CasCea3s:0e63-:c0v5-0-m02c0-092-K02R5G-KDAoPcumDeonctu1m32e-n1t 1-1FiledFi0le9d/2099/2/2090/62006PagPea1goef111of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

Civil Action No.

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT AND

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

)

Electronic Filing

NATURE OF ACTION

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), brings

this action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991

to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation and to provide

appropriate relief to Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, Kristina Starr, and a class of similarly

situated female employees who were adversely affected by such unlawful employment practices

while employed by Defendant, U.S. Investigations Services, Inc., ("USIS"). As alleged with greater

particularity in paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the Commission alleges that Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy

Douglas, Kristina Starr and a class of similarly situated female employees, were sexually harassed

by a government employee who worked at the USIS facility in Altoona, Pennsylvania.

The Commission also alleges that Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, and Kristina Starr

were terminated in retaliation for their complaints about the unlawful harassment. As a result of

USIS' s discriminatory conduct, Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, and Kristina Starr have suffered

damages, including emotional distress and lost wages.

-1-

CasCea3s:0e63-:c0v5-0-m02c0-092-K02R5G-KDAoPcumDeonctu1m32e-n1t 1-1FiledFi0le9d/2099/2/2090/62006PagPea2goef211of 11
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to§ 706(f)(l) and (3) of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act ofl964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) ("Title VII"), and§ 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 198la. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Western District ofPennsylvania.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by§ 706(f)(l) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3). 4. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Defendant, U.S. Investigations Services, Inc., ("USIS"), has continuously been doing business in the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania and the City of Altoona, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of§ 701 (b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, and Kristina Starr filed charges ofdiscrimination with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have
-2-

CasCea3s:0e63-:c0v5-0-m02c0-092-K02R5G-KDAoPcumDeonctu1m32e-n1t 1-1FiledFi0le9d/2099/2/2090/62006PagPea3goef311of 11
been fulfilled. 7. Since at least September 2002, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful
employment practices at its Lancaster, Pennsylvania location in violation of§ 703(a)(l) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l), by subjecting Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, Kristina Starr, and a class ofsimilarly situated female employees, to a sexually hostile work environment. The unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) USIS is a former government entity that became a private employee-owned corporation on July 7, 1996 because of the privatization of certain functions of the US Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Office ofFederallnvestigations.
(b) As part of its government contract with the Department ofHomeland Security, USIS currently has government contracts to provide administrative employees, including Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas and Kristina Starr, for work at the Altoona, Pennsylvania site of the National Firearms Unit (NFU), now known as the National Firearms and Tactical Training Unit (NFTTU). Government employees at the NFTTU help train, oversee, and offer evaluations on the daily work and duties ofUSIS employees.
(c) Training Specialist Armorer Robert Masters, a federal employee who worked at the Altoona, Pennsylvania site, subjected Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, Kristina Starr, and a class of similarly-situated female employees of USIS to a hostile work environment by repeatedly subjecting them to unwanted physical and verbal sexual harassment.
(d) Other male individuals at the worksite also subjected female employees to unwanted sexual harassment. For example, Ronald Beegle told Cindy Douglas in August 2003 that he thought she was going to give him a "lap dance." In January 2005, Angel Butterbaugh observed Beegle
-3-

CasCea3s:0e63-:c0v5-0-m02c0-092-K02R5G-KDAoPcumDeonctu1m32e-n1t 1-1FiledFi0le9d/2099/2/2090/62006PagPea4goef411of 11
comment to a government employee who was returning a digital camera "Ah, watching dirty movies again."
(e) Defendant EmpIoyer knew or should have known about the unlawful sexual harassment, but failed to take appropriate remedial action to stop the sexual harassment.
(f) Angel Butterbaugh began working as a contract employee in 1995 and was employed at the Altoona site. Defendant Employer USIS became a contractor at the facility in about 2001. Angel Butterbaugh worked for Defendant Employer as a Parts Specialist from September 2002 until March 7, 2005.
(g) From about July 1997 through 2005, Robert Masters subjected Ms. Butterbaugh to egregious sexual harassment, including making sexually offensive and crude remarks, rubbing her shoulders, touching her breasts, rubbing up against her, and touching her private areas. The harassment included but is not limited to: in 1998, Masters threatened that if Ms. Butterbaugh did not raise her skirt and flash her underwear at two male government workers, he would go to her first line supervisor and tell him that she was not busy and needed more work. He did this on two occasions.
(h) In September 2002, Masters exposed his erect penis to Angel Butterbaugh and Cindy Douglas.
(i) In February 2004, Masters asked Ms. Butterbaugh if her boyfriend was satisfying her needs.
G) In April 2004, Defendant Employer moved Ms. Butterbaugh's work area to shipping and receiving in the armory. Thereafter, Masters continued the harassment. For example, in November 2004, he grabbed Butterbaugh's buttocks and crotch. In January 2005, he called
-4-

CasCea3s:0e63-:c0v5-0-m02c0-092-K02R5G-KDAoPcumDeonctu1m32e-n1t 1-1FiledFi0le9d/2099/2/2090/62006PagPea5goef511of 11
Butterbaugh and asked if she had used any sex toys lately. (k) Cindy Douglas was hired in June 2002 as an Administrative Specialist in the armory
area. Immediately after her hire, Ms. Douglas began to be subjected to sexual harassment by Robert Masters. Initially, he made inappropriate gestures, such as sticking his tongue between two fingers in a reference to oral sex. He also asked about her sex life. In September 2002, Masters exposed himself from behind his armory smock. He also grabbed her breasts from behind. Ms. Douglas repeatedly told Masters to stop the sexually offensive comments and conduct, but it continued.
(1) In February 2003, Masters came to the area where Ms. Douglas,. Kristina Starr and another female employee, Mary Ann Kiel, worked, and exposed his erect penis.
(m) In 1998, Kristina Starr began working as a contract employee at the Altoona site. She then transferred to an administrative support position in 1999, and thereafter to a shipping and receiving position. She was hired by Defendant Employer in 2002, in the shipping and receiving department. She later worked as an administrative assistant.
(n) In July of 2000, Masters began to sexually harass Ms. Starr. For example, he approached her from behind, rubbing her breasts while pressing his penis against her buttocks. Masters improperly assaulted Starr in this manner on more than one occasion.
(o) Masters also made offensive sexual comments to Starr, such as suggesting that he stop at her house on the way home for a "quickie", and telling her that he had not had sex with his wife for three months.
(p) In February 2004, Masters exposed his erect penis to Ms. Starr at her work cubicle. She turned her head away, said "Oh, my God", and told Masters to get away from her. On this occasion, Masters then proceeded to the back of the room and exposed himselfto Cindy Douglas. The next
-5-

CasCea3s:0e63-:c0v5-0-m02c0-092-K02R5G-KDAoPcumDeonctu1m32e-n1t 1-1FiledFi0le9d/2099/2/2090/62006PagPea6goef611of 11
month, in March 2004, Masters placed his hands on Starr's breasts while she stocked the soda machine, to which she responded, "stop it." Cindy Douglas was in the room and attempted to get stop Masters from bothering Starr. Masters responded, "Ooh, a sex sandwich."
(q) On another occasion, Masters suggested that he, Douglas, Starr and another female employee, Mary Ann Kiel, go into Kiel's Chevy Suburban and have an "orgy." The female employees rejected his suggestion immediately.
(r) In October 2004, even after Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, and Kristina Starr had complained about the sexual harassment, Masters again exposed himselfat Ms. Starr's work cubicle.
(s) Although the female employees complained ofthe harassment to Defendant Employer, no effective remedial action was ever taken.
8. Since at least March 2004, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Altoona, Pennsylvania facility in violation of Section 704(a) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a)(l), by discriminating against Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas and Kristina Starr. The unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) In March of2004, Kristina Starr was approached by Site Manager, Julie Leutenegger, who asked if she would speak with her in private. Leutenegger advised Starr that she had heard that Masters was making sexual comments and was inappropriately touching the females at the facility. Ms. Starr verified that Masters was sexually harassing herself, Cindy Douglas, Mary Ann Kiel and Angel Butterbaugh and that they had repeatedly told him to stop.
(b) Leutenegger advised that she would speak with Masters, and "get it taken care of." Her assurances were mere empty promises. The unrelenting harassment continued and no remedial action was ever taken.
-6-

CasCea3s:0e63-:c0v5-0-m02c0-092-K02R5G-KDAoPcumDeonctu1m32e-n1t 1-1FiledFi0le9d/2099/2/2090/62006PagPea7goef711of 11
(c) After she complained about the harassment, Kristina Starr was subjected to unwarranted scrutiny ofher job performance and unfair work assignments in retaliation for her complaint about the unlawful sexual harassment by Masters.
(d) Defendant Employer terminated Kristina Starr on November 4, 2004, for theft oftime because she was reading an obituary in the newspaper at her desk. Other individuals at the work site often read the newspaper, but were not subjected to disciplinary action or terminated. Ms Starr was terminated in retaliation for her complaint about Master's unlawful harassment:
(e) In January 2005, a government employee also alerted Defendant Employer to the unlawful harassment Defendant Employer then purported to undertake an investigation, conducted by high ranking officials of USIS, including David Venturella, USIS Vice President and Arthur Abrams, USIS Account Manager.
(f) Upon information and belief, a high ranking official ofUSIS called Abrams and told him of the need to eliminate his "problem children", referring to Butterbaugh and Douglas.
(g) Butterbaugh and Douglas filed a police report regarding Master's unwelcome and offensive behavior.
(h) On March 7, 2005, Defendant Employer terminated Angel Butterbaugh and Cindy Douglas, purportedly because it learned from police department reports that Butterbaugh and Douglas had prior contacts with Masters which had occurred prior to the unwelcome sexual harassment and which they allegedly did not disclose when interviewed by Defendant Employer's officials in January 2005.
(i) Butterbaugh and Douglas cooperated in Defendant Employer's investigation and answered the questions posed to them to the best oftheir ability and recollection. Instead ofensuring
-7-

