IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PEN'NSYLVANIA

EQUAL EJI,1PLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

}

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

WORLD KITCHEN, INC.

)

a subsidiary ofWKI Holding Company,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
COM.fLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMA~DED

NATURE OF THE ACTIQtl
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title r of the Ch~l
Rights Act of 1991 to correct lll1lawful employment practices on the basis of sex, female, and to provide appropriate relief to Brenda Adkins, Ruthann Geer-Lloyd, Victoria Freeman and other female employees who were adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that General Merchandise Manager Adkins, Sales and Operations Manager Geer-L1oyd, and Human Resources fvIanager Freeman were paid lower salaries than male managers and were selected for pennanent layoff without warning in :March 2002,despite established records of positive achievement for Defendant The Commission ftnther contends that no male managers

-.. -~

were laid off at that time, and that Ms. Adkins and Ms. Geer-Lloyd were replaced by recently

hired male employees who were paid significantly higher salaries. As a result of the sudden

tennination of their careers with Defendant, the female managers lost substantial wages and

benefits and suffered serious emotional harm.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuantto § 706(1) (I) and (3) ofTitle

VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(1)(1) and (3) ("Title VII")

and Section I 02'of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of

Pennsylvania.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"),

is the agency ofthe United States ofAmerica charged with the administration, interpretation and

enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1)

and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(1) (I) and (3).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, World Kitchen, Inc., a subsidiary of WKl

Holding Company ("World Kitchen") has continuously been and is now a Delaware corporation

doing business in the State of Pennsylvania, and the City of Chambersburg and/or the City of

Greencastle, and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer

engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h)

ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(h), (g) and (h).

Page-2-

SIAIEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior 10 the inslilotion of this lawsuit, Brenda Adkins and Ruthann Geer-Lloyd filed charges ofdiscrimination with the Commission allegingviolations of
Title VII by DefendantEmployer. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have
been fulfilled. 7. Sine", at least 1998, Defendant Employer has engaged unlawful employment
practices at its Chambersburg, Pennsylvania facility in violation of Section 703(a) (I) ofTitle VII, 42 US.C. § 2000e-2(a) (I), by paying female employees lower salaries than those paid to similarly-situated male employees and by selecting female managers for pel'llllUlent layoff due to their gender in March 2002. The unlawful employment practices included the follo'Wing:
(a) Since at least 1998, female managers werepaid lower salaries than malernanagers~ a fact made known to Defendant's supervisors and human resOurces management by Brenda Adkins as early as 1998.
(b) In 1999, Ms, Adkins became more vocal in her complaints, after she was promoted to the position of General Merchandising Manager and learned thot her predecessor in the position, a male, had heen paid a substantially higher salary. Starting in 1999, Ms. Geer-Lloyd also complained to management about the gender-based salary disparities.
(c) In the summer of 200 I, a Compensation Redesign Study was conducted by the company and Supervisor Ray Kulla admitted to Ms. Geer-Lloyd thot the salaries of female managers were not "where they should he." The study revealed that the female managers were
paid less than the 50dt percentile fOT their positions in the industry, Some adjustments were made to the salaries of Ms. Adkins and Ms. Geer~L1oyd. but the male managers were stiU paid more,
(d) ForperfoJ1illlnce in the year 2001, Ms. Adkins was praised by her supervisor and
Page -3-

told that her performance was "on target" and Ms. Geer-Lloyd was also commended for meeting all ofher objectives. The last documented perfonnance review for Ms. Freeman was for the year 2000, and she was given very high ratings. In 200 I, all three female managers received Division Cash Awards and Stock Options which were only presented to the top perfonners in the
company. (e) Don Voorhees, Defendant's 2001-2002 General Manager for the Chambersburg
location, athnitted tbat all three female managers performed very well in their positions. (f) In or about January 2002, Defendant hired Alan Coviello as President ofthe Retail
Division and supervisor to Ms. Adkins. Ms, Geer-Lloyd, and Ms. Freedman. Shortly thereafter, Coviello hired three male managers at higher salaries than the female managers were paid.
(g) CovieJlo conducted meetings with the Chambersburg employees and mockingly stated on several occasions when the attendees were predominately female: Hlfany ofyou girls have to go home and cook dinner, Jet me know."
(b) On or about March 28, 2002, Coviello informed all Ms. Adkins, Ms. Geer-Lloyd and Ms. Freedman that they were aU pennaneotly laid off, effective the very next day. Although he contended that these female managers had perfonnance problems, no such problems were ever conveyed to them prior to March 28, 2002.
(i) Coviello told the female managers that their positions were eliminated, however the duties of.\1•. Adkins and Ms. Goer-Lloyd were taken over by male managers earning higher salaries. No male managers were laid offat the time that Ms. Adkins. 1-!S. Geer-Lloyd and Ms. Freethnan lost their positions with Defendant
(j) Fonner Controller John Norris admitted that General Manager Don Voorhees never found flrult with the performance nfthe female managers in 2001-2002. Norris confirmed that
Page-4-

he could see no difference in job duties performed by Ms. Geer-L1oyd and those ofher male
replacement, despite the filet that the position was given a different name, and he stated that Ms.
Adkins could easily have continued workiug for Defendant and performing her duties well after March 29, 2002.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7, above, bas heen to deprive Ms. Adkins, Ms. Goer-Lloyd, Ms. Freedman, and a class of female employees of eqU1l1 employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as an employees because of their gender.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraph 7 were done ;,vith malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Adkins, Ms. GeerLloyd, Ms. Freedman, and a class of female employees.
PRA"r'ER FOR RELIEF Wherefore. the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a pennanent injilllCtion enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in job layoff. wage discrimination, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B, Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for employees regardless of sex}and which eradicate the effects of its past and present Wllawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Brenda Adkins, Rothann Geer-Lloyd,
Page-5-

other female managers, and a class offemale employees by providing appropriate baekpay with prejudgment interest, in amoWlts to be detennined at trial, and other affrrmative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful-place reinstatement or front pay.
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Brenda Adkins, Ruthann Goor-Lloyd, other female mangers, and a class of female employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful empioymentpractices described in paragraph 7. including but not limited to out-of-pocket losses in amounts to be detennined at trial and severance pay.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make Brenda Adkins, Ruthann Geer-L1oyd, other female managers, and a class of female employees whole by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained ofin paragraph 7, including pain and suffering, humiliation, anxiety, depression. trauma, and loss of Hfets pleasures, in amounls to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Breoda Adkins. Ruthmm Geer-LIoyd, other female mangers, and a class offernale employees punitive damages for its malicious and reckless condnct described in paragraph 7, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. C'rrant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest,
H, Award the Commission its costs of this action.
Page-6-

JURY TRlAL DEMAND
The Conunission requests ajury trial on all questions offact raised by its complaint
JAMESL. LEE
Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN Y OlJNG REAMS
Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
~~ Regional Attorney
~if!¥i: Supervisory Trial Attorney ~~ '1~o;"~ ey .EEOC 21 S, 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-26&3 Pennsylvania ID No, 37637
Page -7-
I

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 1 of 44
EXHIBIT "A"

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC

Document 6-4

Filed 11/29/2005

Page 2 of 44
~
~
~
~
<t

EXHIBIT A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRENDA ADKINS and RUTHANN GEER-LLOYD

Plaintiffs, v.

Civil Action No. 1:05-cv-1970 (Judge Conner)

WORLD KITCHEN, INC., a subsidiary ofWKI Holding Company, and: ALLAN COVIELLO

INTERVENING COMPLAINT ADDING DEFENDANT

Defendants

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Intervening Plaintiffs, Brenda Adkins and Ruthann Geer-Lloyd (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), by their counsel, Cozen O'Connor, as and for their Complaint allege the following:

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 3 of 44
NATURE OF THE CASE This is an employment discrimination case based upon Defendants' unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex. Plaintiffs herein incorporate all the allegations of the original complaint, filed by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") on or about September 29, 2005. Plaintiffs Brenda Adkins and Ruthann Geer-Lloyd are two of the individuals named in the EEOC's complaint as managers who were adversely affected by unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, as described in that complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, because Count I arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII").
2. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1333, because Counts II and III are civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of costs, and is between citizens of different States.
2

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 4 of 44
3. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over this action based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 282 U.S. 715 ( 1966), because Counts II and III so related to the federal claim that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution, and because they and the federal claim derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.
4. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II and III based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims, including claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties, that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. B. Personal Jurisdiction
5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant World Kitchen, Inc. because it is found within this district and may be served within this district.
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Allan Coviello because his actions, as described below, occurred within and caused harm to Plaintiffs within this district.
3

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 5 of 44

C. Venue 7.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 1391 and

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), because the events or omissions giving rise to the

claims occurred within this district, the unlawful employment practices are alleged

to have been committed in this district, upon information and belief the

employment records relevant to such practices are maintained and administered in

this district, and the Plaintiffs worked and would still be working in this district but

for the alleged unlawful employment practices of Defendants.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Brenda Adkins ("Adkins") is an adult woman and a resident of 800 East Main Street, Waynesboro, Pennsylvania 17268.
9. Plaintiff Ruthann Geer-Lloyd ("Geer-Lloyd") is an adult woman and a resident of 6605 River Island Road, Buford, Georgia 30518.
10. Defendant World Kitchen, Inc. ("World Kitchen" or "Defendant World Kitchen" or "the company"), a subsidiary ofWKI Holding Company, is a company engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of cookware, bakeware, dinnerware, kitchen and household tools, and cutlery products. Upon information and belief, World Kitchen is a Delaware corporation with its global headquarters in Reston, Virginia. At all relevant times World Kitchen conducted

