Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2006 09:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 12W before Judge Joan N Ericksen. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
905 BRIEF re 903 MOTION to Quash Topic Number Seven of Plaintiffs' Amended 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice and for Protective Order filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
906 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Bryan in Support of 904 Notice of Hearing on Motion,, 905 Brief, 903 MOTION to Quash Topic Number Seven of Plaintiffs' Amended 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice and for Protective Order filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
907 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 905 Brief. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
908 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 907 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, 904 Notice of Hearing on Motion,, 906 Declaration in Support,, 903 MOTION to Quash Topic Number Seven of Plaintiffs' Amended 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice and for Protective Order, 905 Brief (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
909 Proposed Jury Instructions submitted by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
910 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 909 Proposed Jury Instructions (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
911 Emergency MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony and Opposition to CHRW's Motion to Quash and for Protective Order by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
912 MEMORANDUM in Support re 911 Emergency MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony and Opposition to CHRW's Motion to Quash and for Protective Order, 903 MOTION to Quash Topic Number Seven of Plaintiffs' Amended 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice and for Protective Order filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Word Count Certification Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
913 Declaration of Steven M. Sprenger in Support of 912 Memorandum in Support of Motion,,, 911 Emergency MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony and Opposition to CHRW's Motion to Quash and for Protective Order filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibits 2−5)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
914 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 912 Memorandum in Support of Motion,,, 913 Declaration in Support,, 911 Emergency MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony and Opposition to CHRW's Motion to Quash and for Protective Order (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
915 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 911 Emergency MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony and Opposition to CHRW's Motion to Quash and for Protective Order filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
916 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 915 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
917 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 903 MOTION to Quash Topic Number Seven of Plaintiffs' Amended 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice and for Protective Order: Motion Hearing set

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 69 of 84

03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/27/2006 03/27/2006
03/27/2006
03/27/2006
03/27/2006
03/28/2006

for 3/30/2006 09:30 AM in St Paul − Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. (Evans, Janet) Modified Magistrate Judge on 3/24/2006 (RJL). (Entered: 03/24/2006)
918 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 917 Amended Notice of Hearing on Motion, (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
NOTICE OF DOCKETING CORRECTION − Document 917 had the Magistrate Judge hearing the motion incorrect. The correct Magistrate Judge Hearing this motion is Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. The docket text has been corrected to reflect this change. (RJL) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
919 STIPULATION Re: Authenticity &Admisibility of Trial Exhibits by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
920 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 919 Stipulation, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
921 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 911 Emergency MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony and Opposition to CHRW's Motion to Quash and for Protective Order: (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
922 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 921 Amended Notice of Hearing on Motion (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
923 MOTION for Leave to File Consider Part II of Accompanying Memorandum as a Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiff Classes' Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Becker by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
924 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 838 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Janet R. Thornton and in Supplement to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Becker filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Word Count Certification Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
925 Declaration of Janet R. Thornton, Ph.D. in Support of 924 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/27/2006. AMENDED SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/30/2006. Modified on 3/27/2006 (SB). Modified on 4/3/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/27/2006)
926 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 925 Declaration in Support,, 923 MOTION for Leave to File Consider Part II of Accompanying Memorandum as a Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiff Classes' Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Becker, 924 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
927 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 926 Declaration in Support,,, 925 Declaration in Support,, 923 MOTION for Leave to File Consider Part II of Accompanying Memorandum as a Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiff Classes' Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Becker, 924 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
928 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/28/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 70 of 84

03/28/2006
03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006
03/28/2006 03/28/2006

929 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Bryan in Support of 928 Pretrial Memorandum filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A−C# 2 Exhibit(s) D, Part 1# 3 Exhibit(s) D, Part 2# 4 Exhibit(s) D, Part 3# 5 Exhibit(s) E, Part 1# 6 Exhibit(s) E, Part 2# 7 Exhibit(s) F, Part 1# 8 Exhibit(s) F, Part 2# 9 Exhibit(s) G# 10 Exhibit(s) H# 11 Exhibit(s) I−J)(Evans, Janet) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/28/2006. Modified on 3/29/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/28/2006)
930 Proposed Voir Dire by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
931 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 929 Declaration in Support,, 928 Pretrial Memorandum (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
932 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 930 Proposed Voir Dire (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
933 OBJECTION re 847 Objection filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
934 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 933 Objection (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
935 Exhibit List (Amended) by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
936 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 935 Exhibit List (Amended) (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
937 Proposed Voir Dire by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
938 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 937 Proposed Voir Dire (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
939 Proposed Jury Instructions submitted by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
940 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 939 Proposed Jury Instructions (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
941 Proposed Special Verdict Form by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
942 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 941 Proposed Special Verdict Form (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
943 Proposed Findings of Fact by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
944 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 943 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Disparate Impact Claims (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
945 MEMORANDUM by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 941 Proposed Special Verdict Form, 939 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
946 Exhibit List (Corrected) by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Corrected Exhibit List (Part 2)# 2 Plaintiffs' Corrected Exhibit List (Part 3))(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
947 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 945 Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Form (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
948 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 946 Exhibit List, (Thompson, Mara)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 71 of 84