CasCea3s:0e63-:c0v5-0-m02c0-092-K02R5G-KDAoPcumDeonctu1m32e-n1t 1-1FiledFi0le9d/2099/2/2090/62006PagPea8goef811of 11
that Butterbaugh, Douglas and Starr were not subjected to unlawful sexual harassment, Defendant Employer unlawfully terminated them in retaliation for their complaints about the unwelcome harassment.
9. The effect ofthe practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, Kristina Starr, and a class ofsimilarly situated female employees ofequal employment opportunities and otherwise affect adversely their status as employees because of their sex.
10. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 8 above has been to deprive Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, and Kristina Starr of equal employment opportunities and otherwise affect their status as employees because they engaged in protected activity under Title VII.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraphs 7 and 8 above were intentional.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraphs 7 and 8 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights ofAngel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, Kristina Starr, and a class of similarly situated female employees.
-8-

CasCea3s:0e63-:c0v5-0-m02c0-092-K02R5G-KDAoPcumDeonctu1m32e-n1t 1-1FiledFi0le9d/2099/2/2090/62006PagPea9goef911of 11
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment, from retaliating against employees by terminating their employment, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the bases of sex and/or retaliation. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women which eradicate the effects ofits past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out anti-discrimination and sexual harassment policies and complaint procedures. D. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out complaint procedures which encourage employees to come forward with complaints regarding violations of its policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation. E. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out a training program which shall promote supervisor accountability imposing on all managers and supervisory personnel a duty to activelymonitortheirwork areas to ensure compliance with policies on non-discrimination and antiharassment; and requiring all managers and supervisors to report any incidents and/or complaints of harassment and/or retaliation of which they become aware to the department charged with handling such complaints. F. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, and Kristina Starr by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be
-9-

CasCea3s:0e63-:c0v5-0-m02c0-092-K02R5G-KDAoPcumDeonctu1m32e-n1t 1-1FiledFi0le9d/2099/2/2090/62006PagPea1g0eo1f011of 11
determined at trial, reinstatement or front pay in lieu thereof, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
G. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, Kristina Starr, and a class of similarly situated female employees, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
H. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, Kristina Starr and a class ofsimilarly situated female employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, including emotional pain, suffering, depression, anxiety, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
I. Order Defendant Employer to pay Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, Kristina Starr and a class of similarly situated female employees punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, in amounts to be determined at triaL
J. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary proper in the public interest. K. Award the Commission its costs ofthis action.
-10-

CasCea3s:0e63-:c0v5-0-m02c0-092-K02R5G-KDAoPcumDeonctu1m32e-n1t 1-1FiledFi0le9d/2099/2/2090/62006PagPea1g1eo1f111of 11

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
JAMESL. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, NW Washington DC 20507