4

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 6 of 44
business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and had offices at 1144 Kennebec Drive, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17201.
11. Defendant World Kitchen was Plaintiffs' "employer" as that term defined is by Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), and by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 954(b).
12. In or about January 2002, Defendant Allan Coviello ("Coviello" or "Defendant Coviello") became President of World Kitchen's Retail Division and exercised authority on behalf of World Kitchen as Plaintiffs' direct supervisor.
13. Upon information and belief, Coviello is an adult man and a resident of 8 Cortland Drive, Greenland, New Hampshire 03840.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION 14. Adkins was hired by World Kitchen's predecessor, Coming, in 1972. She began work on December 11, 1972, and worked her way up to the position of General Merchandise Manager, Outlet Division. 15. Geer-Lloyd was hired by World Kitchen's predecessor, Coming, in 1987. She began work in October of 1987 and worked her way up to the position of Factory Outlet Operations Manager. 16. World Kitchen was created in 1998 from the sale of Coming's consumer house wares business. Since 1998, World Kitchen paid female managers
5

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 7 of 44
lower salaries than male managers, a fact made known to World Kitchen's supervisors and human resources management by Adkins as early as 1998.
17. In 1999, Adkins become more vocal in her complaints, after she was promoted to the position of General Merchandising Manager and learned that her predecessor in the position, a male, had been paid a substantially higher salary.
18. Starting in 1999, Geer-Lloyd also complained to World Kitchen's management about gender-based salary disparities.
19. In the summer of 2001, World Kitchen conducted a Compensation Redesign Study, and Supervisor Ray Kulla admitted to Geer-Lloyd that salaries of female managers were not "where they should be." The study revealed that the company's female managers were paid less than the 50th percentile for their positions in the industry. World Kitchen made some adjustments to the salaries ofAdkins and Geer-Lloyd, but it continued to pay male managers higher salaries than it paid female managers.
20. For her performance in 2001, Adkins was praised by her supervisor and told that her performance was "on target." Geer-Lloyd was also praised for meeting all ofher objectives. In 2001, both Adkins and Geer-Lloyd received Division Cash Awards and Stock Options, which were presented to the top performers in the company.
6

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 8 of 44
21. In or about January 2002, World Kitchen hired Allan Coviello as President of its Retail Division and supervisor to Adkins and Geer-Lloyd. Shortly thereafter, Coviello hired three male managers at higher salaries than the female managers were paid.
22. Coviello conducted meetings with the Chambersburg employees and mockingly stated on several occasions when the attendees were predominantly female, "If any of you girls have to go home and cook dinner, let me know."
23. On or about March 28, 2002, Coviello informed Adkins and Geer-Lloyd that they were permanently laid off, effective the very next day. Although he contended that these female managers had performance problems, no such problems were ever conveyed to them prior to March 28, 2002.
24. Coviello told Adkins and Geer-Lloyd that their positions were eliminated; however, the duties of Adkins and Geer-Lloyd were taken over by male managers earning higher salaries. No male managers were laid off at the time that Adkins and Geer-Lloyd lost their positions with World Kitchen.
25. World Kitchen and Coviello acted intentionally, maliciously, and willfully, or with reckless indifference, in violating Title VII and the PHRA.
7

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 9 of 44
26. As a result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Adkins and GeerLloyd have lost wages and benefits, suffered emotional distress, and incurred attorney's fees and costs.
27. On September 23,2002, acting through her attorney, Adkins submitted a charge of employment discrimination to the EEOC naming World Kitchen, Inc. and Allan Coviello as respondents. A copy ofAdkins' charge is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
28. On September 23,2002, acting through her attorney, GeerLloyd submitted a charge of employment discrimination to the EEOC naming World Kitchen, Inc. and Allan Coviello as respondents. A copy of Geer-Lloyd's charge is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
29. At the time Plaintiffs submitted their charges of employment discrimination to the EEOC, the EEOC was party to a Worksharing Agreement with the PHRC, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference.
30. Pursuant to the Worksharing Agreement, the PHRC designated the EEOC as the PHRC's agent for the purpose of receiving charges, and EEOC's receipt of a charge on the PHRC's behalf automatically initiated the proceedings of both the EEOC and the PHRC.
8

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 10 of 44
31. Plaintiff's charge forms to the EEOC were submitted utilizing EEOC Form 5 on which the box was checked stating "I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any." In the heading of the charge form, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission was identified as the State or local agency.
32. Plaintiffs, acting through their counsel, also submitted to the EEOC on September 23, 2002, signed forms entitled "Request for EEOC to Dual File Charge with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission." Copies of these forms are attached as Exhibits D and E, respectively, and incorporated herein by reference.
33. The EEOC conducted an investigation of Plaintiffs' complaints of employment discrimination.
34. On September 1, 2005, the EEOC issued separate determinations in Adkins and Geer-Lloyd's charges, in each case finding:
"[T]he evidence establishes a violation of Title VII. The evidence shows that the Charging Party as well as two (2) other female managers were treated differently because of their sex and that sex was a factor considered by Respondent when it determined Charging Party's rate of pay and failed to pay her and another female a salary similar to males in comparable positions. The evidence also shows that sex was a factor considered when it terminated the employment of Charging Party and two other female managers.
9

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 11 of 44

A copy of the EEOC's letters of determination are attached as Exhibits F and G, respectively, and incorporated herein by reference.
35. On September 29, 2005, the EEOC filed the present action in which Plaintiffs seek to intervene.

COUNT I
Adkins and Geer-Lioyd v. World Kitchen Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

36. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.

37. Defendant World Kitchen violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. by discharging Plaintiffs and discriminating against Plaintiffs with respect to their compensation because of their sex.

38. By reason of Defendant World Kitchen's violation of Title VII, Plaintiffs have lost wages and benefits, suffered emotional distress, and incurred

the costs of this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter

judgment in their favor and:

a.

Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendant World

Kitchen's discriminatory acts, policies, practices, and

procedures complained of herein have violated and

continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs as secured by

Title VII.

10

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 12 of 44

b.

Enjoin Defendant World Kitchen, its officers, successors,

and assigns, and all persons in active concert or

participation with it, from engaging in job layoff, wage

discrimination, and any other employment practice which

discriminates on the basis of sex.

c.

Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but

not limited to pain and suffering, past economic loss,

future economic loss, back pay, front pay, loss of life's

pleasures, loss of reputation, loss of benefits, and other

damages.

d.

Award reasonable costs and attorney's fees.

e.

Award punitive damages.

f.

Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper

under the circumstances.

COUNT II Adkins and Geer-Lloyd v. World Kitchen, Inc.
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act
39. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
40. World Kitchen violated the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq. ("PHRA"), by discharging Plaintiffs because of their sex and by discriminating against Plaintiffs with respect to their compensation on the basis of sex.

11

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 13 of 44

41. By reason of World Kitchen's violations of the PHRA, Plaintiffs have lost wages and benefits, suffered emotional distress, and incurred the costs of this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter

judgment in their favor and:

a.

Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendant World

Kitchen's discriminatory acts, policies, practices, and

procedures complained of herein have violated and

continue to violate the rights of Plaintiffs as secured by

thePHRA.

b.

Enjoin Defendant World Kitchen, its officers, successors,

and assigns, and all persons in active concert or

participation with it, from engaging in job layoff, wage

discrimination, and any other employment practice which

discriminates on the basis of sex.

c.

Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but

not limited to pain and suffering, past economic loss,

future economic loss, back pay, front pay, loss oflife's

pleasures, loss of reputation, loss of benefits, and other

damages.

d.

Award reasonable costs and attorney's fees.

e.

Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper

under the circumstances.

12

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 14 of 44

COUNT III Adkins and Geer-Lloyd v. Coviello Pennsylvania Human Relations Act

42. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 41 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.

43. In their complaints to the PHRC on September 23,2002, Adkins and Geer-Lloyd specifically named Coviello as a respondent for his actions in aiding and abetting violations of the PHRA by World Kitchen.

44. Defendant Coviello violated the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 955(e), by aiding and abetting Defendant World Kitchen in its unlawful discriminatory practices.

45. By reason of Defendant Coviello's violations of the PHRA, Plaintiffs have lost wages and benefits, suffered emotional distress, and incurred the costs of this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and:

a.

Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendant Coviello's

discriminatory acts and practices complained of herein

have violated and continue to violate the rights of

Plaintiffs as secured by the PHRA.

b.

Enjoin Defendant Coviello from aiding, abetting,

inciting, compelling, or coercing any employment

practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.

13

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 15 of 44

c.

Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages including but

not limited to pain and suffering, past economic loss,

future economic loss, back pay, front pay, loss of life's

pleasures, loss of reputation, loss of benefits, and other

damages.

d.

Award reasonable costs and attorney's fees.

e.

Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper

under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted, COZEN O'CONNOR

By: /s/ Jeffrey I. Pasek Jeffrey I. Pasek, Esquire Bar Identification No. PA 23700 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 665-2072 Fax: (215) 701-2072 jpasek@cozen.com
Attorneys for Brenda Adkins and Ruthann Geer-Lloyd

14

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 16 of 44 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 17 of 44

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR EXHIBITS ACCOMPANYING PROPOSED COMPLAINT

A

Adkins' Charge of Employment Discrimination submitted to the

EEOC on September 23, 2002

B

Geer-Lloyd's Charge of Employment Discrimination submitted to

the EEOC on September 23, 2002

c

Worksharing Agreement between the Pennsylvania Human

Relations Commission and Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission for Fiscal Year 2002

D

Adkins' Request for EEOC to Dual File Charge with the PHRC

E

Geer-Lloyd's Request for EEOC to Dual File Charge with the

PHRC

F

EEOC's Letter of Determination mailed to Adkins

G

EEOC's Letter of Determination mailed to Geer-Lloyd

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 18 of 44 EXHIBIT "A"

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 19 of 44

CHARGE OF D~o:;CRIMINATION
This torm is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974; See Privacy Act Statement before

AGb-.c"-y;-----r-;:;C:;-;H;-;;-A-;:;R-;:;G:;::E--;-N-;;-U-;-;M-;;B:;-;E=;:R:;----------.