03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006
03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006
03/28/2006 03/29/2006

(Entered: 03/28/2006)
949 TRIAL BRIEF by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
950 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 949 Trial Brief (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
951 Proposed Jury Instructions submitted by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
952 Proposed Special Verdict Form by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
953 MEMORANDUM by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 951 Proposed Jury Instructions, 952 Proposed Special Verdict Form filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
954 Declaration of Susan M. Coler in Support of 953 Memorandum, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1−12)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
955 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 953 Memorandum, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
956 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 954 Declaration in Support,, 952 Proposed Special Verdict Form, 951 Proposed Jury Instructions, 955 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate,, 953 Memorandum, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
957 Proposed Findings of Fact by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
958 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 957 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibits 1,4,14,16−21,24# 2 Exhibit(s) 2−3# 3 Exhibit(s) 5−7# 4 Exhibit(s) 8−13# 5 Exhibit(s) 15# 6 Exhibit(s) 22−23)(Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/28/2006. AMENDED SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/30/2006. Modified on 3/29/2006 (SB). Modified on 4/3/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/28/2006)
959 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 958 Declaration in Support,, 957 Proposed Findings of Fact (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
960 EXHIBIT re 925 Declaration in Support,, 924 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, Amended Notification of Conventional Filings of The Declaration of Janet Thornton by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/29/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 72 of 84

03/29/2006
03/30/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006

961 EXHIBIT re 958 Declaration in Support,,, 957 Proposed Findings of Fact Amended Notification of Conventional Filing of Exhibit 20 to the Declaration of Mara R. Thompson by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
971 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jeanne J Graham : Motion Hearing held on 3/30/2006 re GRANTING 903 MOTION to Quash Topic Number Seven of Plaintiffs' Amended 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice and for Protective Order filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.,, 911 GRANTING Emergency MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony and Opposition to CHRW's Motion to Quash and for Protective Order filed by Plaintiff's. No Order to be issued. (Tape #Courtroom 4 No 11) (RJL) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
962 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 821 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Victoria J. Fuehrer filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Word Count Certification Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
963 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 962 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−C# 2 Exhibit D)(Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/31/2006. Modified on 4/3/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/31/2006)
964 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 963 Declaration in Support,, 962 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
965 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 829 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Dr. John G. Veres and Other Evidence Relating to the "Stein Test" filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Word Count Certification Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
966 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 965 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A and E# 2 Exhibits B, C and D# 3 Exhibit F)(Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/31/2006. Modified on 4/3/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/31/2006)
967 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 965 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 966 Declaration in Support, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
968 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 797 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Peter Glick filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Wod Count Certification Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
969 Declaration of Susan M. Coler in Support of 968 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
970 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 968 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 969 Declaration in Support, (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
972 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 802 MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to "Hostile Environment," "Hostile Work Environment," and "Sexual Harassment" filed by Tricia Porter,

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 73 of 84

03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006
03/31/2006
03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006

Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Word Count Certification Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
973 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 972 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
974 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 885 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Untimely Produced Electronic Performance and Branch Data, Including All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
975 Declaration of Thomas B. Hatch in Support of 974 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
976 Declaration of Mohamed Ziadi in Support of 974 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
977 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 976 Declaration in Support, 974 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 975 Declaration in Support (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
978 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 874 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Testimony of C.H. Robinson's Untimely Disclosed Witnesses filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
979 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Bryan in Support of 978 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1# 2 Exhibit(s) 2, Part 1# 3 Exhibit(s) 2, Part 2# 4 Exhibit(s) 2, Part 3# 5 Exhibit(s) 2, Part 4)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
980 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 979 Declaration in Support,, 978 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (Evans, Janet) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
981 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 807 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Alleged Use of Drugs or Alcohol by C.H. Robinson Employees FILED UNDER SEAL filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Word Count Certification Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1)(Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/31/2006. Modified on 4/3/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/31/2006)
982 Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 981 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Notification of Conventional Filing of Exhibits A, B, E and F# 2 Exhibits C and D)(Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/31/2006. Modified on 4/3/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/31/2006)
983 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 981 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 982 Declaration in Support, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
984 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 854 MOTION in Limine to Exclude C.H. Robinson's Deposition Exhibit #211 filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Jones, B) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
985 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 984 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
986 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 860 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Reference to the Hall of Fame for Minnesota Businesses and Fortune's Most Admired List filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Jones, B)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 74 of 84

(Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006 987 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 986 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006

988 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 868 MOTION in Limine For Order Excluding Evidence From Personnel Files Relating to Unsatisfactory Job Performance by female Employees and Any Testimony Based Thereon, 834 MOTION for Sanctions, 879 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Defendant's Use of Untimely Produced Documents and All Evidence and Testimony Based Thereon filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006 989 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Bryan in Support of 988 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1−5# 2 Exhibit(s) 6−8)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006 990 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 989 Declaration in Support, 988 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006 991 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 851 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Robert Stobaugh filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Jones, B) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006 992 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Bryan in Support of 991 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1# 2 Exhibit(s) 2)(Jones, B) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006 993 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 991 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 992 Declaration in Support (Jones, B) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006

994 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 864 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Certain Analyses from the Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Elizabeth Becker filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006 995 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Bryan in Support of 994 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1# 2 Exhibit(s) 2, Part 1# 3 Exhibit(s) 2, Part 2)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006 996 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 994 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 995 Declaration in Support (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006

997 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 812 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Sexual Harassment Allegations filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Word Count Certification Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1)(Coler, Susan) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006

998 Declaration of Eden Brown Gaines in Support of 997 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Notification of Conventional Filing of Exhibits A and B)(Coler, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/31/2006. Modified on 4/3/2006 (SB). (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006

999 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 997 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 998 Declaration in Support, (Coler, Susan) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

04/04/2006 1000 OBJECTION re 935 Exhibit List Objections to Defendant's Demonstrative Exhibits Produced to the Court on March 28, 2006 filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 04/04/2006)

04/04/2006 1001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1000 Objection, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 04/04/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 75 of 84

04/04/2006 1002 OBJECTION re 946 Exhibit List, Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Demonstrative Exhibits (Produced to the Court on March 28, 2006) and Memorandum of Law filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Jones, B) (Entered: 04/04/2006)

04/04/2006 1003 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 1002 Objection, (Jones, B) (Entered: 04/04/2006)

04/04/2006 1012 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Final Pretrial Conference held on 4/4/2006. (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (slf) (Entered: 04/12/2006)

04/07/2006 1004 List of Deposition Testimony Plaintiff Classes' Deposition Designations for Gregory Goven submitted by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 04/07/2006)

04/07/2006 1005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1004 List of Deposition Testimony, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 04/07/2006)

04/10/2006 1006 TRANSCRIPT of Pretrial Conference held on 4/4/2006 before Judge Joan Ericksen. Court Reporter: Maria Weinbeck. (59pgs) FILED CONVENTIONALLY (sb) (Entered: 04/10/2006)

04/10/2006 1007 OBJECTION re 1004 List of Deposition Testimony, filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Heller, Lisa) (Entered: 04/10/2006)

04/10/2006 1008 List of Deposition Testimony Counter−Designations to Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations of Gregory Goven submitted by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Heller, Lisa) (Entered: 04/10/2006)

04/10/2006 1009 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 1008 List of Deposition Testimony, 1007 Objection (Heller, Lisa) (Entered: 04/10/2006)

04/11/2006

1010

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Confirmation of Settlement Terms by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 4/11/2006. Modified on 4/11/2006 (SB). (Entered: 04/11/2006)

04/11/2006 1011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1010 Settlement Agreement, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 04/11/2006)

04/11/2006 1013 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Status Conference held on 4/11/2006. Jury trial continued. Case settled in principle. (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (slf) (Entered: 04/12/2006)

04/18/2006 1014 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Gerald L. Maatman by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Evans, Janet) Modified on 4/19/2006 − corrected middle initial (MMC). (Entered: 04/18/2006)

04/18/2006 1015 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 1014 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Gerald L. Maatman (Evans, Janet) Modified on 4/19/2006 − corrected middle initial(MMC). (Entered: 04/18/2006)

04/18/2006

TEXT ONLY ENTRY − ORDER granting 1014 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Gerald L Maatman, Jr for C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Fee paid; receipt number 4−002953. Approved by Clerk Richard D. Sletten on 4/18/06. (MMC) (Entered: 04/19/2006)