(:_)2 . /]
.• !1_ .<C

~~.rll,/r <-

-YJ•//"h

'~~ {.t'~I~' ,

AC ELINE H. McNAIR

I

Regional Attorney

~b'3 0, [) ;~ i'--
ITH A. O'BOYLE Supervisory Trial Attorney
ID~-~ MARY ~IERNAN •
Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia PA 19106 (215) 440-2828

~~~~~~ttcKNi~~{;(~ (~lt/!3)
Senior Trial Attorney Pittsburgh Area Office EEOC Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 644-6439

-11-

 
 CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1 1ofo2f 828

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANGEL BUTTERBAUGH, an individual, )

CINDY DOUGLAS, an individual, and )

KRISTINA STARR, an individual

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

VS.

)

)

)

U. S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC.)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CA 06-cv-00209 J JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (electronically filed)

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT

AND NOW, come the above Intervenors/Plaintiffs, (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) by and through

their counsel, Helen R. Kotler, Esquire, and file the following Complaint:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended

(42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et. seq. ), hereinafter “Title VII.” This action seeks declaratory, injunctive

and equitable relief; compensatory, and punitive damages; and costs, expenses, expert witness fees

and attorneys’s fees for the unlawful practices of discrimination based on sex and retaliation.

Plaintiffs assert that they were subject to a hostile environment and retaliation after complaining of

said environment. Plaintiffs also bring this case pursuant to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act,

43 P.S. §951 et seq.

EXHIBIT 1

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege2 2ofo2f 828
I. Parties 2. Plaintiff Angel Butterbaugh (“Butterbaugh”) resides in Altoona, Blair County, Pennsylvania, located in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff Cindy Douglas (“Douglas”) resides in Altoona, Blair County, Pennsylvania, located in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 4. Plaintiff Kristina Starr (“Starr”) resides in Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania, located in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 5. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Defendant, U.S. Investigations Services, Inc., ("USIS"), has continuously been doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the City of Altoona, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of § 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h). 7. The Plaintiffs worked for USIS, a federal contractor of the Department of Homeland Security, at a site located in Altoona, Pennsylvania. 8. Additionally, at all times relevant hereto, USIS was a co-employer or agent of the Department of Homeland Security for the purposes of Title VII. 9. Plaintiffs Angel Butterbaugh and Cindy Douglas have also filed suit against Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of the Homeland Security (hereinafter “DHS”) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania at Case No. CA 06-185.
2

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege3 3ofo2f 828
II. Jurisdiction and Venue 10. This action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et. seq.) 11. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f), and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(4). § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 12. Plaintiffs each timely followed administrative procedures required under federal law and state law by filing timely charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”). 13. On or around August 2, 2006, the EEOC issued determinations finding that the evidence obtained during the investigation established a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, for each Plaintiff and females as a class. 14. On or around September 29, 2006, the EEOC, per its prerogative and right, filed a suit against USIS, which is pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania at 06-cv-00209J. 15. Venue is proper in that the employment practices hereinafter alleged to be unlawful were committed in the Western District of Pennsylvania at a DHS facility now known as the National Firearms Tactical Training Unit (“NFTTU”), formerly known as the NFU but herein referenced as the NFTTU, located in Altoona, Blair County, Pennsylvania where each Plaintiff worked and where Plaintiffs reside. 16. This case is based on the discrimination, sexual harassment, and termination of Plaintiffs Butterbaugh, Douglas and Starr after they complained of sexual harassment by a male coworker and employee of DHS to the USIS on-site manager and to others, including DHS managers.
3

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege4 4ofo2f 828
17. Plaintiffs were all direct employees of USIS, a sub-contractor of DHS in that USIS paid their salaries and benefits. Plaintiffs Butterbaugh, and Starr had worked at the NFTTU site preceding the contract that DHS entered into with USIS. 18. As part of its government contract with DHS, USIS provided administrative employees, including Plaintiffs, to work at the NFTTU, formerly part of the Immigration and Nationalization Service, and now part of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. 19. USIS and ICE are so closely allied that USIS investigated and obtained affidavits in an earlier case where several government employees at the Altoona NFTTU site complained about misdeeds, abuse of authority, and of a sexually hostile environment. 20. Former INS employees are now part of USIS management.
FACTS 21. Of the approximately thirty employees working on the NFTTU site at the time of Plaintiffs’ terminations, about half were administrative contract workers placed by USIS, including Plaintiffs. Except for one employee, all such USIS `workers were female. The other group of employees at the site were male, except for approximately three females, and worked directly as employees of the federal government. 22. Butterbaugh began to work at the NFFTU Altoona facility around June 1995, left for a brief period, and returned again working for another contractor in or around April 1996. 23. Among the DHS employees at the NFTTU was Robert Masters, (“Masters”) a Training Specialist Armorer.
4

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege5 5ofo2f 828
24. Over a long period, Masters engaged in significant ongoing sexual harassment of female employees including the Plaintiffs and others. 25. USIS management at the site and elsewhere lacked a general understanding of appropriate work place conduct and overlooked or allowed a sexually hostile environment hostile to the Plaintiffs to exist. 26. The only onsite USIS management was Julie Leutenegger, a low level, former USIS administrative employee married to an employee of the NFTTU. 27. Masters began working as an armorer at the Altoona site in or around 1994, shortly before Plaintiff Butterbaugh began working at the NFTTU. 28. At times, Masters acted as Plaintiff Butterbaugh’s supervisor when he was a rotating team leader. 29. Periodically, USIS would warn the almost all female administrative employees that they were required to do whatever the mostly male government workers required in order to preserve the government contract for the contractors. 30. Some of the male government employees treated the female workers as if they, too, saw the female administrative staff as being required to do whatever the government employees wanted. 31. In or around August 1996, Plaintiff Butterbaugh, who was single, was particularly vulnerable and alone in her personal life. 32. Masters approached Plaintiff Butterbaugh at work and began a course of conduct that was inappropriate, kissing her, rubbing her shoulders, and trying to induce her to enter into a relationship with him.
5

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege6 6ofo2f 828
33. Masters knew where security cameras were located and that the film was reused every six months, so he would avoid any inappropriate behavior where he could be filmed. 34. By around 1997, Plaintiff Butterbaugh worked in the armory’s parts room supporting armory operations for another contractor. 35. Masters and Plaintiff Butterbaugh entered into a very brief relationship that ended around July 1997 after which Plaintiff Butterbaugh advised Masters that she did not want to continue the relationship. 36. From around September 1997 to approximately December 2001, Walter Diaczenko, a federal employee, supervised Plaintiff Butterbaugh in the parts room but thereafter, Plaintiff Butterbaugh reported to Armory Team Leaders including Masters. 37. After the summer of 1997, Masters ignored Plaintiff Butterbaugh’s rejection of him and began a long course of harassing her at work, making crude remarks, rubbing her shoulders, and touching her breasts and genital areas. 38. Plaintiff Butterbaugh, a single mother, was fearful about complaining against a government worker, particularly one who sometimes had supervisory duties over her. 39. Further, Plaintiff Butterbaugh knew that several federal employees who complained about various improprieties at the site which resulted in an investigation, complained that they were thereafter subject to harsh treatment by the federal government management. 40. Throughout 1997 and 1998, Masters continued to harass Plaintiff Butterbaugh, touching her inappropriately, and rubbing against her, something he also did with other USIS female contractors at the site.
6

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege7 7ofo2f 828
41. Around 1998, Plaintiff Starr was hired to work at the NFU by St. Moritz, a security contractor at the NFU site in Altoona as a Front Desk Security Officer. 42. Around the end of 1998 or in early 1999, both Plaintiff Butterbaugh and Starr were hired by a successor contractor at the NFU site, and thereafter for still another successor contractor, USATREX, believed to be or to become a division of USIS. 43. Plaintiff Starr began to work as an administrative assistant at the INS/NFU, also working for USATREX in administrative support. 44. At one point, around 1998, Masters harassed Plaintiff Butterbaugh by threatening her and telling her that she had to lift her skirt and flash her underwear at two other male government workers and a contract employee or he would go to the first line federal supervisor and tell him that Plaintiff Butterbaugh needed more work and that she never appeared busy. 45. Around September 2000, USIS took over as contractor and Plaintiffs Butterbaugh and Starr continued in their duties at the NFTTU. 46. At some point, in or around 2000 or 2001 the management of NFTTU and USIS transferred Plaintiff Starr to the shipping and receiving department where she reported to Ron Beegle, a male government employee who at one point demanded Plaintiff Starr do personal work for him on the grounds of his home. 47. Around July 2000, Masters began to harass Plaintiff Starr which escalated to a point in 2002 when he exposed his penis to her. Masters would approach Plaintiff Starr from behind, rub her breasts while pressing his penis against her buttocks, although she objected and walked away. This happened on three occasions.
7

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege8 8ofo2f 828
48. Masters made inappropriate comments about going to Plaintiff Starr’s house for a “quickie” which Plaintiff Starr found offensive. 49. Plaintiff Cindy Douglas was hired to work at the NFTTU by USIS in June 2002. 50. For a short period in the summer of 2002, Douglas worked Monday through Thursday in the parts room under the supervision of revolving Team Leader Masters. On Fridays, she worked in Shipping and Receiving. 51. Sometime between July and September 2002, Masters exposed his erect penis to Plaintiffs Butterbaugh and Douglas. Masters grabbed Plaintiff Douglas’ breasts which Plaintiff Butterbaugh observed as she entered the room. Both Plaintiffs opposed Masters’ workplace conduct. 52. Around October 2002, USIS promoted Julie Leutenegger to be the on-site supervisor. 53. Through October 2002, Plaintiff Starr continued to suffer harassment from Masters as did Plaintiff Douglas who was transferred to the Administrative Support Office where Plaintiff Starr worked. 54. Masters began to enter into the work area where Plaintiffs Starr and Douglas worked with other female employees and continued to misbehave towards them in the workplace. He exposed himself to Plaintiff Starr around 2002. 55. Although from around September or October 2002 to March 7, 2005, after Plaintiff Douglas no longer worked in close proximity to Masters, he still sought her out. 56. Around February 2003, Masters entered the administrative support area where Plaintiffs Douglas and Starr worked and exposed his erect penis. 57. Around Spring 2003, Douglas separated from her husband. During this vulnerable period, Masters approached Plaintiff Douglas, just as he had Plaintiff Butterbaugh.
8

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege9 9ofo2f 828
58. Around May or June 2003, Plaintiff Douglas entered into a brief relationship outside of work with Masters which ended around August 2003. 59. Other males at NFTTU engaged in inappropriate conduct but none so egregious as Masters. 60. Around August 2003, Plaintiff Douglas passed Ron Beegle’s office and wished him a “happy birthday” whereupon he commented that he thought she was going to give him a lap dance for his birthday. She told him she did not think so. 61. Around December 2003, a USIS program manager came to the NFTTU. He passed out paperwork on sexual harassment and discussed that offensive comments could be considered sexual harassment. 62. At that meeting, the USIS program manager explained that the USIS workers needed to do everything the government employees told them to do so as to not jeopardize the contract in any way. 63. The USIS program manager emphasized that USIS would believe their customer, the federal government, over the contract workers. 64. At some point, Julie Leutenegger stated that contractors had to bend over backwards for the government employees and “kiss their ass.” 65. Around February 2004, the persistent Masters asked Plaintiff Butterbaugh if her boyfriend was fulfilling her needs. He continued to pester Plaintiff Douglas at work although she told him not to bother her. 66. In early 2004, Plaintiffs Douglas, Starr and another female co-worker, discovered that Masters was harassing all of them.
