IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALBANY DIVISION

CRISS MURPHY, NORMAN JORDAN, )

ANDINO WARD, EDDIE BARNES, JR., )

PAUL HANNON, CURTIS NELSON,

)

DAVID CHAMBERS, HERION

)

MURPHY, and VINCENT SAFFORD, )

)

Individually and on Behalf of Others

)

Similarly Situated,

)

)

PLAINTIFFS,

)

v.

)

)

SUPER STEEL SCHENECTADY INC., )

)

DEFENDANT.

)

)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CASE NO. _______ JURY TRIAL DEMAND

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr., Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, and Vincent Safford (“Class Representatives” or “Plaintiffs”), by and through undersigned counsel, bring this action against Defendant Super Steel Schenectady Inc. (“Defendant” or “Super Steel”) on behalf of themselves and the class of persons they seek to represent. Plaintiffs, who are current and former employees of Super Steel, bring this action to redress the racial discrimination and harassment they have suffered while working at Super Steel. I. PLAINTIFFS’ RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS AGAINST SUPER STEEL 2. Plaintiffs Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr., Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, and Vincent Safford all came to Super Steel with common goals: to work hard, to do their jobs well, and to save money to improve their lives.

1

3. Some of these Plaintiffs came farther than others. Many came from the deep south – from Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana – only to find that the pervasive racism at Super Steel in New York was far worse than any they had ever confronted in their home states. In the words of one plaintiff, “As a fifty-year-old black man, born and raised in Mississippi, I have never experienced the kind of racism that was at Super Steel.” Another Plaintiff compared his arrival at Super Steel to that of a slave being sold at market. He described being treated as though he had been “ordered up” from “some small farm” in Mississippi, and being given orders as if he was a “boy” that was “not supposed to know any better.”
4. For the limited number of African Americans who pass through Super Steel’s doors, racial discrimination and hostility permeate every aspect of the working day. A typical day for these workers involves using a restroom decorated with graffiti that derides “niggers” and expounds support for the KKK, working in the midst of drawings depicting men hung from “hanging loops,” or nooses, walking past the hostile stares of white co-workers, enduring unending criticism from white supervisors, avoiding the “white” parts of segregated break areas, and trying to ignore the persistent awareness that, at any time, the festering racial hostility might erupt and challenge their physical safety.
5. For those African American employees who find themselves the targets of more vitriolic, directed racism, days are even worse. The hostility directed at one former Super Steel employee included slurs like “nigger monkey” and “nigger bastard.” He was told on one occasion that a “nigger whipping” would make him work faster, and on another that he should be hung. White co-workers laughed when the threat of a hanging was followed with the musing that the hanging would make him “scream like a bitch.” The constant intimidation destroyed this Plaintiff’s sense of well-being, plaguing his thoughts even at home, and lingering long after he closed Super Steel’s plant doors for the final time behind him.
6. Another Plaintiff slogged through months of hard work, trying to ignore the hostility from his white co-workers when his white supervisors consistently ignored his pleas for
2

intervention. His efforts to succeed in spite of his circumstances were rewarded with graffiti inside of his locker that said “Die Nigger Die” and “KKK,” and a monkey hanging from his coat hook, its head torn off and its body ripped apart.
7. The racism these Plaintiffs have confronted at Super Steel is not limited to wayward employees or outlying miscreants, but is deeply embedded in the Super Steel structure. Super Steel has built racism into its ranks by selecting for supervisory positions white workers who are blatantly racist. The Plaintiffs in this action worked under supervisors who used racial epithets, subjected them to harsh criticism and intense scrutiny, withheld promotions and other opportunities for advancement, and failed to reprimand white employees for racially hostile behavior.
8. When one Plaintiff went to his Supervisor for support in dealing with the racial harassment he was experiencing, his Supervisor replied by turning to another Supervisor and asking, “What does this fucking nigger expect me to do?” The requests for support by other Plaintiffs were alternatively ignored or dismissed.
9. The reaction of Super Steel’s Human Resources Department to complaints of racial discrimination by African American employees was similarly deficient. Despite the numerous complaints and the clear racial antagonism at Super Steel, Human Resources systematically ignored the racism brought to its attention. One Plaintiff’s concerns were pushed aside by a Human Resources Representative with an exasperated “[I thought your] people [were] used to that kind of stuff.” In a letter to a different Plaintiff, Super Steel Human Resources Director Gerald Nelson describes the racist comments of a white co-worker as “isolated,” and the “KKK” hat made by another as constructed “in jest.”
10. In a letter sent March 15, 2006 to yet another plaintiff, Super Steel’s Counsel writes that “no similar incident has occurred ever before or since at the Company’s plant in Glenville.” This letter was written after the police had visited Super Steel at least twice to respond to complaints about racial harassment, after Human Resources Director Gerald Nelson
3