0 FEPA
!8l EEOC

~ EXHIBIT

~co~m~lp~ll~et~in~lgLt~hi~s~ro~rm~·~------------------~-----L--~~

Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission State or local Agency, if any

w ~

A

~

NAME:::: (Indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.)
Brenda Adkins
STREET ADDRESS
P.O. Box 411, 800 East Main St.

HOME TELEPHONE (Include area code)

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

I 717-762-0055 DATE OF BIRTH

Waynesboro, Pennsylvania 17268

9-22-42

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,

STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (If more than one list below.)

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES,

TELEPHONE (Include area

MEMBERS

code)

World Kitchen, Inc.

500+

717-267-3789

STREET ADDRESS
1144 Kennebec Drive

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE
Chambersburg, PA 17201

COUNTY

I Franklin

__,

NAME
Allan Coviello
STREET ADDRESS
8 Cortland Drive

I CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE
Greenland, NH 03840-2137

TELEPHONE (Include area codiJ.)>

603-431-1966

t<i\

COUNTY
Rockingham

...-._·1:~

· .<:

. '---

:....
·0:·

~:•::,

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es))

0 RACE

0 COLOR

['8] SEX

0 RELIGION

0 NATIONAL ORIGIN

DATE

DISCRIMINATION

TOOK

P_L.....A..

C

E
..~

:/
....,--

;

EARLIEST

LA TEST -::-:: -~~~; r-:-

0 RETALIATION 0AGE

0DISABILITY 0 OTHER (Specify)

January 1, 1999

.. March 30,,2002-· · ·- ---~

['8] CONTINUING ACTION

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional space is needed, attach extra sheet(s)):

Brenda Adkins is a 60 year-old female who was employed by World Kitchen, Inc. and its predecessor in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania from December 11, 1972 until March 29, 2002. Her most recent position, effective in January of 1999, was as General Merchandise Manager, Retail Division. She was responsible to manage the entire product assortment, including branded products, licensed products and sourced products sold at more than 175 factory outlet stores, with gross sales of approximately $180 million.

World Kitchen, Inc. intentionally underpaid Ms. Adkins. At the time she assumed her position as General Merchandise Manager, Retail Division, her salary was set at only 55% of that of her male predecessor. In the summer of 2001, World Kitchen, Inc. completed a study of its management compensation practices. As a part of this Compensation Redesign study, the pay levels for various management jobs were benchmarked against the pay levels of comparable jobs at other companies. Based on the results of the study, World Kitchen, Inc. adjusted the salaries of those managers who were paid less than the 50th percentile of the benchmark level, except that no change was made in the salary of Brenda Adkins or Ruthann Geer-Lioyd. Ms. Adkins and Ms. Geer-Lioyd were the only two women executives of the company at the time who were covered by the compensation study. The study showed that none of the male executives were being paid at below the 50th percentile. Despite several acknowledgements by company officials that the company recognized they were being significantly underpaid, and despite continuing promises to them that their salaries would be raised, World Kitchen, Inc. never adjusted the compensation of Ms. Adkins or Ms. Geer-Lioyd. On the contrary,

See attached continuation sheet

!8J I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or
local Agency, if any. I will advise the agencies if I change my address or telephone number and cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their procedures.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

correct.

f;t? /~ ,/>_./ '

·

/fTtw.. rr'/ t(r'r 73r{",..,L /ld;,'"\JS

V'/

NOTARY- (When necessary for State and Local Requirements)
~ (J,/)( L _..;

I swear or affirm thafYflave read the above charge and that it is

true to the best of my knowledQe, information and belief.

SIGNATURE OF CO_Ml)LAINANT

~ /·~
~~AND SWORN

/lr(t;~d7.;:; &C'..-d't. /ldi,it~
TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE

(Day, month, and year)

Date September 23, 2002 EEOC FORM 5 (Rev. 06/92)

t«>TARIAl SEAL CAROL JONES, Notlry Public City of Philadelphia, PhHa. Coc.ny My Commission Expires December 5, 2005

September 23, 2002

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 20 of 44

Charging Party: Brenda Adkins Respondent: World Kitchen, Inc., et al.
Continuation Sheet No. 1 of 1

because of their sex, the company intentionally kept their salaries below the level it acknowledged their positions warranted. Although Ms. Adkins' job description called for her to be paid at grade 53, the company intentionally underpaid her at grade 48, a lower level.

In January of2002, World Kitchen, Inc. hired Allan Coviello as President, WKFS- Retail Division, with responsibility to serve as Ms. Adkins' direct supervisor. Almost immediately after assuming his position, Mr. Coviello set about on a process to get rid of Ms. Adkins, Ms. Geer-Lloyd, and Vicki Freeman, the only three women employed in senior management
positions reporting to Mr. Coviello.

On March 28, 2002, Mr. Coviello conducted a job performance evaluation for Ms. Adkins, known as a Partner Excellence Review (PER), for her job performance in 2001. Although he had not been her supervisor in 2001, Mr. Coviello intentionally undervalued Ms. Adkins' job performance, evaluated her against objectives and measures that were not in place during the period of time under review, evaluated her as not meeting her goal for freight charges when she had in fact met the goal that had been established for the review period, accused her of not doing enough on "vendor assortment" when she had exceeded the objective for the year, falsely assigned her the lowest level rating for leadership and falsely assigned her the lowest level rating for integrity. Despite verbally acknowledging that his evaluation was in error, Mr. Coviello refused to make any changes in it.

That same date, Thursday, March 28, 2002, Mr. Coviello issued a letter to Ms. Adkins notifying her that World Kitchen, Inc. was eliminating her position as of March 29, 2002. Although the duties Ms. Adkins had performed had not been eliminated, the decision to eliminate her position was a pretext for sex discrimination. On or about the same date, Mr. Coviello also terminated the employment of all ofthe other women under his direct supervision who were employed in the executive management of World Kitchen, Inc. Ms. Adkins' job duties were assigned to Mr. Gil Smith and Mr. Loren Jacobs, two men who were hired within six weeks prior to her termination at significantly higher salaries that Ms. Adkins was receiving.

The actions taken by World Kitchen, Inc., as set forth above were knowing, intentional and on

account of sex, protected rights

and were undertaken of Ms. Adkins.

with

malice

or

with

reckless

indifference

to

the

federally
KS

(/)

~··r1

By taking the actions described above, Allan Coviello knowingly and intentionally aided ah"tl

abetted World Kitchen, Inc. in violating Ms. Adkins' right to be free from discrimination cfDS

account ofher sex in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

:~:

'····
,;::;,
N

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 21 of 44 EXHffiiT "B"

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 22 of 44

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

AGENCY
0 FEPA

CHARGE NUMBER

This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974; See Privacy Act Statement before [8J EEOC

~

rc~o~m~lp~lle~ti~ng~t~h=is~fu~r~m~·------------------------------------~--------~-----~

EXHIBIT

Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission State or local Agency, if any

~
§

8

~

NAME (Indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.)

HOME TELEPHONE (lncwae area coae)

Ruthann Geer-Lioyd
STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

717-732-1858
I DATE OF BIRTH

37 Sherwood Circle

Enola, Pennsylvania 17025

4/13/57

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,

STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (If more than one list below.)

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES,

TELEPHONE (Include area

MEMBERS

code)

World Kitchen, Inc.

500+

717-267-3789

STREET ADDRESS
1144 Kennebec Drive

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE
Chambersburg_, PA 17201

COUNTY
I Franklin

NAME

TELEPHONE (Include area code)

Allan Coviello
STREET ADDRESS
8 Cortland Drive

l CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE Greenland, NH 03840-2137

603-431-1966
COUNTY
Rickingham

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es))

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

0 RACE 0 COLOR

181 SEX

0 RELIGION

0 NATIONAL ORIGIN

0 RETALIATION 0AGE

0DISABILITY

0 OTHER (Specify)

EARLIEST
July 1, 2001

LATEST
March 30, 2002

181 CONTINUING ACTION

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional space is needed, attach extra sheet(s)):

Ruthann Geer-Lioyd is a 45 year-old female who was employed by World Kitchen, Inc. in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania and its predecessor from October 1987 until March 30, 2002. Her most recent position was as Operations Manager, Retail Division. At various times, this same job was known as Manager, Sales and Operations or Operations Manager or Factory Outlet Operation Manager. Her duties were to supervise and manage the operations and personnel at more than 175 factory outlet stores. She had profit and loss responsibility for stores with gross sales of approximately $180 million.

In the summer of 2001, World Kitchen, Inc. completed a study of its management compensation practices. As

a part of this Compensation Redesign study, the pay levels for various management jobs were benchmarked

against the pay levels of comparable jobs at other companies. Based on the results of the study, World

Kitchen, Inc. adjusted the salaries of those managers who were paid less than the 50th percentile of the

benchmark level, except that no change was made in the salary of Ruthann Geer-Lioyd or Brenda Adkins. Ms.

Geer-LIIoyd and Ms. Adkins were the only two women executives of the company at the time who were

covered by the compensation study. The study showed that none of the male executives were being paid at

below the 501h percentile. Despite several acknowledgements by company officials that the company

recognized they were being significantly underpaid, and despite continuing promises to them that their salaries

would be raised, World Kitchen, Inc. never adjusted the compensation of Ms. Geer-Lioyd or Ms. Adkins. On the contrary, because of their sex, the company intentionally kept their salaries below the level it§lcknp~ledged

their positions warranted.

N

-

See

attached

~·<?\
continuatien

. :-. ' sh~~t:_

[8J I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any. I will advise the agencies if I change my

Nc::L~ry :r State and Local~!quit:~~~ts)

address or telephone number and cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their procedures.

52 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

correct.