9

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1010ofo2f 828
67. Masters came into the office where Plaintiffs Douglas and Starr worked and told them and another female coworker, MaryAnn Kiel, that he wanted to arrange an orgy, although they told him to stop his behavior. 68. At some point after the orgy remark, Plaintiffs Starr and Douglas, and Ms. Kiel made a pact where they agreed not to leave each other alone if Masters was around. His behavior was not only offensive but bizarre and frightening. 69. Around February 2004, Masters exposed his erect penis to Plaintiff Kristina Starr as she sat at her work station. Plaintiff Starr told him to stop and said, “Oh my God!” after which Masters went to Plaintiff Douglas’s cube and exposed himself to her. 70. In March 2004, Masters touched Plaintiff Starr’s breasts as she was stocking soda pop which Plaintiff Douglas observed as she walked into the room. He then placed himself between the two women and made a remark about a “sex sandwich.” 71. Around March 2004, Julie Leutenegger, the USIS onsite manager, asked Plaintiffs Douglas and Starr and Ms. Kiel if Masters was engaging in improper language and touching after another employee in the office apparently reported to Leutenegger hearing Plaintiffs Douglas and Starr, and Ms. Kiel make their pact to never allow the others to be alone with Masters. 72. Plaintiffs Starr and Douglas complained to Leutenegger about Masters’ behavior. 73. Plaintiff Starr complained to Ms. Leutenegger that Robert Masters would follow her into the back when she was alone, come behind her and grab her breasts and push his penis into her buttocks. She told Leutenegger how she would push him away and tell him to stop.
10

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1111ofo2f 828
74. Plaintiff Starr explained that she had asked another female employee of USIS, Lisa Brown, to go in the back area with her if she had to be by herself and that she had also told Lisa Brown what was occurring. 75. Plaintiff Starr described to Ms. Leutenegger how Masters made many sexual comments in front of her and the other females in the office, Ms. Douglas and Maryann Kiel. Ms. Starr explained how she asked him to stop it and that the other women told him that his conduct offended them. 76. Leutenegger told Plaintiffs Douglas and Starr that she would take care of the problem. 77. However, Leutenegger never took effective action to stop the sexual harassment by Masters because his conduct grew worse after the complaints to Leutenegger. 78. Based on information and belief, Leutenegger’s husband is believed to be friends with Masters, his coworker, and to have business ventures with him. 79. Both Julie Leutenegger and her husband were social friends with Carl Michaud, the government employee who directed the DHS facility in Altoona. 80. The Leuteneggers also socialized with Ron Beegle, another manager at the NFTTU. Michaud and the Leuteneggers met on Wednesdays for beer and wings at a local bar. 81. After their complaints, both Plaintiffs Douglas and Starr observed changes in the way both their USIS supervisor and their government supervisors treated them. 82. Shortly after Plaintiffs Douglas and Starr complained to Leutenegger, Ron Beegle and Julie Leutenegger moved Butterbaugh from the parts room where she worked for eight years to shipping/receiving department where her supervisor became Ron Beegle.
11

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1212ofo2f 828
83. USIS refused to allow Plaintiff Butterbaugh to donate excess vacation days to Plaintiff Douglas, who suffered a miscarriage, even though Leutenegger previously told Plaintiff Douglas that USIS had a bank where other employees could donate sick days. 84. In May 2004, Plaintiff Douglas missed three days of work in one week, but not consecutively. When she returned, Leutenegger told Plaintiff Douglas that if she did not produce a doctor’s note by noon, she would be sent home although the policy was to require a doctor’s note only if an employee missed three consecutive days. 85. In June 2004, Masters questioned Plaintiff Butterbaugh about why she avoided him. She told him she was uncomfortable around him. 86. That same month, while she and Masters were working in the armory, Masters grabbed Butterbaugh’s buttocks although she told him to stop the conduct. 87. Masters came into the office where Plaintiffs Douglas and Starr, and Mary Ann Kiel worked to announce that he had not had sex in three months, a comment the women complained about to him. 88. When Kiel leaned back in her chair and her stomach became exposed, both Plaintiffs Douglas and Starr saw Masters touch Kiel’s stomach although Kiel told Masters not to do this again. He replied that he did this because he was telling her to get a belly button ring. 89. In June 2004, USIS named Tony Abrams to be the new Program Manager from USIS for the NFTTU site. USIS also announced a new vice President of Homeland Security, David Venturella, the former acting Director of the Office of Detention and Removal Operations of the INS.
12

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1313ofo2f 828
90. In July 2004, Ron Beegle, Plaintiff Butterbaugh’s government supervisor, came behind her and touched her on the shoulders, an action which made her feel, uncomfortable and uneasy. She told him not to do this. 91. In July 2004, Masters called Plaintiff Douglas to ask if she were mad at him because she was ignoring him. She said that she had miscarried a baby in May 2004, was trying to get her marriage on track, and just wanted to be left alone. He continued to call her in August 2004 although she ignored his calls. 92. Like Douglas, Plaintiff Starr encountered problems after her complaint regarding Masters in that Beegle assigned her an inventory assignment which was contrary to the sedentary duties she needed after foot surgery. 93. After Plaintiff Starr’s doctor faxed a note to USIS asking that she not be asked to stand to do an inventory in Beegle’s department, Beegle wrote a letter to USIS claiming that Starr spent too much time on personal telephone calls although at the time he had no daily supervision or contact with Starr. 94. Around October 2004, Masters entered the work area where Plaintiff Douglas worked and stood by Plaintiff Starr’s cubical and started talking to her whereupon Plaintiff Douglas stood up to let Masters know she was there. 95. Nevertheless, Masters pushed aside the armorer’s apron he wore and exposed his penis to Plaintiff Starr although other employees were in the room. Plaintiff Starr told Masters not to do this.
13

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1414ofo2f 828
96. Masters then went to Plaintiff Douglas’s cubicle and stood behind her. She ignored him but heard his zipper. When another worker left her chair to leave the room, Masters zippered his pants and left. 97. Around November 2004, Masters grabbed Plaintiff Butterbaugh’s crotch and buttocks. Thereafter, Plaintiff Butterbaugh disclosed to two government employees, Steve Nastoff and Jeff Browder, how Masters had been treating her. 98. At another point in 2004, Ron Beegle approached Plaintiff Douglas from behind and rubbed her shoulders as she walked in a hallway. She told him that he had scared her and not to do that again. 99. At some point in 2004, Tom Trotto, NFTTU’s Director who is located in Washington, came to the site and had a staff meeting which included the contract and government employees. 100. Trotto stated that he looked at the entire staff as equals, whether government or contract employees. 101. Thereafter, Julie Leutenegger met with the USIS employees and said that there was a fine line between the government and contractors, and that the contractors’ jobs were to make Carl Michaud look good. 102. In October 2004, Bryson Peterman, the only male who worked for USIS, told Plaintiff Starr that Ron Beegle and other government managers were targeting her for termination. 103. Peterman told Plaintiff Starr that Tim Riffel, a government employee sometimes assigned to the Altoona site, was questioning why some of the government employees were trying to have Plaintiff Starr terminated by using a slow “back-door” process to fire her by gathering small bits of insignificant activities or comments to make Starr look like an unsatisfactory employee.
14

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1515ofo2f 828
104. Plaintiff Starr was terminated on or around November 9, 2004, allegedly because her government supervisor, Ms. Chewning, criticized Starr for reading an obituary on a folded newspaper sitting on a desk although reading a newspaper was not an uncommon practice. 105. Around December 2004, Masters lingered in Plaintiff Douglas’s work area, waiting for everyone to leave so that he could talk to her but she would stay by another employee’s office to avoid him. 106. In January 2005, Masters called Plaintiff Butterbaugh to ask if she used any sex toys lately. 107. Around January 6, 2005, Plaintiffs Butterbaugh, and Douglas, and some other employees, both contractors and government employees, met after work with Tim Riffle at a local hotel. 108. Peterman, the only male contract employee at the NFTTU, a friend of Plaintiff Starr, disclosed to Tim Riffle how Masters behaved toward the female contractors after which both Plaintiffs Douglas and Butterbaugh disclosed Masters’ harassment of them to Riffle. 109. Ignoring the expressed concerns of Butterbaugh and Douglas, who felt further disclosure would endanger their jobs, Riffle announced that it was his duty as a government manager to report this misconduct. 110. Based on information and belief, on or around January 7, 2005, Mr. Riffle told Masters to stay away from the females which Masters ignored. 111. Based on information and belief, Riffle told his superiors at the DHS about the complaints of the females and spoke with Leutenegger. 112. Based on information and belief, Carl Michaud called Abrams at USIS about the need to eliminate his “problem children,” meaning the complaining women.
15

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1616ofo2f 828
113. Around January 7, 2005, Julie Leutenegger told Plaintiffs Douglas and Butterbaugh to write brief statements concerning Masters’ actions. 114. Leutenegger apologized to Plaintiff Butterbaugh for not taking any action regarding Masters. 115. Based on information and belief, it is believed that Leutenegger had disclosed the complaints by Plaintiff Douglas and other females to Carl Michaud, the highest ranking manager of the NFTTU. 116. Around January 10, 2005, Ms. Leutenegger followed up her conversation with Plaintiffs Butterbaugh and Douglas, reiterating her instructions which was to write statements limited only to “who, what, when and where.” 117. Leutenegger told Plaintiff Butterbaugh that Abrams needed her statement by Tuesday, January 11, 2005. 118. Per Leutenegger’s instructions on what to put in the statements, neither Plaintiff Douglas nor Butterbaugh mentioned their prior relationships with Masters. 119. Neither Plaintiff believed that their past non-work contact with Masters was relevant in that this prior contact did not justify Masters continued non-consensual workplace harassment. 120. Leutenegger claimed to Plaintiff Butterbaugh that she asked Carl Michaud, the Assistant Director at the NFTTU, to meet with her so she could tell him that she knew about Masters and did nothing. 121. Plaintiff Butterbaugh told Leutenegger that she would no longer tolerate Masters’ conduct. 122. Leutenegger told Plaintiff Butterbaugh that someone from the federal EEO would contact her but no one did.
16

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1717ofo2f 828
123. After meeting with Leutenegger, Plaintiff Douglas contacted Plaintiff Starr and asked her to write a statement about Masters’ misconduct toward her which Starr did. 124. Starr, Butterbaugh, and Douglas met and prepared statements attempting to be as accurate as possible about the dates of events. 125. On January 10, 2005, Plaintiffs Douglas’, Starr’s and Butterbaugh’s statements were faxed directly to Abrams at USIS in Virginia. 126. Around January 10, 2005, Plaintiffs Douglas and Butterbaugh began counseling with a counselor in the USIS Employee Assistance Program ((“EAP”) which provided for a limited number of counseling session. 127. On the advice of the counselor, Plaintiffs Douglas and Butterbaugh contacted the Altoona Police Department (“APD”) all of which DHS and USIS knew and/or learned of shortly thereafter. 128. Around January 10, 2005, a female police officer came to Plaintiff Douglas’s home and took an initial report. 129. Around January 11, 2005, Kiel also prepared a statement for Abrams about Masters’ misconduct toward her. 130. Around January 12, 2005, Masters approached Plaintiff Butterbaugh’s cubicle, in spite of being told to stay away from her, all of which was very upsetting to Plaintiff Butterbaugh. 131. Around January 12, 2005, Abrams and Venturella, the former INS employee, came to Altoona and separately interviewed Plaintiffs Douglas and Butterbaugh and Mary Ann Kiel. At no time did USIS seek information from Plaintiff Starr about Masters. 132. The USIS managers did not ask Plaintiffs Butterbaugh or Douglas whether they had any prior relationship with Masters, nor did the plaintiffs offer this information at that meeting.
17

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1818ofo2f 828