wrote the above-cited letter to another Plaintiff, and after virtually all of the racially charged incidents described in this Complaint occurred.
11. A police officer investigating the drawing of a man hanging by a noose in one Plaintiff’s workstation commented in his police report that Super Steel “had not yet come to an understanding of the serious nature of the incident(s) and was still under the assumption that they would be able to handle everything internally.”
12. Super Steel decides time and again to cultivate an atmosphere in which its African American employees are threatened, harassed, criticized, and denied advancement, and in which white employees can threaten, harass, criticize, and deny advancement with impunity. That Super Steel does not welcome African Americans is manifest in its emaciated roster of African American employees. The company has hired so few permanent African American employees that one Plaintiff was taunted as the “default hire” because Super Steel had simply run out of white applicants to choose from.
13. While the “default hire,” a Schenectady resident, remains an employee at Super Steel, all of the African Americans listed in this action that traveled to Super Steel from southern states have since returned to their homes. All have expressed relief at being able to return to the relative safety of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
14. A line in an employment handbook, a few words from the company’s president, or a lofty statement about “zero tolerance” will not change the discriminatory policies that Super Steel has so successfully ingrained in its company culture. For these reasons, Plaintiffs seek the support of this Court in securing relief. The relief Plaintiffs seek include: (1) programs that remedy the racially hostile work environment at Super Steel; and (2) one hundred seventy-five million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(4), 2201 and 2202; and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (hereafter § 1981), to redress and
4

enjoin employment practices of Super Steel in violation of these statutes. Venue is proper in the District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f)(3) because Defendant Super Steel is a resident of this District and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in this District. III. PARTIES
A. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES 16. Class Representative Criss Murphy (“Criss Murphy” or “Mr. C. Murphy”) is an African American resident of Lawrenceville, Georgia. Mr. C. Murphy was employed at Super Steel’s facility in Schenectady, New York from approximately April 2005 until April 17, 2006. Mr. C. Murphy took a paid leave of absence from Super Steel on January 3, 2006, when his locker was vandalized with threatening, racist graffiti. On February 20, 2006, Super Steel put Mr. C. Murphy on an unpaid leave of absence, scheduled to end on April 17, 2006. As a result of the continuing hostility displayed by Super Steel towards Mr. C. Murphy, as well as the lack of reliable assurance that Mr. C. Murphy’s safety at Super Steel is assured, Mr. C. Murphy did not return to Super Steel by April 17, 2006, and was terminated on that date. 17. Class Representative Norman Jordan (“Norman Jordan” or “Mr. Jordan”) is an African American resident of Lawrenceville, New Jersey. Mr. Jordan was employed at Super Steel from approximately April 2005 to September 2005. 18. Class Representative Andino Ward (“Andino Ward” or “Mr. Ward”) is an African American resident of Schenectady, New York. Mr. Ward has been employed at Super Steel from approximately July 27, 2005 until the present. 19. Class Representative Eddie Barnes, Jr. (“Eddie Barnes, Jr.” or “Mr. Barnes”) is an African American resident of Moss Point, Mississippi. Mr. Barnes was contracted to work at Super Steel from approximately February 2004 until September 2004, and from approximately February 2005 until October 2005.
5

20. Class Representative Paul Hannon (“Paul Hannon” or “Mr. Hannon”) is an African American resident of Jackson, Alabama. Mr. Hannon was contracted to work at Super Steel from approximately June 2004 until November 2004, and from approximately February 2005 until October 2005.
21. Class Representative Curtis Nelson (“Curtis Nelson” or “Mr. Nelson”) is an African American resident of Moss Point, Mississippi. Mr. Nelson was contracted to work at Super Steel from approximately June 2004 until August 2004, and from approximately June 2005 until August 2005.
22. Class Representative David Chambers (“David Chambers” or “Mr. Chambers”) is an African American resident of Reserve, Louisiana. Mr. Chambers was an employee at Super Steel from approximately February 2005 until September 2005.
23. Class Representative Heroin Murphy (“Herion Murphy” or “Mr. H. Murphy”) is an African American resident of Marrero, Louisiana. Mr. H. Murphy was an employee at Super Steel from approximately July 2005 until November 2005.
24. Class Representative Vincent Safford (“Vincent Safford” or “Mr. Safford”) is an African American resident of Moss Point, Mississippi. Mr. Safford was contracted to work at Super Steel from approximately April 2005 until the end of August 2005.
B. DEFENDANT 25. Defendant Super Steel Schenectady Inc. is a corporation doing business in Schenectady, New York. Super Steel is subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended. V. CLASS CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE §1981 A. CLASS DEFINITION 26. The Class Representatives seek to maintain claims on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of current, former and future African American Super Steel permanent and contract employees. Each of the Class Representatives is a member of the putative class.
6