.~ ~ /

/

~ IJtTurM7

.{;,

f_(v1l,~,n

_
{Yx?r-

L l(,y/

I swear or true to the

abfefisrmt otfhMq(nl o}(wavleedregaed,thinefoarbmoavteiocnhaanrgdE1rl:!5fen}dief.tr~i?-~.t'i>tis

SIGNA1~U0E. -~ANT

·:::; '; ' ·

~~ ,

/- ~ J / ~ra"/.pr; /2:Jl.~N"J 6&.!-L/C)-eli11

$UBSQtf~~ AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE

, 0 , and year)

Date September 23, 2002
EEOC FORM 5 (Rev. 06/92)

Charyjng p~ l"tY_{_Si ~TAA ~.SEALn. .....
City c1 PhiladelptJa, Phlil. ~
My Commission Expires December 5, 2005

September 23, 2002

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 23 of 44
Charging Party: Ruthann Geer-Lloyd Respondent: World Kitchen, Inc., et al.
Continuation Sheet No. 1 of 1

In January of2002, World Kitchen, Inc. hired Allan Coviello as President, WKFS- Retail Division, with responsibility to serve as Ms. Geer-Lloyd's direct supervisor. Almost immediately after assuming his position, Mr. Coviello set about on a process to get rid of Ms. Geer-Lloyd, Ms. Adkins, and Vicki Freeman, the only three women employed in senior management positions reporting to Mr. Coviello.

Although Ms.Geer-Lloyd had previously been praised for her job performance by her two prior supervisors and received a mid-year review on October 16, 2001 during which no performance issues were raised, after only about ten days on the job, Mr. Coviello placed her on a performance improvement plan and a 30-day final warning as of January 21, 2002.

On March 29, 2002, Mr. Coviello issued a job performance evaluation to Ms. Geer-Lloyd, known as a Partner Excellence Review (PER), for her job performance in 2001. Although he had not been her supervisor in 2001, on this PER Mr. Coviello intentionally undervalued Ms. Geer-Lloyd'sjob performance, falsely accused her of not meeting standards which had been met, evaluated her against objectives and measures that were not in place during the period of time
under review, and unfairly gave her a less than satisfactory evaluation.

That same date, Friday, March 29, 2002, Mr. Coviello issued a letter to Ms. Geer-Lloyd notifying her that the management of World Kitchen, Inc. was eliminating her position as of March 30, 2002. In fact, however, Ms. Geer-Lloyd's position was not eliminated. The following Wednesday, April3, 2002, Mr. Coviello issued an Organizational Announcement that a male, Robert Thomas, had been hired by World Kitchen, Inc. as Vice President, Stores, Sales and Operations. Upon information and belief, Mr. Thomas assumed all or substantially all of Ms. Geer-Lloyd's responsibilities and was hired at a significantly higher salary than Ms. Geer-
Lloyd had received.

On the same date, Mr. Coviello also terminated the employment of all of the other women under his direct supervision who were employed in the executive management of World Kitchen, Inc.

The actions taken by World Kitchen, Inc., as set forth above were knowing, intentional and on account of sex, and were undertaken with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally
protected rights of Ms. Geer-Lloyd.

By taking the actions described above, Allan Coviello knowingly and intentionally aided and

abetted World Kitchen, Inc. in violating Ms. Geer-Lloyd's right to be free from discrimi~on,

on account of her sex in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

f<i

''"()

~' .

~~ :~~·:

I • • ~·· ••

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 24 of 44 EXHIBIT "C"

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 25 of 44 EXHIBIT
c

WORKSHARING AGR~EMENT
BETWEEN
THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMtSSION

and

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

I. INTRODUCTION

A. The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) , hereinafter referred to as the FE~A, has ju~isdiction over allegations of employment discrimination filed against employers of 4 or more employees occurring within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ba$ed on race, color, religious c~eed, ancestry, age (40 and older), sex, national origin, disability, use of gua~d dog or support animal because of the blindness, deafness, or physical d~sability of an individual with whom the person is known to have a relationship or association pursuant to Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, hereinafter

referred to as EEOC, has jurisdiction over allegations of

employment discrimination occurring throughout the United

states where such charges are based on race, color·, religion,

sex, or national origin, all pursuant to Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 19641 as amended (hereinafter referred to as Title VII) .

(42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)) EEOC has jurisdiction

to investigate and determine cha~ges of discrimination based

on age (40 or older) under the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, as amended (29 U.S.C.§ 621

et.seq.), for unequal wages based on sex under the Equal Pay

A~t of 1963 (29 U.S.C.§ 206), and over allegations of

employment discrimination based on disability pursuant to

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991, (42

u.s.c. § 12101).

B. In recognition of, and to the extent of the common

j\lrisdiction and goals of the two (:2) Agencies, and in

consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained

herein, the FEPA and the EEOC he~eby agree to the terms of

this Wo;rksharing 'Agreement, which is designed to provide

individuals for their

with an efficient procedure for g~ievances under a~propriate

obtaining redress Commonwealth of

~ennsylvania and Federal laws.

II. FILINQ OF CHARGES OF DISCRIMINATION A. In order to facilitate the assertion of employment rights, the

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 26 of 44

EbrEttwctc(:hehEhE1heaiiOCec)eanhatJCeChtrapigbjoluvuatafeaefhrnensrrpedsdiewtTosdrtstdiaiottnehetlhhneirlloeceesmesottfafcsinFeFVuohjoEErrouatnPeIPtrofrrAIAecgim.ioedtn$ehfeifadcsvaofiti.lTtirsciurchnochhdtmeagaEit~eEgslhdolaOoreeyontenCdthansedhep•ileemigseludnernerarwrrignpiagaetAgtaioteifcteghtansthoeieiecttorinntseyptnhcogbhyteofytetocoofhoohoeffevnatatSahegehcarneerpegheuloAcnra:erta'tto;gchsihrmcyeo,agoecnenseurrhicesttinaydhuti7icroyiatan0gtlnnsl6touegtaadt.soah@gidcignncereoeaeorCgtieeefnnFtrhrmEdicdttamhalbae?reoAfnliogi(nvolnsceet1tyehs)erees.

B.

VTmAlroehIucnefIttg,esuF,raEaAlPsDatAhnEjteuAdhmsr,ehifsoEatadoPrllAlilcect,thtghaioeaakorrtengEioEt,eahOsnleCoslsrApmfcDwoeheArcheaetirwifrgtnieheheeisedEtrEeiamOailnbCillneoiompgSthnhieunlomcytgcthireoeheasnaqsFsviuEnIiiPIgorjAueI.lm.araite$nAinodd. tnisEc1Eoto.OiffoCbnTtehlh,iooatwsvsleoee,

C.

pEcatoheaamrcisht:a"hongAnenesegaerel~ndlwtceieyhgrnieictwnchgtiollwyflemitliwlphnlfeiosotiyahrrmmtiectsonhifmtneymddoitiosnhvtceihrjdeuirumreraiqilsAnusdgairieotecinfmotcinyeothnntaote.sniddrorfraoifbrgtohaatthsscsahitgasoertgnfecaiilnieenys

NttfaacthhrrgdhoaaeeeavmrnnmriecgsscawhPeyefleaeolyCrrnrtlgkra,nhaeeksacodo.yirknngflscvgiienCaangnhtjamhiaunaPrearugacaitecsgrucHstodehauirniamelmdclcrsayaaygtynnietobachbeegnReeagrxteeitcwnleorceasaiarhpttbnhiataol.swrnengfwheSseihesrnseneyrnvcsewCttediteotsoihmhmltnbelie.megtbaiwaIcsetgsIhEieieIoaeaornrecnnncghs,y(eotDhawilIvtgetVaiieetsIkEnrdhSeiEcIinOOsynbtgoCNyolwvattthihhenbOlseedeeFl INITIAL CHARG~-PROCESSING RESPONSIBILITIES).

D.

For charges th EEOC Charge discrimination is acceptable draft charges. the nature of

aiFctnhtohWreamafrhorgedernemi5sftaaoo.arbcnmb(ihdoleawirrtchgdyoieucnaahstliehltsw-neaftriltitnlalhteakoindtneio,nvsEt EetebaOblaayCtec$u,hetaddon~irdsagoycnenlntlohcidmseyeiemsidwFatpEabliPootliAinyllo)minutteyhstsnoee,,t

face of the charge.

B.

wwFOofiirlfllliccpehrfaooorvrgfwiedascerhdawarhmagiecocshnotphwaylryheoilcfihtsotthhibaenvegecdhtobuaeragEelenE-OftidColoe'scdEkPEewhOtiCeiltd.ahdbeEAylEplOshtCohi,,ae

the FEPA the FEPA District FEFA as

dual-filed charges.

tolhPowpIebecanatilcrttirEtuahgetyEdriarOEedsatCwEsinioOtiapditCponorh.sdfotnio.vn,ftiEhotdtEtrheTeehOmendheCdsiRsdudFafEoeaanonPcsyldrApuos-.omfuttwionhiselfdfeeiniienltctnsblFghatEypewtPitarAtohionFhlnadvEelwtiPdbotiFAtoleefEh'lsPentiAtdPhdhoececoeithvnlicufaispksidruiaecegetb~t-esditsamneithnwgqieuaoosutisountethfianwbftltoeittlihhcyelrlnaeteihagtndgiecFhoohrEuteCrnaPsamerhAldgt-aaa'oefsrnluigldylpotaiehwnnodegndn

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 27 of 44

notification to the parties of the charge filing.

lii. DIVISION OF INITIAL CHARGE~PROCESSING RESFONSIBILITIES SEoIccnhhfmeaacprrrttleggihooceeyenossmgeAob7nnfe0mtit6twaeiA(rgoceicen)cetandnoaoisntfsfhdcewtr1h7i9iemF0t6Eh67iPs(n,AdtDaa) tttaihiunsooetdafnobprtTpihyrluiieimtrtalsiEeauueEratsOyVhnCotIAr!rwetciosatti,ypsltlohgaanebmnrseadAeinnbgdtdteieihelvdidDeit;dyitseotacrdnfarotdinhamrssebmiyrnfeoiasTFtltoEtliiaPooltAvllwnei nsboi:ngyIf A. EEOC and the FEPA will process all Title VII, ADA, and ADEA charges that they originally receive.