133. Around January 12, 2005, Abrams announced that Leutenegger was no longer on site and that Lisa Jacobs, another USIS employee, was named temporary supervisor. Abrams announced that Masters was no longer at the NFFTU facility although he was not terminated. 134. Around January 12, 2005, Plaintiff Douglas sent Abrams an email complaining that she, Maryann Kiel, and Butterbaugh could not understand why Leutenegger took no action. 135. When a male cleaner who worked for another contractor harassed a USIS female employee, unlike the reaction by USIS when the harassment was by a DHS employee, Leutenegger told Ron Beegle who spoke with the male who thereafter improved his conduct. Plaintiff Douglas contrasted this to Abrams in that they endured far worse conduct from Masters where no action was taken. 136. Around January 18, 2005, Mr. Riffle transferred a call that he received from Jose Martinez of the US Immigration and Enforcement, Office of Professional Responsibility. Martinez asked Plaintiff Douglas to tell him which police department received the reports that the women had sent. 137. On January 18, 2005, Abrams and an employee from the USIS Human Resource Department came to the NFTTU and showed a video on sexual harassment. Abrams announced that Julie Leutenegger no longer worked for USIS and said he appointed Lisa Jacobs to be on-site supervisor. 138. On January 19, 2005, Abrams emailed Plaintiff Douglas to tell him or Venturella whenever she had contact with law enforcement officials or federal managers. 139. Plaintiff Douglas reported to Abrams that she learned that the APD officer assigned to the case, Detective Michael Stirk, spoke to Masters who denied harassment and told Abrams that the complainants were asked to submit to a lie detector test which the unrepresented women agreed to do.
18

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1919ofo2f 828
140. Based on information and belief, on January 20, 2005, Carl Michaud ordered that all information on Leutenegger’s computer be erased. 141. Thereafter, around January 21, 2005, Plaintiff Douglas scheduled an appointment to meet with APD officers, Ashley Day (a male) and Det. Michael Stirk on January 25, 2005. 142. By January 21, 2005, Diane Chewning, Plaintiff Douglas’s government supervisor who was friendly with Leutenegger, assigned Plaintiff Douglas an unusual job assignment that was impossible to complete in the allotted time and began scrutinizing her performance very closely. 143. On January 24, 2005, Chewning was highly critical when the required list she had assigned Plaintiff Douglas was not completed and berated her. 144. Plaintiff Douglas called Abrams on January 25, 2005 and complained of retaliation by Chewning. She advised him she was seeing a counselor, and that she and the other victims were meeting with the APD. 145. Based on information and belief, Carl Michaud, the top manager at the NFTTU in Altoona, told employees that he spoke to the APD and advised the APD that the matter of Masters’ conduct and the complaints about it was a Department of Homeland Security internal affair, that it would be handled internally, and that DHS would do their own investigation. 146. Based on information and belief, both USIS and the DHS together and separately contacted the APD and local district attorney with the goal of humiliating the complaining females to the APD, denigrating them to the police, encouraging the APD to humiliate the women, disrupted a proper investigation of overt indecent exposure, falsely claiming that this was a matter for the DHS as if it were a matter of national security, all in an attempt to retaliate against the Plaintiffs and dissuade them from pursuing any action.
19

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege2020ofo2f 828
147. Thereafter, the APD began an unusual and discriminatory investigation wherein the female Plaintiffs were subjected to humiliating mistreatment and abusive actions and language by Detective Stirk and the APD as follows:
a. Questioned if they wore provocative clothing at work and if the females at the NFTTU wore short skirts with no underwear;
b. Said that everyone at the NFTTU was having affairs and the environment was one of flirtations so that no action was viable;
c. Said that Masters said he had affairs with Plaintiffs Douglas and Butterbaugh so that his actions towards them were justified based on their conduct years before;
d. Failed to provide the Plaintiffs with the state required victim’s advocate name or told of such an advocate;
e. Required them to sign statements that failed to mention the misconduct of Masters but focused on conduct alleged by Masters about the women who complained of his conduct;
f. Refused to give them or their attorney copies of their statements or test results; g. Read them Miranda rights as if they were criminals rather than complaining parties; h. Asked each to take a lie detector and other tests ostensibly to test their truthfulness; i. Asked if they exposed private parts and encouraged Masters to expose himself; j. Allowed Masters to be interviewed with his wife present but refused to allow the
complaining females, including the Plaintiffs, to have any supportive person present; k. Equated consensual relationships with non-consensual sexual harassment; l. Expressed sympathy for Masters who they claimed was remorseful; m. Justified Masters’ misconduct toward the women by saying everyone engaged in
flirtations and affairs; n. Used crude and offensive language to the females; o. Blamed the females for the actions of Masters;
20

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege2121ofo2f 828
p. In early February 2005, gave the complaining females, so called “voice analysis” tests to see if they were lying.
148. The interview with the police upset Plaintiff Douglas so much that she was unable to work on January 26, 2005 and she contacted Abrams and told him she was very upset. Plaintiff Douglas reported the retaliation by Chewning. 149. Detective Stirk went to the NFTTU premises on or around January 26, 2005 and questioned several NFTTU employees, and then was observed entering Carl Michaud’s office. 150. On January 27, 2005, Det. Stirk told Plaintiff Douglas that the District Attorney would probably not prosecute Masters. He repeatedly stated that the women could not expect a prosecution with the environment at the NFTTU. 151. On or around January 28, 2005, Abrams issued an email stating he was very concerned because of staff issues that have “highlighted poor lines of communication, lack of professionalism and disrespect towards one another.” He stated in an email, “Make note that I highly discourage anyone from being involved in any unprofessional behavior, involvement in rumor mills or feeding into negativity toward co-workers or federal employees.” 152. Sometime in January 2005, Plaintiff Butterbaugh observed Mr. Beegle engage in inappropriate remarks, commenting to a government employee who was returning a digital camera, “Ah, watching dirty movies again.” 153. Around February 1, 2005, Abrams called Plaintiff Butterbaugh and told her to be careful if she were on the phone and Ron Beegle, the government manager who supervised Plaintiff Butterbaugh, was around.
21

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege2222ofo2f 828
154. Beegle came into Plaintiff Butterbaugh’s work area on Wednesday, February 3, 2005. After years of eating lunch at her desk in the parts room, Beegle told Plaintiff Butterbaugh that she could not eat lunch there, something Beegle never disallowed before. 155. Around February 7, 2005, Det. Stirk told Plaintiff Douglas that Masters engaged in no criminal wrong doing, so they would not prosecute Masters but that his actions were the result of the environment at NFTTU. 156. Plaintiffs Butterbaugh and Douglas saw a counselor on February 14, 2005 who referred both to therapy and/or doctors. 157. Around February 18, 2005, Abrams told Plaintiff Douglas that he had spoken to Det. Stirk and that he was going to obtain records from the APD. He said that he had an appointment with Stirk and then an appointment with the District Attorney. 158. Both USIS and the DHS were in contact with the APD and obtained the Plaintiffs’ and other complainants’ statements to the APD which were used to develop a retaliatory pretext to terminate the Plaintiffs. 159. The APD refused to give the Plaintiffs copies of their own statements, but gave a copy of the statements and other materials to Abrams of USIS and DHS. 160. Around February 18, 2005, Abrams contacted Plaintiff Douglas and asked if she had forgotten to say anything when he interviewed her earlier. 161. Plaintiff Douglas told Abrams that she knew Masters told the police about the outside personal contact they had but this had been in 2003 so it had nothing to do with the way he acted at work. She told Abrams that she felt that “no” means “no.”
22

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege2323ofo2f 828
162. Abrams also met with Plaintiff Butterbaugh and asked her if there was anything she wanted to tell him about the case in reference to information that was in the police report. Plaintiff Butterbaugh told Abrams that she had been placed on Wellbutrin and was having a problem focusing because of the medication and was worried even if she could carefully drive. 163. Around March 1, 2005, the NFTTU announced that Carl Michaud was to be detailed to the NFTTU in Washington , D.C. and an acting director would be assigned. 164. On March 7, 2005, Abrams came to the NFTTU in Altoona, met with the USIS contract employees, said that their jobs were secure, and no jobs were in danger. He gave Plaintiff Douglas a birthday present. 165. Abrams read a commendation letter from a higher level government employee, Tom Trotto, who was Michaud’s superior regarding staff accomplishments on gun procurement. Abrams also commended the Administrative Support Department on going above and beyond on a special project. 166. He stated how USIS appreciated everyone pulling together and working the overtime needed to get the job completed. 167. Around 3:05 p.m., Abrams called Plaintiff Butterbaugh into a meeting and gave her a letter saying she was being fired for ostensibly falsifying information, all of which is set forth on the letter attached as Exhibit 1 which disclosed that USIS asked for and obtained confidential APD police reports pertaining to the four complaining females. 168. Abrams similarly terminated Plaintiff Douglas the same day with a similar letter, attached as Exhibit 2. Both Plaintiff Douglas’s and Butterbaugh’s termination letter reference that USIS reviewed the Plaintiffs’ statements prepared by the APD.
23

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege2424ofo2f 828
169. The NFTTU, USIS and the APD had prior and extensive contact with each other. 170. The NFTTU had previously inspected the police weapons and at times, shared a shooting range. 171. When local law enforcement agencies, including the APD needed work to be performed on any firearms they would bring the weapons in for repairs without a charge, all of which Plaintiff Butterbaugh witnessed and even created forms for that purpose. 172. Members of the APD brought Beretta pistols into the NFTTU for inspections and also shotguns that needed to be refinished, rebuilt, or refurbished. Plaintiff Butterbaugh created the forms documenting this. 173. Around September 2005, Bob Masters was returned to the NFTTU for approximately ten days where he worked in the Parts Room. He has since been moved to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia and then again returned to the NFTTU in Altoona. Based on information and belief, Masters left the NFTTU some time in 2006.
Count I Plaintiffs Butterbaugh, Douglas, and Starr vs. USIS Sex discrimination and Retaliation Pursuant to Title VII 174. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 173 as though fully set forth herein. 175. Plaintiffs are members of a class protected by Title VII. 176. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were employees of USIS who was either a joint or coemployer with DHS or agents of DHS, against whom Plaintiffs Butterbaugh and Douglas also filed suit at CA 06-185 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
24

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege2525ofo2f 828
177. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their sex by allowing a sexually harassing environment and because they complained of unwelcome sexual harassment by an employee of the federal government to whom they contracted. 178. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant USIS saw the mostly female contract employees as expendable commodities put in place to follow the directions of the government overseers and to not complain even if faced with an egregious sexually hostile environment 179. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant USIS failed to effectively prevent Plaintiffs from being the victims of sexual harassment although they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment of Plaintiffs and other females. 180. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant USIS allowed Plaintiffs to be subjected to a long, continuing course of sexual harassment. 181. As a result of serious sexual harassment by a government employee, Plaintiffs utilized their rights under Title VII to complain of said harassment. 182. Thereafter, Defendant USIS began to treat Plaintiffs in an adverse and discriminatory manner, including interfering with a police investigation, attempting to dissuade the Plaintiffs from pursuing their rights by encouraging the police to humiliate them, and terminated them, all in retaliation for their complaints pursuant to Title VII. 183. Defendant intentionally, deliberately, willfully and maliciously terminated Plaintiffs because of their sex and their complaints of discrimination, all in violation of Title VII. 184. As a result of the illegal actions of Defendant, Plaintiffs have suffered substantial damages including back pay, lost benefits, and front pay, causing them to incur the costs of this suit, including attorneys’ fees.
25

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege2626ofo2f 828
185. As a result of the illegal actions of Defendant, Plaintiffs suffered substantial damages including humiliation, embarrassments, feelings of helplessness, anxiety and depression some of which manifested itself in physical symptoms.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek damages as follows: a. Back pay; b. Reinstatement to employment; c. Front pay; d. Compensatory damages; e. Attorney fees and costs of litigation; f. Any other relief permitted by law, including but not limited to injunctive relief,
declaratory relief and punitive damages. Count II
Plaintiffs Butterbaugh, Douglas and Starr vs. USIS Discrimination and Retaliation Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act 186. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 185 as though fully set forth herein. 187. Plaintiffs timely filed complaints against Defendant USIS at the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. 188. More than a year has passed since Plaintiffs filed complaints at the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. 189. At all times relevant hereto, USIS saw the mostly female contract employees as expendable commodities put in place to follow the directions of the government overseers and to not complain even if faced with an egregious sexually hostile environment