27. The Class consists of all African Americans who are, or have been, employed by Super Steel, whether as permanent or contract employees, and have experienced and/or witnessed racial discrimination and/or harassment at any time during the applicable liability period. All of the Class Representatives are proposed representatives of the class.
B. EFFICIENCY OF CLASS PROSECUTION OF COMMON CLAIMS 28. Certification of a class of similarly situated African Americans is the most efficient and economical means of resolving the questions of law and fact that are common to the individual claims of the named Class Representatives and the class. The individual claims of the Class Representatives require resolution of the common question of whether Defendant Super Steel has engaged in a systemic pattern of racial discrimination and harassment against African Americans. The Class Representatives seek remedies to undo the adverse effects of such discrimination in their own lives, careers and working conditions and to prevent continued racial discrimination in the future. The named Class Representatives have standing to seek such relief, in part because of the adverse effect that racial discrimination and harassment targeted at African Americans has had on their own interest in working conditions free from the pernicious effects of racial bias and hostility. In order to gain such relief for themselves, as well as for the class members, the Class Representatives must establish the existence of systemic racial discrimination and harassment as the premise of the relief they seek. Without class certification, the same evidence and issues would be subject to repeated relitigation in a multitude of individual lawsuits with an attendant risk of inconsistent adjudications and conflicting obligations. Certification of the class of African Americans affected by the common questions of law and fact is the most efficient and judicious means of presenting the evidence and argument necessary to resolve such questions for the Class Representatives, the class and Defendant Super Steel. The Class Representatives’ individual and class claims are premised upon the traditional bifurcated method of proof and trial for disparate impact and systemic
7

disparate treatment claims of the type at issue in this Complaint. Such a bifurcated method of proof and trial is the most efficient method of resolving such common issues.
C. NUMEROSITY AND IMPRACTICABILITY OF JOINDER 29. The class is so numerous that it is impracticable to bring all of its members before the Court. On information and belief, the class of black former, current, and future Super Steel employees comprises over fifty persons. The actual number of class members who have been or are currently employed by the defendant during the relevant liability period can be determined from Defendant Super Steel’s records. D. COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT 30. The prosecution of the claims of the Class Representatives will require the adjudication of numerous questions of law and fact common to both their individual claims and those of the class they seek to represent. The common questions of law include, inter alia, whether Defendant Super Steel has engaged in systemic racial discrimination and harassment in its selection practices and its terms and conditions of work and employment in a manner made unlawful by the statute under which this action is brought. E. TYPICALITY OF CLAIMS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 31. The claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the proposed class. In particular, Super Steel ignores, and in some cases actively supports, racist threats, comments, jokes and behavior among its staff and fails to enforce policies prohibiting racial discrimination. 32. Defendant Super Steel’s illegal practices and procedures are premised on an invidious and racially discriminatory animus directed against African American people. It is specifically calculated to deny members of the African American race equal treatment and opportunities guaranteed by §1981.
8

33. The employment practices at issue in this Complaint are neither unique nor limited to one department, but affect the named Class Representatives and members of the class in the same way throughout Super Steel’s operations.
34. The relief necessary to remedy the claims of the named Class Representatives is the same as that necessary for the class.
F. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION 35. The Class Representatives’ interests are coextensive with those of the class in that each seeks to remedy Defendant Super Steel’s discriminatory employment practices so that racially hostile conditions of work will be eradicated. The Class Representatives are able and willing to represent the class fairly and vigorously, as they pursue their common goals through this action. The Class Representatives have retained counsel who are qualified, experienced and able to conduct the litigation and to meet the time and fiscal demands required to litigate an employment discrimination class action of this size and complexity. The combined interest, experience and resources of the Class Representatives and their counsel to litigate competently the individual and class claims at issue clearly satisfy the Class Representatives’ and class members’ entitlement to equitable remedies at Stage II of such a trial. Declaratory and injunctive relief flow directly and automatically from proof of the common question of law and fact regarding the existence of systemic racial discrimination against African Americans. Such relief is the factual and legal predicate for the Class Representatives’ and class members’ entitlement to equitable remedies for individual losses caused by such systemic discrimination. 36. The common issues of fact and law affecting the claims of the Class Representatives and proposed class members predominate over any issues affecting only individual claims. 37. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the Class Representatives and members of the proposed class.
9