06/09/2006

1016

NOTICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky of Joint Motion and Joint Motion for Entry of (1) an Order Preliminarily Approving Consent Decree and Directing Issuance of Notice to Class Members; and (2) Administrative Order No. 1 (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 76 of 84

06/09/2006 1017 NOTICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky Class Counsel's Notice of Motion and Motion for Entry of an Order Approving Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006

1018

MEMORANDUM by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) in Support of the Respective Motions of Plaintiffs and Class Counsel for Entry of (1) and Order Preliminarily Approving Consent Decree and Directing Issuance of Notice to Class Members; (2) Administrative Order No. 1; and (3) an Order Finally Approving Consent Decree and Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs to Class Counsel filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006

1019

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and Consent Decree by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A: Order Preliminarily Approving Consent Decree and Directing Notice to Class Members# 2 Exhibit(s) B: Release and indemnification Agreement (Named Plaintiffs)# 3 Exhibit(s) C: Claim Form# 4 Exhibit(s) D: Notice to Class Members# 5 Exhibit(s) E: Administrative Order No. 1# 6 Exhibit(s) F: List of Pending Claims# 7 Exhibit(s) G: Release and Indemnification Agreement (Eligible Claimants)# 8 Exhibit(s) H: Press Release)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006

1020

Declaration of Steven M. Sprenger in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A: Excerpt of 2005 Survey of Law Firm Economics# 2 Exhibit(s) B: Excerpt from 2006 IPMA Compensation Survey for Paralegals/Legal Assistants and Managers)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1021 Declaration of Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. in Support of 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1022 Declaration of Gwen Carlson in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1023 Declaration of Amy Hossenlopp in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1024 Declaration of Tricia Porter in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1025 Declaration of Jennifer Smyrl in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1026 Declaration of LeeAnn Puckett in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1027 Declaration of Cathy Perkey in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 77 of 84

06/09/2006 1028 Declaration of Jessica Vetter Tober in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1029 Declaration of Angela Roberts in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1030 Declaration of Andrea Prout in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1031 Declaration of Deb Kinniry in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1032 Declaration of Carol Flannigan in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1033 Declaration of Sandra Nelson in Support of 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1034 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1018 Memorandum,,,. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006

1035

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1027 Declaration in Support,, 1032 Declaration in Support,, 1019 Settlement Agreement,,,, 1024 Declaration in Support,, 1021 Declaration in Support,, 1025 Declaration in Support,, 1028 Declaration in Support,, 1030 Declaration in Support,, 1029 Declaration in Support,, 1022 Declaration in Support,, 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1020 Declaration in Support,, 1034 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1018 Memorandum,,,, 1031 Declaration in Support,, 1026 Declaration in Support,, 1033 Declaration in Support,, 1023 Declaration in Support, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006

1036

MEMORANDUM by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 1016 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Joint Motion for Entry of (1) An Order Preliminarily Approving Consent Decree and Directing Issuance of Notice to Class Members, and (2) Administrative Order No. 1 filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Maatman, Gerald) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/09/2006 1037 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 1036 Memorandum, (Maatman, Gerald) (Entered: 06/09/2006)

06/12/2006 1038 NOTICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 729 MOTION for Order to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A# 2 Certificate of Service)(Crone, Kari) (Entered: 06/12/2006)

06/12/2006 1039 NOTICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. of Removal of Counsel (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Crone, Kari) (Entered: 06/12/2006)

06/12/2006

1040

NOTICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Class Counsel's Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Entry of An Order Approving Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/12/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 78 of 84

06/12/2006 1041 ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CONSENT DECREE AND DIRECTING NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS. Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on June 12, 2006. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(slf) (Entered: 06/12/2006)

06/12/2006 1042 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 1. Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on June 12, 2006. (slf) (Entered: 06/12/2006)

06/12/2006 1043 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Hearing on preliminary approval of settlement held on 6/12/2006. (Court Reporter No Reporter) (slf) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

08/03/2006 1044 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 08/03/2006)

08/03/2006 1045 MOTION for Order to Grant Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 08/03/2006)

08/03/2006

1046

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1045 MOTION for Order to Grant Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree, 1044 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 08/03/2006)

08/17/2006 1047 NOTICE of Change of Address by Gerald L Maatman, Jr (Maatman, Gerald) (Entered: 08/17/2006)

09/05/2006 1048 Joint MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) Upon Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 09/05/2006)