26

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege2727ofo2f 828
190. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant USIS failed to effectively prevent Plaintiffs from being the victims of sexual harassment although they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment of Plaintiffs and other females. 191. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant USIS allowed Plaintiffs to be subjected to a long, continuing course of sexual harassment. 192. As a result of serious sexual harassment by a government employee, Plaintiffs utilized their rights under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to complain of said harassment. 193. Thereafter, Defendant USIS began to treat Plaintiffs in an adverse and discriminatory manner, including interfering with a police investigation, attempting to dissuade the Plaintiffs from pursuing their rights by encouraging the police to humiliate them, and terminated them, all in retaliation for their complaints pursuant to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. 194. Defendant intentionally, deliberately, willfully and maliciously allowed Plaintiffs to be subjected to sexual harassment and then terminated Plaintiffs because of their sex and their complaints of discrimination, all in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. 195. As a result of the illegal actions of Defendant, Plaintiffs have suffered substantial damages including back pay, lost benefits, and front pay, causing them to incur the costs of this suit, including attorneys’ fees. 196. As a result of the illegal actions of Defendant, Plaintiffs suffered substantial damages including humiliation, embarrassments, feelings of helplessness, anxiety and depression some of which manifested itself in physical symptoms.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek damages as follows: a. Back pay;
27

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-1 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege2828ofo2f 828
b. Reinstatement to employment; c. Front pay; d. Compensatory damages; e. Attorney fees and costs of litigation; f. Any other relief permitted by law, including but not limited to injunctive relief, and
declaratory relief. A Jury Trial is Demanded on all counts where such a jury trial is permitted
Respectfully submitted, BY: s/Helen R. Kotler, Esquire
Helen R. Kotler, Esquire Law Offices of Helen R. Kotler Attorney for Plaintiff Suite 1110, Centre City Tower 650 Smithfield Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 281-6538 Fax: (412)281-7626 Email address: hrkotler@yahoo.com PA ID # 23572
28

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-2 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1 1ofo2f 2

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-2 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege2 2ofo2f 2

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-3 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege1 1ofo2f 2

CaCsaese3:30:60-6c-vc-v0-00200290-9K-RKGRG-K-AKPAP DoDcoucmumenetn1t 14-3 FiFleilded100/21/31/42/0200607 PaPgaege2 2ofo2f 2

 
 Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and
ANGEL BUTTERBAUGH, CINDY DOUGLAS, and KRISTINA STARR,
Plaintiff Intervenors,
v.
U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.: 3:06-cv-209-KRG-KAP ) ) ) ) ) )

CONSENT DECREE

Introduction

A. This action was instituted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("the EEOC" or "the Commission") on September 29, 2006, against USIS, Professional Services

Division, Inc., improperly captioned as U.S. Investigations Services, Inc. to enforce provisions of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). The

Commission alleged that Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, and Kristina Starr were sexually

harassed by a government employee who worked at a government-operated facility in Altoona,

Pennsylvania. The Commission further alleged that Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, and

Kristina Starr were terminated in retaliation for their complaint about the unlawful harassment.

USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. denies all of these allegations.

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 2 of 20
B. This Consent Decree is entered into by and shall be final and binding between the EEOC and USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc., its directors, officers, agents, successors and assigns.
C. The EEOC and USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. agree to entry of this Consent Decree, which shall fully and finally resolve all claims the EEOC raised in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-209-KRG-KAP. This Consent Decree shall not constitute either an adjudication ofor finding on the merits of the complaint and shall not be construed as an admission by USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. of any violation of Title VII.
Findings D. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings, record and stipulations ofthe parties, the Court finds: (1) it has jurisdiction ofthe parties and subject matter jurisdiction of this action; and (2) the terms of this Consent Decree are fair, reasonable, equitable andjust, and adequately protect the rights ofthe parties and the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
Non-Discrimination and Non-Retaliation 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action. 2. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. is enjoined from harassment of any employee on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. 3. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. is enjoined from engaging in any employment practices which retaliate in any manner against any person, including but not limited to Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, Kristina Starr, and any individual identified or named during this litigation and/or during the EEOC's investigation into the charges filed by Ms. Butterbaugh, Ms.
2

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 3 of 20
Douglas, and Ms. Starr as a potential claimant, or witness, because of that person's opposition to any practice made an unlawful employment practice under Title VII or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII.
4. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. shall not divulge, directly or indirectly, to any identifiable employer or potential employer of Angel Butterbaugh, Cindy Douglas, Kristina Starr, and any individual identified or named during the EEOC's investigation into the charges filed by Ms. Butterbaugh, Ms. Douglas, and Ms. Starr as a claimant, potential claimant, or witness, any of the facts or circumstances related to the claims ofdiscrimination against USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. in this case or any of the events relating to their participation in the EEOC's investigation or in the litigation of this action.
5. Nothing in this Consent Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion, shall be construed to limit the obligations of USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. under Title VII or the EEOC's authority to process or litigate any charge ofdiscrimination now pending, ifany, or filed in the future against USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc., provided, however, that this Consent Decree shall fully and finally resolve and shall operate as a bar to any further litigation arising out of all claims raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-209-KRG-KAP
Monetary Relief 6. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. agrees to pay monetary relief in the amount ofOne Hundred Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($115,250.00) to Angel Butterbaugh in full settlement ofthe claims raised on her behalfagainst USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. in the EEOC's Complaint. Payment will be made in the following manner:
a. A check made payable to "Angel Butterbaugh" in the amount of 3

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 4 of 20
$60,937.92 which represents compensation for physical injuries and damages related thereto. No Form W-2 or Form 1099 will be issued with respect to this amount;
b. A check made payable to "Angel Butterbaugh" in the amount of $4,033.75, less lawful deductions. A Form W-2 will be issued for this amount to constitute settlement ofback pay for wages unpaid in 2005 from which deductions will be made for federal and state income taxes.
c. A check made payable to "Butterbaugh" in the amountof$4,033.75 to settle Butterbaugh's claims for compensatory damages not related to her physical injuries and which are not wages. A Form 1099 will be issued for this amount;
d. A check made payable to "Helen R. Kotler, Esq." in the amount of
$46,244.58 for fees and costs of which costs are $144.58. A Form 1099 will be issued for this amount.
e. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. will issue the checks in the manner and amount specified above within twenty (20) days of: (i) receipt ofthe Release attached as Exhibit 1; (ii) the Court's entry of the Consent Decree; and (iii) receipt of notice that the abovereferenced monetary settlement has been approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District ofPennsylvania captioned as Scott L. Douglas and Cindy L. Douglas, Debtors', and docketed at Bankruptcy Case No. 07-70254-1AD, whichever occurs later. IfUSIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. does not make payment in the manner set forth in this Paragraph, the Court will enter a judgment for the entire amount remaining due, plus attorneys fees, costs, and interest paid at the legal rate, compounded daily. The check will be mailed to Ms. Butterbaugh at an address to be provided by the EEOC. If there are any changes in address, the EEOC will provide notice by certified mail to counsel for USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. USIS, Professional Services
4

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 5 of 20

Division, Inc. will mail a copy of each check, within five business days of mailing it to Ms.

Butterbaugh, to the attention ofMary M. Tieman, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC, 801 Market Street,

Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3127.

f. The EEOC acknowledges that Ms. Butterbaugh and USIS,

Professional Services Division, Inc. have executed a Settlement Agreement and General Release

("Settlement Agreement and General Release"), which provides for the payment to Ms. Butterbaugh

of One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($115,250.00). The

EEOC and Ms. Butterbaugh acknowledge and understand that the payment referenced in this

Consent Decree and the payment referenced in the Settlement Agreement and General Release are

one and the same and that the total monetary consideration to be paid by USIS, Professional Services

Division, Inc. to Ms. Butterbaugh under both this Consent Decree and the Settlement Agreement and

General Release shall be One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents

($115,250.00).

7. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. agrees to pay monetary relief in the

amount of One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($115,250.00)

to Cindy Douglas in full settlement of the claims raised on her behalf against USIS, Professional

Services Division, Inc. in the EEOC's Complaint. Payment will be made in the following manner:

a.

A check made payable to "Cindy Douglas" in the amount of

$60,934.20 which represents compensation for physical injuries and damages related thereto. No

Form W-2 or Form 1099 will be issued with respect to this amount.

b. A check made payable to "Cindy Douglas" in the amountof$4,033.75

less lawful deductions. A Form W-2 will be issued for this amount to constitute settlement of back

pay for wages unpaid in 2005 from which deductions will be made for federal and state income

5

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 6 of 20

taxes.

c.

A check made payable to "Douglas" in the amount of $4,033.75 to

settle Douglas's claims for compensatory damages not related to her physical injuries and which are

not wages. A Form 1099 will be issued for this amount.

d.

A check made payable to "Helen R. Kotler, Esq." in the amount of

$46,248.30 for fees and costs of which costs are $148.30. A Form 1099 will be issued for this

amount.

e.

USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. will issue the checks in the

manner and amount specified above within twenty (20) days of: (i) receipt ofthe Release attached as

Exhibit 1; (ii) the Court's entry of the Consent Decree; and (iii) receipt of notice that the above-

referenced monetary settlement has been approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Western District ofPennsylvania captioned as Scott L. Douglas and Cindy L. Douglas. Debtors', and

docketed at Bankruptcy Case No. 07-70254-JAD, whichever occurs later. If USIS, Professional

Services Division, Inc. does not make payment in the manner set forth in this Paragraph, the Court

will enter a judgment for the entire amount remaining due, plus attorneys fees, costs, and interest

paid at the legal rate, compounded daily. The check will be mailed to Ms. Douglas at an address to

be provided by EEOC. If there are any changes in address, the EEOC will provide notice by

certified mail to counsel for USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. USIS, Professional Services

Division, Inc. will mail a copy of each check, within five business days of mailing it to Ms. Douglas,

to the attention of Mary M. Tieman, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300,

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3127.

f.

The EEOC acknowledges that Ms. Douglas and USIS, Professional

Services Division, Inc. have executed a Settlement Agreement and General Release ("Settlement

6

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 7 of 20