38. The cost of proving Super Steel’s pattern or practice of discrimination makes it impracticable for the Class Representatives and members of the proposed class to prosecute their claims individually. VI. ALLEGATIONS OF THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
A. CRISS MURPHY 39. Class Representative Criss Murphy is currently a resident of Lawrenceville, Georgia. Mr. C. Murphy has been employed as a welder at Super Steel’s facility in Schenectady, New York from approximately April 2005 to the present. Mr. C. Murphy took a paid leave of absence from Super Steel from January 3, 2006, when his locker was vandalized with threatening, racist graffiti. On February 20, 2006, Super Steel put Mr. C. Murphy on an unpaid leave of absence, scheduled to end on April 17, 2006. As a result of the continuing hostility displayed by Super Steel towards Mr. C. Murphy, including Super Steel’s decision to cancel Mr. C. Murphy’s health benefits on March 31, 2006, as well as the lack of reliable assurance that Mr. C. Murphy’s safety at Super Steel is assured, Mr. C. Murphy did not return to Super Steel by April 17, 2006, and was terminated on that date.. 40. As an employee at Super Steel, Mr. C. Murphy worked daily in an environment that was rife with racial hostility. As an African American employee at Super Steel, this hostility forced Mr. C. Murphy to contend with specific challenges, including racist threats and taunts, disparate terms and conditions of employment, the denial of training opportunities, and other forms of discrimination. 41. Mr. C. Murphy’s most recent incident of racial hostility occurred on January 3, 2006. Through the end of December 2005, Mr. C. Murphy was busy working and flying to Atlanta, Georgia to visit his mother, who was recovering from surgery. On January 3, 2006, he flew from Atlanta back to New York in time to work the night shift at Super Steel. When Mr. C. Murphy went to his locker to get his supplies, he found that his locker had been vandalized. Someone had written “KKK” and “Die Nigger Die” with a white welder marker. Hanging from
10

the coat hook was the head of a black stuffed animal: a monkey. The rest of the monkey was torn apart. Mr. C. Murphy took pictures of his locker and called the police.
42. The police in Schenectady have been investigating this incident as a felonious hate crime.
43. After reporting the incident, Mr. C. Murphy took a paid leave of absence from Super Steel. Mr. C. Murphy returned to Atlanta to see his girlfriend, who, as a result of the stress she experienced due to Mr. C. Murphy’s treatment at Super Steel, had suffered a miscarriage.
44. On February 14, 2006, Mr. C. Murphy received a letter from Gerald J. Nelson (“Director Nelson”), Super Steel’s Director of Human Resources. Although Director Nelson acknowledged that those who vandalized Mr. C. Murphy’s locker had not yet been identified, and that the steps planned to address Mr. C. Murphy’s safety concerns had not all been taken, Director Nelson demanded that Mr. C. Murphy return to work.
45. On March 15, 2006, Mr. C. Murphy received notice that, beginning nearly one month earlier, on February 20, 2006, his leave of absence had been changed from paid to unpaid. Mr. C. Murphy further received notice that his unpaid leave of absence would last until April 17, 2006, by which time his failure to return to work would lead to termination.
46. Additionally, without explanation or warning, Super Steel discontinued Mr. C. Murphy’s health insurance beginning March 31, 2006. Mr. C. Murphy only became aware of his cancelled benefits when he went to the pharmacy to fill a prescription. The medication he sought was prescribed by his doctor to help Mr. C. Murphy deal with panic attacks, a condition that he developed as a result of the racism at Super Steel. When Mr. C. Murphy called his insurance company to inquire about his inability to collect this prescription, he was told that Super Steel cancelled his health insurance. It was only after that call that Mr. C. Murphy received a letter from Super Steel, verifying that his coverage had been cancelled beginning March 31, 2006.
11