1.

rFpiasinou~lgl:ocirohchtwcietahscinahslolrgiafygnreggtseephxsoroecofrflciousegEusrsEiicsOnvaheCaedplclehjtbyruaoyirrrogiedtsepchdsreeooii£bvccEeete6iEefd0ooOdnrbCdey,aitmyttotshhhmeeefeioEnd6~EFiilaOEtsttPCitehAaleaydlnlawpydyauw./irvoippetr:orh:o;stocetiehbtosseesf

In addition, the EEOC will initially process the following charges:

-- All Title charges jurisd FEPA 240 days

VII, ADA, and concurrent ictional with the FEPA and or more after the date of

Title VII/AD/I. received by the violation;

All disability·based charges which may not be
;resolved by the FEPA in a :m;:I.IlD.er consistent with the ADA.

All concu~rent Title VII/EPA charges;

All charges a organization wnere direct o;~; indirect

gainst the
such parent cont:t:'ol ov

FEPA or it
organi~ation
er the eha~ge

s parent exercises
decision

making process;

All charges filed by EEOC Commissioners;

Charges also cove~ed by the Immigration Reform and Control Jl..Ct;

-Ju or

Complaints referred to EEOC b stice, Office of Federal Cont~act Federal fund-g~anting agencies

y the Comp under

Department of liance Programs, 29 CFR § 1640,

1641, and 1691.

AdcF-B-oigPsnrApAeseonumoyslfiettanciatthoilaonlrongCreoof wanantchhdieelrCieaoactnEighsEoareOe~nnCgetemA.igesDrneete,acTmrhepeeenaistrEstwgyaohnrcitedcolhweC,aviolanlCunspteononnontcttiDioflmieyacutrtitteuohheaenesl

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 28 of 44
which have features relevant to the disposition of subsequent charges; -- Any charge alleging retaliation for filing a charge with EEOC or for cooperating with EEOC; and -- All cha~ges against Respondents which are designated for initial processing by the EEOC ~n a supplementary memorandum to this Agreement.
2. The FEPA will initially process the following types of chaJ:"ges: -- Any charge alleging retaliation for filing a charge with the FEPA or cooperating with the FEPA; Any charge whe~e the FEPA is a party to a Conciliation Agreement or a Consent Decree which, upon mutual consultation and agreement, is J:"elevant to the disposition of the charge. The FEPA will provide the EEOC with an on-going list of all conciliation Agreements and consent Decrees which have features relevant to the disposition of subsequent chaJ:"ges; -- All charges which allege more than one basis of discrimination where at lea£t one basis is not covered by the laws administered by EEOC but is covered by the FEPA Ordinance, or where EEOC is mandated by federal court decision or by internal administrative EEOC policy to dismiss the charge, but FEPA can process that charge. -- All charges again$t Respondents which are designated fo"J=" initial processing by FEPA in a supplementary memorandum to this Agreement; and -- All disability-based charges against Respondents over which EEOC doe$ not have jurisdiction.
B. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, the FEPA or the EEOC may request to be granted the right to initially process any charge subject to agreement of the other agency. Such variations shall not be inconsistent with the objectives of thi$ Worksharing Agreement or the Contracting Principles.
C. Each Agency will on a quarterly basis notify the other of all cases in litigation and will notify each other when a new suit is filed. As charges are received by one Agency against. a Respondent on the other Agency's litigation list a copy of the new charge will be sent to the other Agency's litigation unit within 30 working days.
IV. EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION A. Both the FEPA and EEOC shall make available for inspection and copying to appropriate officials from the other Agency any information which may assist each Agency in carrying out its responsibilit1e~. Such information shall include, but not

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 29 of 44

naocdWairgeahengrqitrafcrte~uoreheaeg~eisdmaremrssmeseaaeimtsptnrnmopirietiloeoeansoy,nyccttbsebtrbssse~eetitastmaroigrivfnleproiefegaolmniaesnlte$thildgetdoeoedifcdonicutnntfomotofotehnootrnherrmfttmhcei~doaeitcamateniotigpnivoopneornltnetnoyni,zscac,;otyaelibaicwsgctpnttsyaaa.irditstionnpinevgavrenioemTddoyavhaifnffeninoriysdagolitguAeohmetasngemhc,lersEeoe-nEnfnocmcOiityffnolCaiepf,nTotodareceiirctrintmnhccillthtaeieeaoiaalpatutVrFitligoaiEtio!nsnePntIn/gyAos,.
ADEA, and ADA.

E.

In order to the working permit pers observe its

oeponxe£npresetolhdniintsoeef Althgtwhreheeeernmeoseptonrhotle,ucreteisoiA$tngihneeognrcfyaAcghcteohanracgryagecsecm.ooamyrprfaeanqycuieloisrttatoteor

V. RESOLUTION OF CHARGES

A.

Both a Order

gencie 9~6, S

s u

will ~dhere bstantial We

to ight

the Rev

pro iew

ceoures Manual,

set out and the

in EEOC's State and

Local Handbook as revised.

B.

Fwfwcsioouehnrpfieagifttelhihhcsteeifroeirnepfnthvdutaieirenlptwlgoofo;sdelasoltnaoohoduwtefimsioneaferngycvdtcaseoiElrtupEr,deOaemiCtrnt~ithogirennheeasqFvwnuuEetbiiP.rlsAetbltomeabmenecenntuoitsnadastddl;eusdswciiurgntebeincsimngeslgueidhtddtaittnotisoognu,dbttaehhsbteteemua_rtFnamEEntEniinPOnaoeACeltr

limited to:

1. jurisdictional requirements,

2.

investigation and alleging personal

resolution harm with

of all re appropJ::iate

levant issues documentation

and using proper theory,

3. reJ.ief, if appropriate,

4.

mechanisms for all terms of public hearing

mocroonncicot oinlrsiieanntgit oaonnrdd eaegrnsrfeoet ormcewi nnhgtisc,cho mtohrpedlei FarEnsPcAeawifstiet har

party.

C.

In order to be submissions mus requirements as

eligible for contract credit a

t meet all the stipulateo in

~ubstantive and
the Contracting

nd/or payment, administrative Principles.

D.

pFtohaotyehrmecrethhpaaetvr, geipnanuugefrpipnooaafsreltrsyeaochortafeisossnoneoatiev~aradrdinmleianifbniinnliesgetdruaenatldisivegertihbare®pilpcpilotoiyucirnasbteflo,aerfatSpecpt~oaetnawetlr,haainoccdhrt

Local statutes.

VI. IMPLEMEN~ATION OF THE WORKSHARING AGREEMENT

A.

Each agency will designate a person as liaison official for

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 30 of 44

...

twiCFhm.oieplmBlleproomliwbtaehennne,ctreaC.PtieooagTognghreydenfioclnyriRaataitoyhtsrnooeoonoAfkco,goSfrnetfaetAiacmtesciestanilst.tcfaoonnrTtchtehe~teoiliEnaEgiOtsChoetwnheifDlol irdbraeeytc~~Ctetohora-FrdElaPoeAysf and-Local Programs.

B.

T:aaeucrphnnpaeelpsppsauerpaa~aorcogferpienustrnlsifitecaiuhbisetlaeemilsltopipufttwliohoteyiteirshlmltlioieezoavmnansFetotsErindPasoiAioletsnloftcarprnotriftdmhofohjireirtsatnhahcaapeAtltiiliigodooinrnnncervea.aetmethpdiseeportneeintgaAsrsaowgstfrifieiolocenlnhmraapebaarnpegnltrlde.eom-gpproaerrdWitosiaiocofhteileeneusr,sedst·iitnohitogoentf

C.

EEOC will p accordance be used by

rovide or:i-ginal forms with the Regulations the FEPAs in correspo

to be copied by the FEPA,

a n

nd the Com dence ~ith

pliance Manual Charging Part

in
to ies

and Respondents.

D-

IpOtPhfrafoirfsagitcriaeedamsgiDssrpeaienrufmeodtcereftnoorrt;erer,:sgwcoaatalrhnruddneteioindiotsgntsbou.tehetsehreewismoiDllplvilreebemdecterboneyrtdauottcihfoeendthFtoeEor:POAwafprfaipitnclideincgaDotbfiiyosFtnb.rioieoclt.hfdt

E.

TOanhcditsobmeAarygreb2ee0m01ernetntoewsthehdaellotrhoiprmteoiredatitfheied:(f3ro0bmtyh)tmhdeuatyufaiolrfsctSoen(psltesentm)t

day of ber 2002
of the

parties.

I have read agree to the

the pro

foregoi visions

ng Wo~ksharing conta~ned ther

Ag~eement
ein.

and

I

accept

and

fh~ (\,~~

Date_

Marie M. Tomasso, Distrkt Director U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission

Plliladelpbia District Oflk:e

Date_

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 31 of 44

ADDENDUM TO THE WORKSHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EEOC AND THE PHRC FOR CONTRACT YEAR 2002

The follow recei~ed b which 13-re Relations

icynogt-hjepurroEiscqdeudiacul triEeosmnpwaloliylwml eiatnhpt pOtlhypepfooPrretnuannlsiltyylcvchaoanmrigameiHssslliiloln\anni(tEiEaOllCy) Commission(PHRC).

1.

EwteCF1piobd1wEnnXrefuhoiOocofl-imanCeoctoavlfdhhmrsroiwcokdapefrieecsneieoiiduslxCdtrlri\amilopaontnbtr~tilnepogeoyias1"ngrdnti,atonrEhossiuEvsf:aihtrnOgocitedtCttnt(nrtrahoe1ieooceC)watithhnnn"foitdedwieds.tmhlhdiuaefetpTffalhfotohlklhehaperter-imrihaeifsrnenmPedeianlH1Pafto1npicoonceRitnhraenhsdnAmlngsagaencd&sertstbgash;lyEe1eAeode1ilnatnvsc.vltwntwet/attiaahdesciniicteetTettlihlhinha-s(hreom2eednitH)tPcenhhHCooun"eOeR'tmmp'thKhCaptaCFnepACnitroolaeihghwaofRnnadaiaionnndrenrerygdgogrmtlotwiaafionnwuPltigeigeralioSDnlitrPRnPhtttuthaysiaiaagttePrlrluwhtarteitRitedieesel"sss.l

2.