Agreement and General Release"), which provides for the payment to Ms. Douglas ofOne Hundred Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($115,250.00). The EEOC and Ms. Butterbaugh acknowledge and understand that the payment referenced in this Consent Decree and the payment referenced in the Settlement Agreement and General Release are one and the same and that the total monetary consideration to be paid by USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. to Ms. Douglas under both this Consent Decree and the Settlement Agreement and General Release shall be One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($115,250.00).
8. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. agrees to pay monetary relief in the amount of One Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($129,500.00) to Kristina Starr in full settlement of the claims raised on her behalf against USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. in the EEOC's Complaint. Payment will be made in the following manner:
a. A check made payable to "Kristina Starr" in the amount of $68,504.98 which represents compensation for physical injuries and damages related thereto. No Form W-2 or Form 1099 will be issued with respect to this amount.
b. A check made payable to "Kristina Starr" in the amount of$4,532.50 less lawful deductions. A Form W-2 will be issued for this amount to constitute settlement of back pay for wages unpaid in 2005 from which deductions will be made for federal and state income taxes.
c. A check made payable to Kristina "Starr" in the amount of$4,532.50 to settle Starr's claims for compensatory damages not related to her physical injuries and which are not wages. A Form 1099 will be issued for this amount.
d. A check made payable to "Helen R. Kotler, Esq." in the amount of $51,930.02 for fees and costs of which costs are $130.02. A Form 1099 will be issued for this
7

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 8 of 20
amount. e. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. will issue the checks in the
manner and amount specified above within twenty (20) days of: (i) receipt ofthe Release attached as Exhibit 1; (ii) the Court's entry of the Consent Decree; and (iii) receipt of notice that the abovereferenced monetary settlement has been approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District ofPennsylvania captioned as Scott L. Douglas and Cindy L. Douglas, Debtors', and docketed at Bankruptcy Case No. 07-70254-JAD, whichever occurs later. If USIS, Professional
Services Division, Inc. does not make payment in the manner set forth in this Paragraph, the Court will enter a judgment for the entire amount remaining due, plus attorneys fees, costs, and interest paid at the legal rate, compounded daily. The check will be mailed to Ms. Starr at an address to be provided by the EEOC. If there are any changes in address, the EEOC will provide notice by certified mail to counsel for USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. will mail a copy of each check, within five business days ofmailing it to Ms. Starr, to the attention of Mary M. Tiernan, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3127.
f. The EEOC acknowledges that Ms. Starr and USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. have executed a Settlement Agreement and General Release ("Settlement Agreement and General Release"), which provides for the payment to Ms. Starr of One Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($129,500.00). The EEOC and Ms. Starr acknowledge and understand that the payment referenced in this Consent Decree and the payment referenced in the Settlement Agreement and General Release are one and the same and that the total monetary consideration to be paid by USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. to Ms. Starr under both this Consent Decree and the Settlement Agreement and General Release shall be
8

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 9 of 20
One Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($129,500.00). Mailing of Notice
9. Within 20 business days after entry of this Consent Decree, USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. shall mail to all of its former employees who were employed on June 15, 2007 at the government-operated facility in Altoona, Pennsylvania one copy - identical in size and content - of the Notice attached as Exhibit 2 to this Consent Decree. Such mailing will be sent to such former employees' last known address. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. shall mail to the EEOC a listing of the names of former employees and their addresses to whom USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. sent a copy of the Notice, to the attention of Mary M. Tieman, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3127.
Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policies and Complaint Procedures 10. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc.'s policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation and complaint procedures shall be drafted in plain and simple language, and be available in English. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. shall ensure that its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation and related complaint procedures meet the following minimum criteria:
a. state that USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc.: (i) prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion and color, and prohibits retaliation in violation of Title VII; (ii) prohibits retaliation against employees for opposing employment practices the employees reasonably believe are discriminatory or for participating in an investigation by the EEOC or a state or local governmental agency of a charge ofdiscrimination under Title VII; (iii) prohibits any act, policy or practice that has the effect of harassing or intimidating any employee on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion or color in violation of Title VII; and (iv)
9

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 10 of 20
prohibits any act, policy or practice that has the effect of creating, facilitating or permitting the existence ofa work environment that is hostile to employees through acts such as physicaVverbal abuse and derogatory comments based on sex, race, national origin, religion or color in violation ofTitle VII;
b. include a complaint procedure designed to encourage employees to come forward with complaints regarding violations ofits policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation, which shall meet the following minimum criteria: (i) provide effective mechanism(s) for reporting incidents ofdiscrimination, harassment and retaliation; (ii) provide that the complaints of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation can be made either in writing or verbally; (iii) identify employees to whom an employee can make a complaint; (iv) provide a toll free number that will be available for employees to call to make a complaint ofdiscrimination, harassment or retaliation during work hours or to leave a message after work hours; (v) encourage prompt reporting by employees; and (vi) provide assurances that complainants shall not be subjected to retaliation;
c. provide for prompt investigation of complaints of harassment and/or retaliation;
d. provide for prompt communication to the complaining party ofthe results of the investigation and any remedial actions taken or proposed; and
e. provide for discipline up to and including discharge of an employee or supervisor who violates USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc.'s policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and for increasingly severe discipline of repeat offenders.
11. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. shall continue its practice ofdistributing to all of its employees, either electronically or in hard-copy, its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Acknowledgment ofreceipt forms for such policies will be made available in English. Prospectively from the date ofthis Consent Decree, USIS, Professional Services Division,
10

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 11 of 20
Inc. will retain copies of any acknowledgment of receipt form for an employee in the employee's personnel file.
Supervisor Accountability 12. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. shall promote supervisor accountability by the following conduct:
a. disciplining, up to and including discharge, any supervisor or manager who violates USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc.'s policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation;
b. imposing on all managers and supervisory personnel a duty to administer their work areas to ensure compliance with USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc.'s policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and
c. requiring all managers and supervisors to report any pattern ofbehavior and/or complaint ofharassment and/or retaliation ofwhich they become aware to the Corporate Office.
Dispute Resolution 13. In the event either party to this Consent Decree believes the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance within 20 days of the alleged non-compliance and afford the alleged non-complying party 20 business days to remedy the non-compliance or satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within 20 business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
Miscellaneous Provisions 14. Each party to this Consent Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees.
11

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 12 of 20
15. The terms of this Consent Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, successors and assigns of USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. in their capacities as representatives, agents, directors and officers ofUSIS, Professional Services Division, Inc., and not in their individual capacities. This paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit on remedies available to the Court in the event any individual is found in contempt for a violation of this Decree.
16. This Consent Decree shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-209-KRG-KAP.
17. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and shall continue in effect for three years. During this time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the parties for purposes of enforcing compliance with the Decree, including issuing such orders as may be required to effectuate its purposes. Any application by any party to modify or vacate this Consent Decree during such period shall be made by motion to the Court on no less than 30 days' notice to the other party. Should any material disputes under this Decree remain unresolved after this three-year period, the term of the Decree shall be automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction ofthis matter to enforce the Consent Decree) until such time as all disputes have been resolved.
18. The Clerk of the District Court is hereby directed to send a file-stamped copy of this Consent Decree to counsel of record.
12

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 13 of 20

mitli
Jackson Le is, LLP One PPG Place, 28th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 232-0404

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

Associate General Counsel

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

1801 L Street, NW

Washington DC 20507.

(\

J~u:tf{~~ ,hk h

. Regional Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
C~~!Jij/

Supervisory Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION

MaryM. man Senior Tn Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Philadelphia District Office 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2828
Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

~t SO ORDERED:
By the Court:

\

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 14 of 20

EXHIBIT 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

and

)

)

ANGEL BUTTERBAUGH,

)

CINDY DOUGLAS, and

)

KRISTINA STARR,

)

Plaintiff Intervenors, )

)

v.

)

)

USIS, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

)

DIVISION, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

Civil Action No.: 3:06-cv-209-KRG-KAP

RELEASE I, Angel Butterbaugh, for the consideration for the payment of One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($115,250.00) to be made to me by USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc., as set forth in the Consent Decree entered into by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. in Civil Action Number 3:06-cv-209-KRG-KAP, do hereby waive, remit, release and forever discharge Defendant USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc., its directors, officers, agents, employees, representatives, successors and assigns from any and all claims of sexual harassment, retaliation, and termination based on retaliation, arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that I had against prior to the date of this release and that were included in the claims alleged in the

14

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 15 of 20
EEOC's complaint in EEOC v. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. in Civil Action Number 3:06-cv-209-KRG-KAP.
This Release is freely executed in return for the good and valuable consideration set forth in the above-referenced Consent Decree. I acknowledge that I have been provided a reasonable time to read and consider this Release. I acknowledge that I have been advised of my right to private counsel. I am legally competent to execute this Release and accept full responsibility thereof.

DATE: _ _ __

Sworn to and Subscribed

Before me this day

of

,2007

NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires:

SIGNATURE: _ _ _ _ _ _ __

15

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 16 of 20

EXHIBIT 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

and

)

)

ANGEL BUTTERBAUGH,

)

CINDY DOUGLAS, and

)

KRISTINA STARR,

)

Plaintiff Intervenors, )

)

v.

)

)

USIS, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

)

DIVISION, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

Civil Action No.: 3:06-cv-209-KRG-KAP

RELEASE

I, Cindy Douglas, for the consideration for the payment of One Hundred Fifteen Thousand

Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($115,250.00) to be made to me by USIS, Professional

Services Division, Inc., as set forth in the Consent Decree entered into by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. in Civil Action