47. As a result of the continuing hostility form Super Steel, and the lack of reliable assurance that Mr. C. Murphy’s physical safety can be assured as an employee there, Mr. C. Murphy did not return to work on April 17, 2006, and was terminated by the company.
48. The racist graffiti on Mr. C. Murphy’s locker that precipitated his January 3, 2006 leave of absence was a culmination of months of racism that Mr. C. Murphy experienced almost as soon as he began his employment with the Super Steel. During his second week of employment with the company, Mr. C. Murphy and his cousin, Plaintiff David Chambers, waited on the plant floor with their co-workers while one of the company’s Leadmen, white male Ed _____ (“Supervisor Ed”), distributed work assignments. Supervisor Ed ignored Mr. C. Murphy and Mr. Chambers completely during this process, leaving them standing alone after he assigned jobs to all of their white co-workers. Mr. C. Murphy and Mr. Chambers waited for work assignments for forty-five minutes. At that time, realizing that Supervisor Ed had no intention of giving them work assignments, Mr. C. Murphy and Mr. Chambers left.
49. The next day, Mr. C. Murphy and Mr. Chambers returned to Super Steel to collect their checks and quit. Mr. C. Murphy and Mr. Chambers saw little opportunity in working with a company that allowed its managerial employees to so blatantly disregard African American workers. Wayne Allen (“Supervisor Allen”) and Kevin Harrington (“Supervisor Harrington”), both white, male, plant Supervisors, intercepted Mr. C. Murphy and Mr. Chambers on their way to quit. Supervisors Allen and Harrington requested that Mr. C. Murphy and Mr. Chambers continue working at Super Steel, and assured Mr. C. Murphy and Mr. Chambers that they would talk to Supervisor Ed. Mr. C. Murphy and Mr. Chambers agreed. Since this incident, however, Supervisor Ed has been promoted to plant Supervisor. On occasion, when Supervisor Ed’s department has needed additional workers, Mr. C. Murphy has been forced to work in Supervisor Ed’s department.
50. The incident with Supervisor Ed followed a pattern that would be repeated throughout Mr. C. Murphy’s employment. Namely, a white co-worker would target Mr. C.
12

Murphy for hostile treatment, Mr. C. Murphy would report the incident to Supervisor Allen, and Supervisor Allen would promise to “talk” to the co-worker causing problems. In all of these cases, the hostility and intimidation that Mr. C. Murphy was subjected to by his white coworkers was starkly different from the type of treatment extended to white employees, and the response of management to Mr. C. Murphy’s requests for intervention unfailingly inconsistent with Super Steel’s expressed written policies regarding harassment and intimidation.
51. In addition to the harassment that Mr. C. Murphy faced from his white coworkers and the lackadaisical response Mr. C. Murphy received from Super Steel management, Mr. C. Murphy experienced and witnessed other discriminatory acts by management personnel at Super Steel. For example, in 2005 Supervisor Allen was choosing people to send to Milwaukee for training on different types of machines. Mr. C. Murphy requested that he be able to attend. Mr. C. Murphy had reason to believe that he would be chosen, as Supervisor Allen had acknowledged that Mr. C. Murphy’s welding was the best at Super Steel. However, without giving any explanation as to how he chose them, Supervisor Allen announced the next day that he had chosen to send Manny, a co-worker whose harassment Mr. C. Murphy reported to Supervisor Allen, and two white employees. None of those selected for the training had demonstrated the technical expertise of Mr. C. Murphy.
52. On another occasion, Supervisor Allen and Supervisor Harrington asked Mr. C. Murphy if he knew any good welders. The supervisors told Mr. C. Murphy that new hires would be paid $17 per hour. Mr. C. Murphy’s brother, Plaintiff Herion Murphy, came up from New Orleans, Louisiana for the job. When Mr. H. Murphy started working, however, he only received $13 per hour. Mr. C. Murphy spoke to Supervisor Allen and Supervisor Harrington about the discrepancy. Supervisor Allen and Supervisor Harrington claimed that Mr. H. Murphy was being paid less because he could not read blueprints. When Mr. C. Murphy challenged this assertion, the supervisors promised to raise Mr. H. Murphy’s salary to $16 per hour. The supervisors never fulfilled this promise and eventually Mr. H. Murphy returned to New Orleans.
13