09/05/2006

1049

MEMORANDUM in Support re 1048 Joint MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) Upon Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 09/05/2006)

09/05/2006

1050

MEMORANDUM in Support re 1045 MOTION for Order to Grant Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree, 1044 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses (Supplemental Memo) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 09/05/2006)

09/05/2006

1051

Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 1050 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibit A)(Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 9/6/2006 (KT). (Entered: 09/05/2006)

09/05/2006

1052

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1048 Joint MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) Upon Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree, 1050 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 1049 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 1051 Declaration in Support, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 09/05/2006)

09/05/2006 1053 MEMORANDUM by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 1017 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Defendants' Suggestions as to Plaintiffs' Fee Petition filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate # 2 Certificate of Service)(Evans, Janet) (Entered: 09/05/2006)

09/06/2006 1054 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Defendant's Proposed Order Approving the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree (Maatman, Gerald) (Entered: 09/06/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 79 of 84

09/08/2006

1055

RESPONSE re 1053 Memorandum, Class Counsel's Response To "Defendant's Suggestions As To Plaintiffs' Fee Petition" filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate # 2 Placeholder for Exhibit 1 to Class Counsel's Response to "Defendant's Suggestions As To Plaintiffs' Fee Petition"# 3 Certificate of Service)(Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 9/8/2006. (KT). (Entered: 09/08/2006)

09/13/2006 1056 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Complaint against C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky.(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 09/13/2006)

09/13/2006 1057 Amended MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) (Joint Motion) Upon Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 09/13/2006)

09/13/2006

1058

MEMORANDUM in Support re 1048 Joint MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) Upon Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree, 1057 Amended MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) (Joint Motion) Upon Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree (Amended Memorandum) filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate # 2 Certificate of Service)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 09/13/2006)

09/15/2006

1059

DECLARATION re 1055 Response,, by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky Placeholder For The Declaration of Thomas B. Hatch (Declaration Filed Under Seal). (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 9/15/2006. (KT) (Entered: 09/15/2006)

09/18/2006 1060 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on 9/18/06. (MKC) (Entered: 09/18/2006)

09/18/2006

1061

ORDER granting 1044 Motion for Attorney Fees and granting 1045 Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree. Exhibit A to this Order is filed separately and under seal. Counts I, II, and IV of the Second Amended Complaint 1056 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on September 18, 2006. (slf) Exhibit A (under seal added on 9/20/2006) (mkc). (Entered: 09/18/2006)

09/18/2006 1062 ORDER granting 1057 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) . Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on September 18, 2006. (slf) (Entered: 09/18/2006)

09/18/2006 1063 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N Ericksen : Fairness Hearing held on 9/18/2006. (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (slf) (Entered: 09/19/2006)

09/20/2006 1064 JUDGMENT . Signed on 9/20/06. (RJL) (Entered: 09/20/2006)

09/27/2006 1065 ORDER granting 729 Motion to Decertify Plaintiffs' Claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Opt−in Plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. This Order is stayed for thirty (30) days. Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on September 26, 2006. (slf) (Entered: 09/27/2006)

10/05/2006 1066 STIPULATION to Amend by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Mari Danielson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Beth Johnson, Marti Justet, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Mansfield, Seymour) (Entered: 10/05/2006)

10/10/2006

1067

ORDER re 1066 Stipulation filed by Gwen D Carlson, Mari Danielson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Beth Johnson, Marti Justet, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl and C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., . Signed by Judge Joan N Ericksen on October 10, 2006. (slf) (Entered: 10/11/2006)

10/23/2006 1068 MOTION for Order to (1) Approval of Proposed Distribution Formula, (2) Approval of Proposed Point Distributions, (3) Authorization to Determine Eligibility of Claimants who Signed Releases and (4) Acceptance of Certain Claims Missing or Bearing Illegible Postmarks and Acceptance of Nine and Denial of Three Late Claimants by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout,

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 80 of 84

Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

10/23/2006

1069

MEMORANDUM in Support re 1068 MOTION for Order to (1) Approval of Proposed Distribution Formula, (2) Approval of Proposed Point Distributions, (3) Authorization to Determine Eligibility of Claimants who Signed Releases and (4) Acceptance of Certain Claims Missing or Bearing Ill filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

10/23/2006

1070

Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 1068 MOTION for Order to (1) Approval of Proposed Distribution Formula, (2) Approval of Proposed Point Distributions, (3) Authorization to Determine Eligibility of Claimants who Signed Releases and (4) Acceptance of Certain Claims Missing or Bearing Ill, 1069 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Placeholder for Exhibits 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, and 6)(Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 10/23/2006. (KT) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