APdtheaecrfoteypsryi.rganolTefdchtoehfroeroerrmssipgigoiinnnnedadeiltnsffcooerrc..mma

will will EEOC se fil

bwbeeilgsleivaneltsnototorethtthaeeinPHCRahCacrwogpiinythgotfh e.

e

3.

sIiisetfsrvtsheecerhvaaecrocdgom.ep,pylWtahoihnfiesnatnh~EteEiOelClfloercscmeotsrnvostentositthudtheuteearleEssef1pirelovcenitcdioweennibtthOywpPPhtHHeioRnRnCCt,.hfoeErEmOEECOwCwitih5ll

4.

EmccoElofooO-nspjCtuuehtnrs.reidPsiTpdnhgrihicilenactsidteoooe-nouljpautfshflriiicocsaenhdasainacrgwdtmieoiPslonlinctattalhlsollbssycuoehrdbagprahbgrsoyeiOsvsEifdEtufoOepiCcoPePnHHtshRRrweCCeqiwpiuldrleieetsphvntr.itoopifuvryisindinetoguts

5.

wwOPHhhfRfiiCccichhwewEsiEleOilrnCenwdcolutroiaifstlyiunfrgetihl,eeddooEncEwuOamiCtebpnPetPrhaHiitoRlioaCddnicaesilpsbh"aLriseauiqskauunoesd"fst

Pittsburgh closed charg charges and ed.

es for

6.

EEOC will send to appropriate closu charges closed by EEOC will provide

rePEthHEReOcCoCer. rwnetisMitphrooeirnnedEoEe3vO0neCcrd,eaf/dyuilopsecoountmforeesnuqPHtcuaRhetCisontnfoottofriofidrrceovathitseieoow,n

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 32 of 44

andjor copying.

7.

Widsceecncoeallhchiimsesgglneetupriiddublbfdueoecllitlreesetewwipsorfcf.aoniooarstdsrri~fieItneodifdognrfeenPissRrln6tteeRr0sroquCuctudbchiccheaytetieiyasdoottssuehnnt,lhdeneueabosd~dnyt.toedaincEreteeEturOqimwfECiuenEeintdiOslhtnltiaCeect'draaisoecctnedaafcdrsoeatec,rsodoitnwtrpahuPnyeHefccrrRoeetoiCffmoow,inlttihehEctEeaehOrwswCeEiEilwsOleCibl'Sel

8.

EEOC will withdrawal applicable

attempt
s, unab to PHRC

to
le as

make closures to locate or well as EEOC.

such as failure

settlements,
to cooperate

9.

Where a Charging have not EEOC for

case has been Party notifies been met, PHRC enforcement of

closed by PHRC that will refe the EEOC

rtEhtEheOeCteCrahmsasragodinfjgutshPteeadrat~yarnetdpemetthhntee agreement.

Tcohensaebnotvoe fptrhoecepduarretsiems.ay be modified at any time upon mutual

Homer C. Floy , Pennsylvania lt

ecutive an Relatio

Director ns Commi

ssion

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 33 of 44 EXHffiiT "D"

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC /"-,

Document 6-4

Filed 11/29/2005 -~-,

Page

34

o.@..f. t3

44

EXHIBIT

;/

~

~

.I...i.:i..

D

<(

REQUEST FOR EEOC TO DUAL FILE CHARGE WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION

You have just filed a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). You also have the right to file this same charge with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Generally, the anti-discrimination laws administered by EEOC and the PHRC are very similar. However, there may be circumstances in which the state and federal laws or procedures may vary in a manner that could affect the outcome of your case.
Complaints filed with the PHRC must be filed within 180 days of the act(s) which you believe are discriminatory.
If you want your charge to be filed with PHRC, EEOC will send a copy of the charge to PHRC. Upon receipt by PHRC, it is assigned a docket number and served upon the named respondent. Because you have chosen EEOC to conduct your investigation, PHRC will not investigate your complaint. When EEOC conducts an investigation, PHRC in most cases will accept EEOC's finding. It is your responsibility to notify PHRC of EEOC's disposition. If you disagree with EEOC's dismissal, you must identify documents or witness testimony to support your position to PHRC.
If your case is still pending with PHRC after one year from filing with PHRC, PHRC will send you a notice of your right to file in the appropriate Pennsylvania court of common pleas. If you do not request a continuance of your case, PHRC will close your case.

I hereby request EEOC to file my charge with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.

Signature and date

/ltrP'~"""/ hr Erf'~ lld/:t~
9- Z 5 ~o-z__

I do not want my charge dual filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Signature and date

,'
l''''•

i.. :~~· ...~ ~-·:--"i
t.:) ~~.;-~
[T; ;--.--..

?

.--

..(.,)

. .. ·~- ·'
:·--·

...-...·_.--.

EEOC Charge No.

PHILA1\1294782\1 087418.000

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 35 of 44 EXHIBIT "E"

.

. Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC _,..,~·""'.

Document 6-4 '

Filed 11/29/2005 r__.~

Page

36

of!. 44
~

EXHIBIT

' -

.

~

~
~""

.:.·
'-'

...J

<(

REQUEST FOR EEOC TO DUAL FILE CHARGE WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION

You have just filed a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). You also have the right to file this same charge with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Generally, the anti-discrimination laws administered by EEOC and the PHRC are very similar. However, there may be circumstances in which the state and federal laws or procedures may vary in a manner that could affect the outcome of your case.
Complaints filed with the PHRC must be filed within 180 days of the act(s) which you believe are discriminatory.
If you want your charge to be filed with PHRC, EEOC will send a copy of the charge to PHRC. Upon receipt by PHRC, it is assigned a docket number and served upon the named respondent. Because you have chosen EEOC to conduct your investigation, PHRC will not investigate your complaint. When EEOC conducts an investigation, PHRC in most cases will accept EEOC's finding. It is your responsibility to notify PHRC of EEOC's disposition. If you disagree with EEOC's dismissal, you must identify documents or witness testimony to support your position to PHRC.
If your case is still pending with PHRC after one year from filing with PHRC, PHRC will send you a notice of your right to file in the appropriate Pennsylvania court of common pleas. If you do not request a continuance of your case, PHRC will close your case.

I hereby request EEOC to file my charge with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.

;1/lzrM,Y -br }(,;'/l,,_,"' 6<",.-r-Lie/"cf

'1 -;l.-3 - () Z-

Signature and date

0
('-.,)

:..n
(''·I·"o'\

I do not want my charge dual filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.

wf ....)

·_;-7'· ~·-:-·
'!·~=~J ,---

Signature and date

EEOC Charge No.

PHILA11129478211 087418.000

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 37 of 44
EXHIBIT "F"

Case 1:05-cv-01970----CCC

Document 6-4

Filed 11/29/2005

Page

38

of"..J <t

44

EXHIBIT

"

Cw l
..J

~
~

i"

..J
<t

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION;--_ _ _ _ _,

Philadelphia District Office

The Bourse, Suite 400

21 S. Fifth Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515
PH: (215) 451-5800 TDD: (215) 451-5814 FAX: (215) 451-5804/5767

Brenda Adkins P.O. Box411 800 Main Street Waynesboro, PA 17268
Charging Party,
World Kitchen Inc. 1144 Kennebec Drive Chambersburg, PA 17201

CHARGE N0.:170-2003-00778

Respondent.

DETERMINATION
Under the authority vested in me by the procedural regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), I issue the following determination as to the merits of the above cited charge filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). The timeliness and all other jurisdictional requirements for coverage have been met.
Charging Party was hired by Corning on December 11, 1972. Respondent assumed ownership in 1998. Charging Party held the position as General Merchandise Manager, Outlet Division until her discharge on March 29,2002. Charging Party alleged that Respondent intentionally underpaid her because of her sex. Charging Party avers that in the summer of 2001, Respondent completed a study of its management compensation practices. As part of the study, the pay levels for various management jobs were benchmarked against the pay levels of comparable jobs at other companies. Based on the results of the study, Respondent adjusted the salaries of those managers who were paid less than the 50th percentile of the benchmark level. However, no change was made in the salary of Charging Party. According to the Charging Party, the study showed that none of the male executives were paid below the 50th percentile.

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 39 of 44
"'·
Charging Party alleged that becaus~~·nf her sex, the Respondent intentionally kept her salary below the level warranted. Ch&:~~ng Party further alleged that in January 2002, Respondent hired a new President, Retail Division and who became Charging Party's direct supervisor. On March 28, 2002, the new President conducted a job performance evaluation known as a Partner Excellence Review (PER) for Charging Party's · performance in 2001. Even though the new President was not her supervisor in 2001, he gave Charging Party a less than satisfactory evaluation. On that same day, he notified the Charging Party that her position was being eliminated as of March 29, 2002. Charging Party alleged that her duties were assigned to two males who were hired within six weeks of the termination of her employment.
Respondent denies the allegation and contends that CP's position was eliminated due to the restructuring of the Respondent's Factory Stores Division. Respondent also contends that the Factory stores accounted for $153.3 million in sales in 1999, dropped to $146.2 million in 2000 and continued to decline in sales for 2001. In January 2001, after review of the 2001 Division performance and Charging Party's failure to increase sales over the previous year, the new President determined that Charging Party did not meet the objectives for 2001. Upon the redesign of the division, the position of Manager, Sales & Operations was eliminated. The newly created position was Vice President of Merchandising. The new President determined that the Charging Party's skills and abilities did not match the needs of the new position and her employment was terminated.
The evidence supports CP's allegations that she was paid a lower salary and her employment was terminated because of her sex, female. A signed statement from Respondent's former Controller states that the compensation study was done because the Charging Party complained that she and other females were being underpaid compared to males in similar positions. The Controller also states that shortly after the study was completed at least four females received substantial salary increases, including the Charging Party who received a 14% salary increase. He further states that a male was selected for the newly created a position of Vice President of Merchandising. While the former Controller acknowledges that some duties were eliminated and others added, he emphatically states that the Charging Party would have still been able to perform in the newly created position. Finally, at the time the Charging Party's position was eliminated, the record shows that the employment of two other females in managerial positions was also terminated.
In addition, a statement from the former General Manager of Outlet Division, who worked for the Respondent from approximately Apri12001 to April2002 and supervised the Charging Party as well as the two other females in managerial positions, stated that all three (3) performed their duties in a highly efficient manner. Furthermore, the General Manager's statement also refuted Respondent's contention that sales dropped