53. Mr. C. Murphy is also aware of a racial bias in hiring at Super Steel. Mr. C. Murphy would regularly see management walk African-American and white applicants through the factory. Although there were at least as many African-American applicants as white applicants, the applicant hired was almost invariably white. When Plaintiff Andino Ward, an African-American male, was hired, Mr. C. Murphy heard other employees call Mr. Ward the “default hire” because the only other applicants for his position, white females that Super Steel had attempted to hire, both failed their drug tests.
54. As a result of Mr. C. Murphy’s hostile work environment at Super Steel, culminating in the threatening, racist graffiti in his locker, Mr. C. Murphy began to have panic attacks. Mr. C. Murphy has seen a doctor and a psychiatrist to deal with this problem. Although Mr. C. Murphy’s doctor prescribed him medication to address his condition, Mr. C. Murphy was unable to get his medication when his health insurance was cancelled by Super Steel on March 31, 2006.
55. As a result of the racial discrimination at Super Steel, Mr. C. Murphy has suffered extreme harm.
B. NORMAN JORDAN 56. Class Representative Norman Jordan is a resident of Lawrenceville, New Jersey. Mr. Jordan was hired by Super Steel as a Sandblaster in approximately April 2005. In September 2005, Mr. Jordan was constructively discharged from his position at Super Steel due to continuing racial harassment. 57. As an employee at Super Steel, Mr. Jordan worked daily in an environment that was rife with racial hostility. As an African American employee at Super Steel, this hostility forced Mr. Jordan to contend with specific challenges, including racist threats and taunts, the denial of promotion and other employment opportunities, disparate terms and conditions of employment, and other forms of discrimination.
14

58. Mr. Jordan’s six-month tenure at Super Steel was characterized by a hostile work environment. On August 2, 2005 the Glenville Police Department came to Super Steel to investigate racist graffiti drawn on a train that Mr. Jordan was working on. The graffiti was a drawing of a dead man hanging from a rope around his neck. The dead man had a dot on his forehead, similar to the prostration mark that Mr. Jordan has on his forehead. The police Sergeant investigating the incident, Sergeant Alan Craver, noted in his police report that the Super Steel Plant Manager “had not yet come to an understanding of the serious nature of the incident(s) and was still under the assumption that they would be able to handle everything internally.”
59. The blatant, threatening racism exhibited by the graffiti in Mr. Jordan’s workspace, and Super Steel’s attempt to dismiss and underplay the seriousness of it, is characteristic of Mr. Jordan’s experience at Super Steel.
60. As an employee at Super Steel, Mr. Jordan was regularly called “nigger,” “fucking nigger,” “nigger bastard,” and “nigger monkey.” These racial slurs were directed at Mr. Jordan from both his white co-workers and his white supervisors. Often, the racial slur was attached to some sort of threat or other hostile comment.
61. For example, Paint Supervisor Ben Rodgers (“Supervisor Ben Rodgers”) often expressed his racial hatred towards Mr. Jordan in starkly violent terms. On one occasion, Supervisor Ben Rodgers said to his father, Supervisor Phil Rodgers (“Supervisor Phil Rodgers”), that it would be fun to see Mr. Jordan’s “black fat ass” being hung, and that Mr. Jordan would “scream like a bitch.” They both started laughing. This comment was heard by co-workers Ernie _____, Chris Kennely, and Mike Clemens.
62. On another occasion, when Mr. Jordan had just finished a prayer, Supervisor Ben Rodgers said to Supervisor Phil Rodgers “What does this nigger Muslim think he’s doing?” Supervisor Phil Rodgers replied “we know how to get rid of niggers like this.”
15

63. Supervisor Ben Rodgers also made racist comments directly to Mr. Jordan. One time, Supervisor Ben Rodgers asked Mr. Jordan how he liked working for a white man, adding that white men are superior to black men. Another time, Mr. Jordan was in the sandblast booth when Supervisor Ben Rodgers came in and said he was taking too long. Supervisor Ben Rodgers then said that he knew what would make “these niggers” work faster: “a good old nigger whip.”
64. Supervisor Phil Rodgers confronted Mr. Jordan with racist threats as well. When Mr. Jordan was getting a cup of coffee during his shift, Supervisor Phil Rodgers said that the “bull’s eye” mark on Mr. Jordan’s forehead looked like it needed a bullet in it. When Mr. Jordan asked Supervisor Phil Rodgers what his problem was, Supervisor Phil Rodgers replied that he was just letting Mr. Jordan know “how much [he hates Mr. Jordan’s] black ass.” Supervisor Phil Rodgers also told Mr. Jordan that his days were limited because “we are tired of your kind of people.”
65. During this interaction, Supervisor Phil Rodgers also asked Mr. Jordan why African Americans take a “black god” when a “white god” is the superior god.
66. Gary _____, a white Inspector Supervisor (“Supervisor Gary”) was another Supervisor that made racist comments to Mr. Jordan. One day, as Mr. Jordan came out of the sandblast booth after praying during his lunch hour, Supervisor Gary asked Todd _____, the Plant Manager (“Plant Manager Todd”), why Super Steel hired “somebody like that,” referring to Mr. Jordan. Plant Manager Todd responded that they could not “put up” with it.
67. When Mr. Jordan addressed Plant Manager Todd about the conversation, Plant Manager Todd said that Mr. Jordan was hearing things. When Mr. Jordan approached Supervisor Gary about the conversation, Supervisor Gary said that he did not have a problem letting Mr. Jordan know that he does not like black people or Muslims. Supervisor Gary said that Mr. Jordan should have told Super Steel that he was Muslim, because Supervisor Gary could guarantee that Mr. Jordan would never have been hired.
16