10/23/2006

1071

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1068 MOTION for Order to (1) Approval of Proposed Distribution Formula, (2) Approval of Proposed Point Distributions, (3) Authorization to Determine Eligibility of Claimants who Signed Releases and (4) Acceptance of Certain Claims Missing or Bearing Ill, 1069 Memorandum in Support of Motion,,, 1070 Declaration in Support,, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

11/27/2006 1072 ORDER granting 1068 Motion for Order approving Class Counsel's proposed Distribution Formula . Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on November 27, 2006. (slf) (Entered: 11/27/2006)

12/11/2006 1073 ORDER OF DIRECTION TO CLERK OF COURT FOR REASSIGNMENT OF RELATED CASES that 0:06−cv−04646, 0:06−cv−4651 and 0:06−cv−04654 are reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen. Signed by Judges Joan N. Ericksen and Ann D. Montgomery on 12/8/06. (JGG) (Entered: 12/11/2006)

12/11/2006 1074 ORDER OF DIRECTION TO CLERK OF COURT FOR REASSIGNMENT OF RELATED CASE that 0:06−cv−04643 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judges Joan N. Ericksen and John R. Tunheimon 12/8/06. (JGG) (Entered: 12/11/2006)

12/11/2006 1075 ORDER OF DIRECTION TO CLERK OF COURT FOR REASSIGNMENT OF RELATED CASE that 06cv4645 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Erickson and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judges Joan N. Ericksen and Richard H. Kyle on 12/8/06. (JGG) (Entered: 12/11/2006)

12/11/2006 1076 ORDER OF DIRECTION TO CLERK OF COURT FOR REASSIGNMENT OF RELATED CASE that 0:06−cv−04647 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judges Joan N. Ericksen and David S. Doty on 12/8/06. (JGG) (Entered: 12/11/2006)

12/12/2006 1077 ORDER OF DIRECTION TO CLERK OF COURT FOR REASSIGNMENT OF RELATED CASE that 0:06−cv−04650 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 12/8/06 and Judge Donovan W. Frank on 12/11/06. (JGG) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

12/12/2006 1078 MOTION for Order to Narrow the Issues for Trial by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

12/12/2006 1079 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 1078 MOTION for Order to Narrow the Issues for Trial: Motion Hearing set for 1/22/2007 02:00 PM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 12W before Judge Joan N. Ericksen. (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

12/12/2006 1080 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1078 MOTION for Order to Narrow the Issues for Trial filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 81 of 84

12/12/2006

1081

Declaration of Louise Bautch−Holton in Support of 1078 MOTION for Order to Narrow the Issues for Trial filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit(s) B_Part 1 of 2# 3 Exhibit(s) B_Part 2 of 2# 4 Exhibit(s) C)(Hatch, Thomas) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 12/12/2006. (KT) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

12/12/2006

1082

ORDER OF DIRECTION TO CLERK OF COURT FOR REASSIGNMENT OF RELATED CASES that 0:06cv4644, 0:06−cv−04649 and 0:06−cv−04652 are reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 12/8/06 and Judge Paul A. Magnuson on 12/12/06. (JGG) Modified on 12/12/2006. (JGG) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

12/13/2006 1083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 1081 Declaration in Support,, 1080 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1079 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 1078 MOTION for Order to Narrow the Issues for Trial (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 12/13/2006)

12/14/2006 1084 ORDER OF DIRECTION TO CLERK OF COURT FOR REASSIGNMENT OF RELATED CASE that 0:06−cv−04640, 0:06−cv−04653 and 0:06−cv−04655 are reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 12/8/06 and Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 12/13/06. (JGG) (Entered: 12/14/2006)

01/05/2007

1085

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 1078 MOTION for Order to Narrow the Issues for Trial filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Regulation on Fixed Salary for Fluctuating Hours)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

01/05/2007

1086

LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1085 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

01/05/2007 1087 Declaration of Steven M. Sprenger in Support of 1085 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

01/05/2007

1088

Declaration of Lawrence P. Schaefer in Support of 1085 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A# 2 Exhibit(s) B# 3 Exhibit(s) C# 4 Exhibit(s) D# 5 Exhibit(s) E# 6 Exhibit(s) F)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

01/05/2007

1089

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1085 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 1086 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate,, 1087 Declaration in Support,, 1088 Declaration in Support, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