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 40 of 44
due to the financial performance of the Charging Party. The General Manager stated that sales dropped because Respondent was closing many of its outlet stores.
Based on this analysis, I have determined that the evidence establishes a violation of Title VII. The evidence shows that the Charging Party as well as two (2) other female managers were treated differently because of their sex and that sex was a factor considered by the Respondent when it determined Charging Party's rate--of pay and failed to pay her and another female a salary similar to males in comparable positions. The evidence also shows that sex was a factor considered when it terminated the employment of Charging Party and two other females managers.
Upon finding that there is reason to believe that a violation has occurred, the Commission attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in reaching a just resolution of this matter. In this regard conciliation of this matter has now begun. Please be advised tha_t upon receipt of this finding , any reasonable offer to resolve this matter will be considered. The Commission is seeking actual monetary losses/costs incurred by the Charging Party. A Commission representative will prepare a proposed Conciliation Agreement which will contain a demand for monetary relief, interest and other appropriate losses. The proposed agreement will be mailed to the Respondent, within the next ten (1 0) days. The confidentiality provisions of the statute and Commission Regulations apply to information obtained during conciliation.
If the Respondent declines to discuss settlement or when, for any other reason, a settlement acceptable to the office Director is not obtained, the Director will inform the parties and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available to aggrieved person and the Commission
On Behalf of the Commission,
DATE

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 41 of 44
EXIllBIT "G"

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC
~ ......

Document 6-4

Filed 11/29/2005

Page 42 of".~...4. 4 ~ ~ ~ :J <(

EXHIBIT
G

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Philadelphia District Office

The Bourse, Suite 400 21 S. Fifth Street
Philade1phia,PA 19106-2515 PH: (215) 451-5800
TDD: (215) 451-5814 FAX: (215) 451-5804/5767

Ruthann Geer-Lioyd 27 Sherwood Circle Enola, PA 17025
Charging Party,
World Kitchen Inc. 1144 Kennebec Drive Chambersburg, PA 17201

CHARGE N0.:170-2003-00779

Respondent.

DETERMINATION
Under the authority vested in me by the procedural regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), I issue the following determination as to the merits of the above cited charge filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). The timeliness and all other jurisdictional requirements for coverage have been met.
Charging Party, a female, alleged that she was paid a lower wage than male Managers and discharged because of her sex. Charging Party alleged that she was employed by the Respondent since October 1987 until March 30, 2002, when she was discharged from her position of Factory Outlet Operations Manager. According to the Charging Party, she supervised 175 factory outlet stores with gross sales of approximately $180 million dollars. Charging Party alleged that in the summer of 2001, Respondent completed a study of its management compensation practices. As part of the compensation re-design study, the pay levels of its various management jobs were benchmarked against the pay levels of comparable jobs at other companies. Based on the results of the study none of the male executives were being paid at or below the 50th percentile. However, no change was made to the salary of the Charging Party who was below the 50th percentile. Charging Party further alleged that in January 2002,

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 43 of 44
Respondent hired a new President of the Retail Division and he became Charging
F-:1rty' supervisor. On March 29, 2002, the new President issued Charging Party a less th&'-~ satisfactory job performance evaluation. On March 29, 2002, the President infm 'l:led the Charging Party that her position was being eliminated as of March 30, 2002.'
Respondent denies the allegation and contends that Charging Party was the fourth
highest paid employee in the Factory Stores Division. Moreover, in January 2002, Charging Party received a 14% salary increase. Respondent further states that in 2002
it restructured the Factory Stores Division, which became known as the Retail Division.
On January 9, 2002, a new President for the Retail Division was hired. According to the
Respondent, Charging Party was accountable for the Retail Division's financial
performance. The Factory Division accounted for $153.3 million in sales in 1999, dropped to $146.2 million in 2000 and continued to decline in sales for 2001. In January 2002, after review of the 2001 Division performance and Charging Party's
failure to increase sales over the previous year; the new President determined that
Charging Party did not meet the objectives for 2001. Charging Party's position was
subsequently eliminated. A new position of Vice President of Sales was created.
The evidence supports Charging Party's allegation that she was paid a lower salary than male managers and her employment was terminated because of her sex. Specifically, a signed statement from Respondent's former Controller states that the compensation study was done because the Charging Party complained that she and other females were being underpaid compared to males in similar positions. The former Controller also attests that shortly after the study was completed at least four females received substantial salary increases, including Charging Party who received a
14% salary increase. He also verified that a male was selected for the newly created a
position of Vice President of Sales and also affirmed that the position required the same duties Charging Party performed as Operations Manager. Finally, at the time the Charging Party's position was eliminated, the record shows that the employment of two other females in managerial positions was also terminated.
In addition, a statement from the General Manager of Outlet Divisions and Charging Party's former supervisor states that Charging Party, as well as the two other female managers, performed their duties in a highly efficient manner. Furthermore, the General Manager's statement refutes Respondent's contention that sales dropped because of Charging Party's financial performance. The General Manager stated that sales dropped because Respondent was closing many of its outlet stores.
Based on this analysis, I have determined that the evidence establishes a violation of Title VII. The evidence shows that the Charging Party as well as two (2) other females, were all treated differently because of their sex. The evidence clearly shows and that

Case 1:05-cv-01970-CCC Document 6-4 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 44 of 44
sex was a factor considered by the Respondent when it determined Charging Party's rate of pay and failed to pay her and another female at the same rate as males in comparable positions. The evidence also shows that sex was a factor considered when it terminate~ the employment of Charging Party and the two other female managers.
Upon finding that there is reason to believe that a violation has occurred, the Commission attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in reaching a just resolution of this matter. In this regard conciliation of this matter has now begun. Please be advised that upon receipt of this finding , any reasonable offer to resolve this matter will be considered. The Commission is seeking actual monetary losses/costs incurred by the Charging Party. A Commission representative will prepare a proposed Conciliation Agreement which will contain a demand for monetary relief, interest and other appropriate losses. The proposed agreement will be mailed to the Respondent, within the next ten (1 0) days. The confidentiality provisions of the statute and Commission Regulations apply to information obtained during conciliation.
If the Respondent declines to discuss settlement or when, for any other reason, a settlement acceptable to the office Director is not obtained, the Director will inform the parties and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available to aggrieved person and the Commission
On Behalf of the Commission,
DATE

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

:

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al., :

:

Plaintiffs

:

:

v.

:

:

WORLD KITCHEN, INC. and

:

ALLAN COVIELLO,

:

:

Defendants :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-1970 (Judge Conner)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 2nd day of June, 2006, upon consideration of the motion to

dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment (Doc. 3), filed by defendant World

Kitchen, Inc. (“World Kitchen”), arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction or that

summary judgment is appropriate because plaintiff Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) failed to conciliate in good faith before

commencing the instant action, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) (providing that the EEOC

“shall endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment practice by

informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion”), and the court

finding that the EEOC’s initial attempt to conciliate was sufficient to meet

jurisdictional requirements,1 see EEOC v. Hugin Sweda, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 165,
167-68 (D.N.J. 1990) (finding the EEOC’s initial conciliation efforts sufficient for
jurisdictional purposes when the EEOC sent letters of violation, spoke to the
defendant’s counsel only twice, and failed to reschedule a conciliation conference);
see also EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.., 391 F. Supp. 2d 317, 320 (D.N.J. 2005)
(setting forth the standard for determining the adequacy of an attempted
conciliation), but that the EEOC prematurely ended the conciliation process due to
1 By September 13, 2005, World Kitchen had received the EEOC’s determination letters and proposed conciliation agreement, which requested a response within three days. (Doc. 4, Ex. A ¶¶ 2, 6.) In response to the proposed conciliation agreement, World Kitchen sent the EEOC questions regarding its terms. (Doc. 4, Ex. B ¶ 2.) On September 21, 2005, the EEOC investigator transmitted, via facsimile, a supplement to the original conciliation agreement with answers to World Kitchen’s questions. The EEOC investigator requested a response within two days. (Doc. 14, Danese Aff. ¶ 9, Doc. 14, Ex. 5.) World Kitchen never received the fax because the EEOC investigator erred on the last digit of the fax number. (Doc. 14, Danese Aff. ¶ 13.) Unaware of his mistake, when the EEOC investigator did not receive a response after six days, he forwarded the file to management and the EEOC subsequently issued the notice of conciliation failure. (Doc. 14, Danese Aff. ¶ 11-12; Doc. 14, Ex. 6.)
World Kitchen argues that the EEOC did not conciliate in good faith because of the limited time given for its response to the conciliation agreements and the EEOC’s failure to inquire about the lack of response to the supplemental conciliation agreement. The court is unpersuaded. Although the EEOC’s requested response times were minimal, the EEOC demonstrated a willingness to extend the deadlines and there is no indication that it would not have done so if World Kitchen had so requested with the supplemental conciliation agreement. The EEOC’s mistaken belief that conciliation failed does not demonstrate a lack of good faith; however, it resulted in the premature end to EEOC’s conciliation efforts. See infra note 2.
2

an inadvertent error,2 see Hugin Sweda, Inc., 750 F. Supp. at 168 (“Rather than dismiss the case, if a court finds that further conciliation efforts are required, the proper course is to stay proceedings until such informal proceedings can be concluded.”), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment (Doc. 3) is DENIED.
2. The proceedings in the above-captioned case are STAYED to provide the opportunity for a renewed conciliation attempt.
3. The parties shall file a joint status report concerning the progress of the attempted conciliation on August 4, 2006 or upon the conclusion of the attempted conciliation, whichever first occurs.
/s/ Christopher C. Conner CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
2 Although the EEOC’s initial effort at conciliation was sufficient for jurisdictional purposes, the court finds that further conciliation is required for the EEOC to fulfill its statutory duty. See Hugin Sweda, Inc., 750 F. Supp. at 168 (finding that further conciliation was required with respect to the charges and the class action); id. (“[S]ummary judgment is far too harsh a sanction to impose on the EEOC even if the court should ultimately find that conciliation efforts were prematurely aborted.”); see also id. (advising that “a conciliation conference is likely to provide the defendant with an adequate opportunity to respond to the charges and negotiate a settlement”).