68. Supervisor Gary also made comments that were physically threatening. For example, Supervisor Gary commented on one occasion that he would “get rid of this black monkey,” referring to Mr. Jordan.
69. Supervisor Gary’s hostility was so apparent that a white co-worker who was friendly with Mr. Jordan, Bob _____, told Mr. Jordan that he should watch out for his physical safety.
70. Paint Supervisor Harry _____ (“Supervisor Harry”), was yet another Super Steel supervisor who threatened Mr. Jordan with impunity. On one occasion when Mr. Jordan was working on the first shift, Mr. Jordan had to leave the plant for an hour and a half for religious services. Normally, a worker is permitted to leave during the first shift for personal business if he clocks in and out, and finishes his work during the second shift. However, when Mr. Jordan clocked in and out for his religious service, Supervisor Harry approached him and told him that he needed a note to excuse his absence. Supervisor Harry told Mr. Jordan that if he left for service, he did not need to come back. Supervisor Harry continued by saying “We’re not here to cater to your black ass or your bullshit services.”
71. Mr. Jordan overheard a related conversation between Supervisor Harry, Supervisor Gary, and his direct Supervisor Chris Fain (“Supervisor Fain”) in which they discussed how they were not willing to “cater” to Mr. Jordan, and in which Supervisor Gary said they should just hang Mr. Jordan to “let all these niggers know who’s really in charge.”
72. Mr. Jordan reported this incident to Kim Evans (“Human Resources Representative Evans”) in Human Resources. Human Resources Representative Evans said that she did not believe Mr. Jordan’s accusation, and, despite its seriousness, took no action to find out whether Mr. Jordan’s claim was true.
73. This was not the first incident that Mr. Jordan brought to Ms. Evans. Mr. Jordan went to Human Resources repeatedly to report the racist threats and taunts he confronted at work.
17

74. One morning, at approximately 3:00 a.m., Ernie came into the spackling booth where Mr. Jordan was working. Ernie started harassing Mr. Jordan, claiming that Mr. Jordan was not doing his work properly and saying that he was tired of Mr. Jordan’s “shit.” Ernie then said that Mr. Jordan and his family could go to hell and, while drawing a hand across his throat, Ernie said that he could have Mr. Jordan disappear.
75. Mr. Jordan immediately told Human Resources Representative Evans about Ernie’s comments. Human Resources Representative Evans responded by asking Mr. Jordan what he expected her to do about it. Mr. Jordan told Human Resources Representative Evans that he expected her to protect his rights. Human Resources Representative Evans replied that there was nothing that she could do.
76. Later that day, Ernie again approached Mr. Jordan and asked Mr. Jordan why he went “crying” to the office. Ernie said that if Mr. Jordan made any more noise, Mr. Jordan knew what would happen to him.
77. Mr. Jordan again told Human Resources Representative Evans about Ernie’s threats. Human Resources Representative Evans again claimed there was nothing she could do. Approximately three weeks later, Ernie made more threats to Mr. Jordan during break. When Mr. Jordan went to Human Resources Representative Evans to report them, her response was that she thought that Mr. Jordan’s “people” were “used to that stuff.”
78. Mr. Jordan also went to Human Resources only three days before the graffiti of the man hanging appeared on his train. At that time, Mr. Jordan went to Human Resources to report a sign that had been hung in his workspace that said “Kiss my white ass.” Mr. Jordan was unsettled by the sign because of the threats he had received and the knowledge that someone had been lurking in his workspace.
79. When Human Resources, yet again, took no action, Mr. Jordan finally accepted that Super Steel would never address his harassment. At that point, Mr. Jordan called the police. The policeman that came to Super Steel to investigate Mr. Jordan’s claims told Mr. Jordan’s
18