01/12/2007 1090 REPLY re 1078 MOTION for Order to Narrow the Issues for Trial filed by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate # 2 Certificate of Service)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 01/12/2007)

01/19/2007 1091 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Approval of Class Counsel's Recommendations as to Class Member Appeals by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) Modified text on 1/22/2007 (kt). (Entered: 01/19/2007)

01/19/2007

1092

MEMORANDUM in Support re 1091 MOTION for Approval of Class Counsel's Recommendations as to Class Member Appeals filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate # 2 Certificate of Service)(Thompson, Mara) Modified text on 1/22/2007 (kt). (Entered: 01/19/2007)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 82 of 84

01/19/2007

1093

Declaration of Mara R. Thompson in Support of 1091 MOTION for Approval of Class Counsel's Recommendations as to Class Member Appeals filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Table A# 2 Placeholder for Tables B and C# 3 Placeholder for Exhibit D)(Thompson, Mara) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 1/19/07. (KT) Modified text and link on 1/22/2007 (kt). (Entered: 01/19/2007)

01/22/2007 1094 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan N. Ericksen : Final Pretrial Conference held on 1/22/2007. Parties will schedule a summary advisory jury trial before Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. (Court Reporter Maria Weinbeck) (slf) (Entered: 01/22/2007)

01/23/2007 1095 ORDER OF DIRECTION TO CLERK OF COURT FOR REASSIGNMENT OF RELATED CASE. 0:07−cv−00090 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen. Signed by Judges Joan N. Ericksen and Paul A. Magnuson on 1/23/07. (JGG) (Entered: 01/23/2007)

01/25/2007 1096 ORDER OF DIRECTION TO CLERK OF COURT FOR REASSIGNMENT OF RELATED CASE. 0:07−cv−00251 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Erickson and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 1/22/07 and Judge Richard H. Kyle on 1/23/07. (JGG) (Entered: 01/25/2007)

01/31/2007 1097 ORDER granting 1091 Motion for Order to . Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on January 31, 2007. (slf) (Entered: 01/31/2007)

01/31/2007

1098

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham : Telephone Conference held on 1/31/2007. re: Summary Jury Trial. IT IS ORDERED: Court to allow live testimony. Parties shall update the court on which four plaintiffs to be called and what facts, stipulations, exhibits, issues to be used/presented in SJ trial by 2/16/07. No written order forthcoming. (RJL) Modified on 2/1/2007 (RJL). (Entered: 02/01/2007)

02/21/2007 1099 ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT OF RELATED CASES that 0:07−cv−00542 is reassigned to Judge Michael J. Davis and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham.. Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 2/12/07 and Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 2/13/07. (JGG) (Entered: 02/21/2007)

02/22/2007 1100 ORDER that 07cv595 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 2/23/07 and Judge David S. Doty on 2/22/07. (JME) (Entered: 02/22/2007)

02/23/2007 1101 ORDER that 07cv1119 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 2/22/07 and Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 2/23/07. (JME) (Entered: 02/23/2007)

03/01/2007 1102 ORDER setting summary jury trial for April 9, 2007 in Courtroom 12W in Minneapolis at 9:30 a.m. A pretrial conference will be held on April 6, 2007 in Courtroom 8E in Minneapolis at 9:30 A.M.. Signed by Judge Jeanne J. Graham on 03/01/07. (LJG) (Entered: 03/01/2007)

03/07/2007 1103 ORDER that 06cv4960 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 2/22/07 and by Judge John R. Tunheim on 2/22/07. (JME) (Entered: 03/07/2007)

03/07/2007 1104 ORDER that 07cv89 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 2/22/07 and Judge John R. Tunheim on 2/22/07. (JME) (Entered: 03/07/2007)

03/30/2007 1105 ORDER that 07cv1563 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 3/29/07 and Judge Michael J. Davis on 3/29/07. (JME) (Entered: 03/30/2007)

04/17/2007 1106 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham : Telephone Conference held on 4/17/2007. re: summary jury trial. Parties to continue settlement discussions. (RJL) (Entered: 04/17/2007)

04/23/2007 1107 ORDER that 07cv1870 has been reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 4/20/07 and Judge Richard H. Kyle on 4/23/07. (JME) (Entered: 04/23/2007)

04/27/2007 1108 ORDER that 07cv1912 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 4/20/07 and Judge John R. Tunheim on 4/26/07. (JME) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 83 of 84

06/20/2007 1109 ORDER that 07cv2750 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 6/20/07. (JME) (Entered: 06/20/2007)