Number 3:06-cv-209-KRG-KAP, do hereby waive, remit, release and forever discharge Defendant

USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc., its directors, officers, agents, employees, representatives,

successors and assigns from any and all claims of sexual harassment, retaliation, and termination

based on retaliation, arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that I had against prior

to the date ofthis release and that were included in the claims alleged in the EEOC's complaint in

16

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 17 of 20
EEOC v. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. in Civil Action Number 3:06-cv-209-KRGKAP.
This Release is freely executed in return for the good and valuable consideration set forth in the above-referenced Consent Decree. I acknowledge that I have been provided a reasonable time to read and consider this Release. I acknowledge that I have been advised of my right to private counsel. I am legally competent to execute this Release and accept full responsibility thereof.

DATE: _ _ __

Sworn to and Subscribed

Before me this day

of

,2007

NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires:

SIGNATURE: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

17

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 18 of 20

EXHIBIT 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

and

)

)

ANGEL BUTTERBAUGH,

)

CINDY DOUGLAS, and

)

KRISTINA STARR,

)

Plaintiff Intervenors, )

)

v.

)

)

USIS, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

)

DIVISION, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

Civil Action No.: 3:06-cv-209-KRG-KAP

RELEASE

I, Kristina Starr, for the consideration for the payment of One Hundred Twenty Nine

Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($129,500.00) to be made to me by USIS,

Professional Services Division, Inc., as set forth in the Consent Decree entered into by the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. in

CiviI Action Number 3:06-cv-209-KRG-KAP, do hereby waive, remit, release and forever discharge

Defendant USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc., its directors, officers, agents, employees,

representatives, successors and assigns from any and all claims of sexual harassment, retaliation,

and termination based on retaliation, arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that I

had against prior to the date of this release and that were included in the claims alleged in the

18

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 19 of 20
EEOC's complaint in EEOC v. USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. in Civil Action Number 3 :06-cv-209-KRG-KAP.
This Release is freely executed in return for the good and valuable consideration set forth in the above-referenced Consent Decree. I acknowledge that I have been provided a reasonable time to read and consider this Release. I acknowledge that I have been advised of my right to private counsel. I am legally competent to execute this Release and accept full responsibility thereof.

DATE: _ _ __

Sworn to and Subscribed

Before me this day

of

,2007

NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires:

SIGNATURE: _ _ _ _ _ _ __

19

Case 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP Document 19 Filed 11/29/2007 Page 20 of 20

EXHIBIT 2
NOTICE TO FORMER USIS, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DIVISION, INC. EMPLOYEES
This Notice is mailed pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in EEOC v. U.S. Investigations Services, Inc., Civil Action Number 3:06-cv-209-KRG-KAP, resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended ("Title VII"), prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment based upon sex, race, national origin, color or religion. Title VII further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves of the rights under Title VII by engaging in protected activities, such as filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifying or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is the federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has the authority to bring lawsuits in federal court to enforce Title VII.
In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that three female employees were sexually harassed by a government employee who worked at a government-operated facility in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in violation ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). The Commission further alleged that these three employees were terminated in retaliation for their complaint about the unlawful harassment. US IS, Professional Services Division, Inc. denied these allegations.
To resolve the case, USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree which provided, among other things, that: (1) USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. pay monetary relief; (2) USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. not discriminate on the basis of sex; and (3) USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. not retaliate against any person because she or he opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII, filed a Title VII charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree.
Ifyou believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (412) 6443444. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.
Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to the: Regional Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 80 I Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3127.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission DATED: _______________

USIS, Professional Services Division, Inc. DATED: ____________________

20

 
 CM/ECF - PA Western - Docket Report

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756599607415221-L_...

CLOSED, MAG
U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Johnstown) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC. Assigned to: Kim R. Gibson Referred to: Keith A. Pesto Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 09/29/2006 Date Terminated: 06/26/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by Jacqueline H. McNair Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 South Fifth Street Suite 400, The Bourse Building Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2666 Email: Jacqueline.McNair@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith A. O'Boyle Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 South Fifth Street Suite 400, The Bourse Building Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2666 Email: Judith.Oboyle@EEOC.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M. Jean Clickner Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1001 Liberty Avenue Suite 300, Liberty Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 644-6439 Fax: (412) 644-4935 Email: jean.clickner@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary M. Tiernan

1 of 5

4/14/2008 3:10 PM

CM/ECF - PA Western - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff ANGEL BUTTERBAUGH
Intervenor Plaintiff CINDY DOUGLAS Intervenor Plaintiff Kristina Starr V. Defendant U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC.
2 of 5

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756599607415221-L_...
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 South Fifth Street Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2686 Fax: (215) 440-2848 Email: Mary.Tiernan@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Helen R. Kotler 650 Smithfield Street Centre City Tower, Suite 1110 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 281-6538 Fax: (412)281-7625 Email: hrkotler@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Helen R. Kotler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Helen R. Kotler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Craig W. Snethen Jackson Lewis LLP One PPG Place 28th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 232-0404 Email: snethenc@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas G. Smith
4/14/2008 3:10 PM

CM/ECF - PA Western - Docket Report

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756599607415221-L_...

Jackson Lewis LLP One PPG Place 28th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 232-0404 Email: smithd@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/2006 09/29/2006 10/11/2006
10/13/2006
10/30/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 10/31/2006 11/28/2006

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC. (Filing fee waived) , filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(cen ) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
2 Summons Issued as to U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC. (cen) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
3 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for all pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and the Local Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4; and it is further Ordered that on each document which is filed, the parties shall add to the caption under the Civil Action No. "Judge Kim R. Gibson/Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto" using the name of the assigning Judge and the Magistrate Judge handling the case. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 10/11/2006. (krt) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
4 MOTION to Intervene by ANGEL BUTTERBAUGH, CINDY DOUGLAS, Kristina Starr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Motion - Proposed Complaint# 2 Exhibit 1 to proposed complaint# 3 Exhibit 2 to proposed complaint# 4 Proposed order to Motion)(Kotler, Helen) Modified on 10/16/2006 (cen). (Entered: 10/13/2006)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Douglas G. Smith on behalf of U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC. (Smith, Douglas) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Craig W. Snethen on behalf of U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC. (Snethen, Craig) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
7 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer by U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC. Answer due from U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC. on 11/29/2006. (Smith, Douglas) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by ANGEL BUTTERBAUGH, CINDY DOUGLAS, Kristina Starr re 4 MOTION to Intervene (Kotler, Helen) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
9 ANSWER to Complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC..(Snethen, Craig) (Entered: 11/28/2006)

3 of 5

4/14/2008 3:10 PM

CM/ECF - PA Western - Docket Report

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756599607415221-L_...

02/14/2007 02/14/2007
02/14/2007 03/05/2007
03/13/2007 03/15/2007 03/29/2007 03/29/2007 04/17/2007 04/18/2007
04/18/2007 06/26/2007 11/29/2007 01/24/2008

10 ORDER granting 4 Motion to Intervene; the Clerk shall file the complaint attached and as more fully stated in said order . Signed by Judge Keith A. Pesto on 2/14/07. (plp) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Discovery shall be completed by 5/30/2007; plaintiffs' pretrial statement due by 6/27/2007; defendant's pretrial statement due by 7/11/2007; Motions for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 6/13/2007 and as more fully stated in said order . Signed by Judge Keith A. Pesto on 2/14/07. (w/document #10)(plp) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
11 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by ANGEL BUTTERBAUGH, CINDY DOUGLAS, KRISTINA STARR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(plp) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
12 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer by U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC.; Answer due from U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC. on 3/13/2007. (Snethen, Craig) Modified on 3/5/2007 (cen). (Entered: 03/05/2007)
13 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC..(Smith, Douglas) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
14 STIPULATION for Enlargement of Period For Discovery by U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC.. (Smith, Douglas) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
15 ORDER re 14 Stipulation, that the current discovery deadline is extended to 8/31/07. Signed by Judge Keith A. Pesto on 3/29/07. (plp) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
Update Deadlines: Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Courts order or notice on the matter. Discovery due by 8/31/2007 (plp) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
16 STIPULATION for Enlargement of Period for Discovery to Permit Mediation by U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC.. (Smith, Douglas) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
17 ORDER re 16 Second Stipulation for Enlargement of Period for Discovery to Permit Mediation filed by U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC., that the current discovery deadline is extended to 10/31/07. Signed by Judge Keith A. Pesto on 4/18/07. (plp) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
Update Deadlines: Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Courts order or notice on the matter. Discovery due by 10/31/2007. (plp) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
18 ORDER FOR STATISTICAL CLOSING. Signed by Judge Keith A. Pesto on 6/26/2007. (plp) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
19 Approved Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 11/28/2007. (dlg) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
20 STIPULATION of Dismissal by ANGEL BUTTERBAUGH, CINDY DOUGLAS, Kristina Starr, U.S. INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC.. (Smith, Douglas) (Entered: 01/24/2008)

4 of 5

4/14/2008 3:10 PM

CM/ECF - PA Western - Docket Report

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756599607415221-L_...

02/11/2008

21 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Keith A. Pesto on 2/08/2008. (plp) (Entered: 02/11/2008)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

04/14/2008 16:09:38

PACER

wu0079 Client

eeoc

Login:

Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

3:06-cv-00209-KRG-KAP

Billable

3

Pages:

Cost:

0.24

5 of 5

4/14/2008 3:10 PM