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

WORLD KITCHEN, INC.

)

a subsidiary of WKI Holding Company,

)

)

Defendant.

)

BRENDA ADKINS and RUTHANN GEER- )

LLOYD,

)

)

Intervening Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WORLD KITCHEN, INC.

)

a subsidiary of WKI Holding Company, and )

ALLAN COVIELLO,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 05-cv-1970 Judge Christopher Conner

STIPULATION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff, Equal Em ployment Opportunity Commission, Intervening Plaintiffs, Brenda

Adkins and Ruthann Geer-Lloyd, and Defendants, World Kitchen, Inc. (now known as W orld

Kitchen, LLC) and Allan Coviello, by and through theri attorneys, hereby stipulate to the dismissal

of the above-captioned matter as follows:

1. A full and final settlement has been reached in the above-captioned matter.

2. In consideration thereof, the above-captioned m atter is dismissed, with prejudice,

with all parties to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs, with leave to reinstate within fourteen

(14) days if the settlement payments set forth in the agreements have not been made.

Dated: December 29, 2006

CHGO1\30870290.1

1 of 2

EEOC
By: s/ Jacqueline H. McNair Jacqueline H. McNair Regional Attorney
By: s/ Judith A. O’Boyle Judith A. O'Boyle Supervisory Trial Attorney
By: s/ Cynthia A. Locke Cynthia A. Locke Trial Attorney
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Jacqueline H. McNair Judith A. O’Boyle Cynthia A. Locke U.S. EEOC 21 S. 5th St., Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2683 RUTHANN GEER-LLOYD and BRENDA ADKINS
By: s/ Jeffrey I. Pasek Attorney for Intervening Plaintiffs
Jeffrey I. Pasek Cozen O’Connor 1900 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19016 (215) 665-2072

WORLD KITCHEN, LLC and ALLAN COVIELLO
By: s/ Tracy L. Bradford Attorney for Defendants
Adrianne C. Mazura Tracy L. Bradford DLA Piper US LLP 203 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 368-3464

CHGO1\30870290.1

2 of 2

 
 Pennsylvania Middle District Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?462693132147322-L_...

CLOSED, HBG, STAYED
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-cv-01970-CCC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. World Kitchen, Inc. Assigned to: Honorable Christopher C. Conner Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 09/29/2005 Date Terminated: 12/29/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Cynthia A. Locke Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Philadelphia District Office The Bourse, 21 South 5th Street Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-440-2683 Fax: 215-440-2848 Email: cynthia.locke@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacqueline H. McNair Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 S. 5th Street Suite 400 The Bourse Building Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-440-2670 Email: jacqueline.mcnair@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith A. O'Boyle Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 South 5th Street Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515 215-440-2669 Fax: 215-440-2674 Email: Judith.oboyle@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 5

4/30/2007 1:25 PM

Pennsylvania Middle District Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff Brenda Adkins
Intervenor Plaintiff Ruthann Geer-Lloyd V. Defendant World Kitchen, Inc. a subsidiary of WKI Holding Company
2 of 5

https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?462693132147322-L_...
represented by Jeffrey I. Pasek Cozen & O'Connor 1900 Market Street The Atrium 5th floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-665-2072 Fax: 12157012072 Email: jpasek@cozen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey I. Pasek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adrianne C. Mazura DLA Piper, Rudnick, Gray, Cary 203 North laSalle Street, #1900 Chicago, IL 60601 312-368-4000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. O'Neill One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Suite 4900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-656-3300 Fax: 215-656-3301 Email: michael.oneill@piperrudnick.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tracy L. Bradford DLA Piper, Rudick, Gray, Cary US LLP 203 North laSalle Street, Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60601 312-368-3464 Email: tracy.bradford@dlapiper.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
4/30/2007 1:25 PM

Pennsylvania Middle District Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?462693132147322-L_...

Intervenor Defendant Allan Coviello

Date Filed 09/29/2005 09/29/2005 10/03/2005 11/10/2005 11/16/2005 11/21/2005 11/29/2005 12/01/2005
12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/02/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against World Kitchen, Inc. , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(aaa ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
Summons Issued as to World Kitchen, Inc. and provided to Attorney for service on Defendant. (aaa ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
2 ORDER - Letter to Counsel from Court Re: Case Assignment and Procedures. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Judge Christopher C. Conner on 10/03/05. (ki) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
3 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively, for Summary Judgment by World Kitchen, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Declaration of Christine Braccio# 2 Exhibit(s) Declaration of Adrianne Mazura)(O'Neill, Michael) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
4 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 3 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively, for Summary Judgment filed by World Kitchen, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) # 2 Exhibit(s))(O'Neill, Michael) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
5 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint served on World Kitchen, Inc. on 10/21/05, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (aaa) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
6 MOTION to Intervene as of Right by Brenda Adkins, Ruthann Geer-Lloyd. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Law# 2 Proposed Order # 3 Exhibit(s) A# 4 Certificate of Service)(Pasek, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
Counsel is advised that the MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT filed as an attachment to Doc. 6 is to be refiled separately using the event BRIEF IN SUPPORT located under RESPONSES AND REPLIES (BRIEFS). (gls) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
7 PETITION FOR SPECIAL ADMISSION (PRO HAC VICE) by Adrianne C. Mazura on behalf of World Kitchen, Inc. ( Filing fee $25.00, Receipt Number 333 104193). (rm, ) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
8 PETITION FOR SPECIAL ADMISSION (PRO HAC VICE) by Tracy L. Bradford on behalf of World Kitchen, Inc. ( Filing fee $25.00, Receipt Number 333 104192). (rm, ) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
9 STIPULATION To Extend Time for EEOC's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Locke, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
10 ORDER re: stip ext'ng date for pltf to respond 9 to defts' motion to dismiss, construed as motion for enlargement of time - It is hereby ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED - pltf shall file br in opp to deft's motion to dismiss by

3 of 5

4/30/2007 1:25 PM

Pennsylvania Middle District Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?462693132147322-L_...

12/02/2005 12/02/2005 12/05/2005 12/09/2005
12/22/2005 12/22/2005 04/19/2006
04/19/2006 04/19/2006 05/16/2006 05/16/2006 06/02/2006
06/02/2006 08/04/2006

12/9/05. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/02/05. (ki) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
11 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM APPROVED as to Tracy L. Bradford. (cc: Atty Bradford; orig: SCR Registry) Signed by Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/02/05. (ki) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
12 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM APPROVED as to Adrianne C. Mazura. (cc: Atty Mazura; orig: SCR Registry) Signed by Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/02/05. (ki) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
13 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 6 MOTION to Intervene as of Right filed by Brenda Adkins, Ruthann Geer-Lloyd. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Pasek, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
14 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 3 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively, for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13)(Locke, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
15 REPLY BRIEF re 3 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively, for Summary Judgment filed by World Kitchen, Inc..(Bradford, Tracy) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
16 STATEMENT OF FACTS filed by World Kitchen, Inc..(Bradford, Tracy) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
17 ORDER granting motion for leave to intervene 6 & directing Clrk of Ct to file prop doc 6 ex A as intervening complaint, amend docket to add parties named therein & issue summons. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Judge Christopher C. Conner on 04/19/06. (ki) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
18 Intervenor COMPLAINT adding intervenor deft Allan Coviello filed by Brenda Adkins, Ruthann Geer-Lloyd on 4/19/06. (ki) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
Summons Issued as to Allan Coviello and provided to Attorney Pasek for service on Intervenor Defendant Coviello (orig & 1 copy). (ki) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
19 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Affidavit of Service with Exhibit "A" and Certification of Service served on Allan Coviello on May 8, 2005, filed by Ruthann Geer-Lloyd. (Pasek, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
20 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned by Ruthann Geer-Lloyd. World Kitchen, Inc. waiver sent on 5/8/2006, answer due 7/7/2006. (Pasek, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
21 ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1) The mtn to dismiss or, alternatively, for S/J is denied. 3 2) The proceedings in the above-captioned case are stayed to provide the opportunity for a renewed conciliation attempt. 3) The parties shall file a joint status report concerning the progress of the attempted conciliation on 8/4/06 or upon the conclusion of the attmepted conciliation, whichever first occurs.Signed by Judge Christopher C. Conner on 6/2/06 (jc) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
Case Stayed (jc) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
22 Letter from Counsel to Honorable Christopher C. Connor Reporting on Conciliation Efforts. (Locke, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/04/2006)

4 of 5

4/30/2007 1:25 PM

Pennsylvania Middle District Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?462693132147322-L_...

08/11/2006 08/18/2006 12/29/2006

23 Letter from Cynthia Locke to Honorable Christopher C. Connor. (Locke, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
24 Letter from Cynthia Locke to Honorable Christopher C. Connor. (Locke, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
25 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Allan Coviello, World Kitchen, Inc.. (Bradford, Tracy) (Entered: 12/29/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

04/30/2007 14:25:27

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

nniles 1:05-cv-01970-CCC 0.24

5 of 5

4/30/2007 1:25 PM