06/21/2007 1110 ORDER that 07cv2749 is reasigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Judge Michael J. Davis on 6/20/07. (JME) (Entered: 06/21/2007)

06/22/2007 1111 ORDER that 07cv2878 is reassigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen and Judge Richard H. Kyle on 6/22/07. (JME) (Entered: 06/22/2007)

07/03/2007

1112

Joint MOTION for Settlement (Joint Motion of the Parties to Approve the Settlements of Their FLSA Claims and Lawsuit) by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Gwen D Carlson, Thomas S Fraser, Mari Danielson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Beth Johnson, Marti Justet, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

07/03/2007 1113 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1112 Joint MOTION for Settlement (Joint Motion of the Parties to Approve the Settlements of Their FLSA Claims and Lawsuit) filed by all parties. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

07/03/2007 1114 Declaration of Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. in Support of 1112 Joint MOTION for Settlement (Joint Motion of the Parties to Approve the Settlements of Their FLSA Claims and Lawsuit) filed by all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

07/03/2007 1115 Declaration of Steven M. Sprenger in Support of 1112 Joint MOTION for Settlement (Joint Motion of the Parties to Approve the Settlements of Their FLSA Claims and Lawsuit) filed by all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A)(Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

07/03/2007 1116 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. re 1114 Declaration in Support,, 1112 Joint MOTION for Settlement (Joint Motion of the Parties to Approve the Settlements of Their FLSA Claims and Lawsuit), 1115 Declaration in Support,, 1113 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Hatch, Thomas) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

07/05/2007 1117 ORDER granting 1112 Motion to approve Settlements. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on July 5, 2007. (slf) (Entered: 07/05/2007)

07/31/2008 1118 NOTICE OF INTENT TO DESTROY DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (jdf) (Entered: 08/01/2008)

08/04/2008

1119

MOTION for Order to Require the Clerk of Court to Retain All Documents in Court File, Including Sealed Documents Until Thirty Days Following the Expiration of the Consent Decree on October 18, 2008 by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

08/04/2008

1120

NOTICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1119 MOTION for Order to Require the Clerk of Court to Retain All Documents in Court File, Including Sealed Documents Until Thirty Days Following the Expiration of the Consent Decree on October 18, 2008 (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

08/04/2008

1121

MEMORANDUM in Support re 1119 MOTION for Order to Require the Clerk of Court to Retain All Documents in Court File, Including Sealed Documents Until Thirty Days Following the Expiration of the Consent Decree on October 18, 2008 filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

08/04/2008

1122

AFFIDAVIT of Mara R. Thompson in SUPPORT OF 1119 MOTION for Order to Require the Clerk of Court to Retain All Documents in Court File, Including Sealed Documents Until Thirty Days Following the Expiration of the Consent Decree on October 18, 2008 filed by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

Case: 0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG As of: 07/25/2010 10:37 AM CDT 84 of 84

08/04/2008 1123 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1121 Memorandum in Support of Motion,. (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

08/04/2008

1124

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1122 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 1123 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, 1120 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1119 MOTION for Order to Require the Clerk of Court to Retain All Documents in Court File, Including Sealed Documents Until Thirty Days Following the Expiration of the Consent Decree on October 18, 2008, 1121 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

08/06/2008 1125 ORDER granting 1119 Motion for Order Requiring Clerk of Court to Retain All Documents in the Court File, Including Sealed Documents, Until Thirty Days Following the Expiration of Consent Decreee on October 18, 2008. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on August 6, 2008. (slf) (Entered: 08/06/2008)

06/19/2009 1126 NOTICE by Plaintiffs re: of Filing A.B. Data's Petition to Pay Invoices from Settlement Fund. (Thompson, Mara) Modified text on 6/22/2009 (RLR). (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009 1127 AFFIDAVIT of Anya Verkhovskaya re 1126 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009 1128 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Tricia Porter, Andrea Prout, Lee Ann Puckett, Angela Roberts, Jennifer Smyrl, Gwen D Carlson, Carol Flannigan, Amy Hossenlopp, Stacey Hottois, Sandy Nelson, Cathy Perky re 1127 Affidavit, 1126 Notice (Other), Notice (Other). (Thompson, Mara) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

07/10/2009 1129 ORDER re 1126 Notice (Other) filed by Sandy Nelson, Amy Hossenlopp, Angela Roberts, Cathy Perky, Tricia Porter, Gwen D Carlson, Jennifer Smyrl, Stacey Hottois, Carol Flannigan, Lee Ann Puckett, Andrea Prout. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on July 10, 2009. (slf) (Entered: 07/10/2009)