supervisor that Mr. Jordan was being harassed, and told Mr. Jordan that he should call the police at the next racist comment or action.
80. A few days later, the graffiti of the man hanging appeared on Mr. Jordan’s train. The morning that the graffiti was discovered, one of Super Steel’s head managers from Milwaukee was visiting the plant. The manager told Ms. Evans, Supervisor Fain, and Plant Manager Todd to erase the drawing and to get everyone back to work. When another employee heard the manager say this, the employee got a camera to take pictures. Mr. Jordan and the employee took the pictures and called the police before Super Steel could erase the drawing.
81. Two days later Human Resources Representative Evans came to the Spackling booth where Mr. Jordan was working. She told Mr. Jordan that he should not have called the police, and that if he did not handle things the way that he was directed to by Super Steel, he would lose his job. Mr. Jordan’s co-worker Mike Clemens was standing next to Mr. Jordan when Human Resources Representative Evans threatened Mr. Jordan with termination.
82. The Super Steel employees to whom Mr. Jordan was supposed to report his grievances, including Ms. Evans, were hostile to hearing them. Plant Manager Todd, for example, called Mr. Jordan “nigger bastard” to his face. Mr. Jordan also heard Plant Manager Todd say racist things to other employees.
83. Accordingly, when Mr. Jordan attempted to bring some of his grievances to Plant Manager Todd. Mr. Jordan was met with derision. On one occasion when Mr. Jordan brought his grievances to Plant Manager Todd, Plant Manager Todd said to Supervisor Fain “What does this fucking nigger expect me to do?” Supervisor Fain replied that Plant Manager Todd should just “ignore the nigger monkey.” On another occasion, when Mr. Jordan complained to Plant Manager Todd about one of Supervisor Ben Rodgers’ racist remarks, Plant Manager Todd said that he did not realize that Mr. Jordan had heard what Supervisor Ben Rodgers said. Plant Manager Todd then dismissed the issue and said that “all niggers” think they can get their way.
19

84. Mr. Jordan also told Plant Manager Todd he did not feel comfortable working at Super Steel because of all of the racism. Plant Manager Todd told Mr. Jordan that he should be used to it. Plant Manager Todd said that Mr. Jordan should be tougher than he was, that Mr. Jordan was weak, and that Mr. Jordan should be kissing Plant Manager Todd’s feet because Mr. Jordan had a job. When Mr. Jordan asked Plant Manager Todd what was being done about the racism and threats to his life, Plant Manager Todd told Mr. Jordan that Super Steel was “still investigating.”
85. Mr. Jordan was also rebuffed by his supervisors when he made efforts to improve his employment status at Super Steel. When Mr. Jordan requested that he be considered for a supervisory position that was available in the Sandblaster Department, Supervisor Fain told Mr. Jordan that he would never let a “nigger” take over the department. After Mr. Jordan had requested a number of times that Supervisor Fain let Mr. Jordan demonstrate his painting skills, Supervisor Fain said “you people feel that you can do a whole lot.”
86. At Mr. Jordan’s ninety-day review, he asked Supervisor Fain about a raise. Supervisor Fain dismissed Mr. Jordan’s request by saying that Mr. Jordan had taken too many days off. However, the days off Supervisor Fain was referring to were days that had been approved by Super Steel to allow Mr. Jordan to attend his mother’s funeral.
87. Supervisor Fain’s perception of Mr. Jordan’s proper place in the company was aptly captured in a comment he made to Supervisor Ben Rodgers. When Supervisor Ben Rodgers said that he did not like the fact that he had to work around a “nigger Muslim,” Supervisor Fain told Supervisor Ben Rodgers that Supervisor Ben Rodgers should just have Mr. Jordan “sweep the floor” because that “is what they are used to anyway.”
88. The threats, comments, and hostility at Super Steel severely diminished Mr. Jordan’s well-being. Mr. Jordan had trouble sleeping at night and felt scared and anxious about what might happen to him. Ultimately, the burden of the maltreatment was too heavy, and Mr. Jordan resigned from his position at Super Steel in September 2005.
20

89. As a result of the racial discrimination at Super Steel, Mr. Jordan has suffered extreme harm.
C. ANDINO WARD 90. Class Representative Andino Ward is a resident of Schenectady, New York. Mr. Ward has been employed as an Assembler at Super Steel from approximately July 27, 2005 until the present. 91. As an employee at Super Steel, Mr. Ward worked, and continues to work, in an environment rife with racial hostility. As an African American employee at Super Steel, this hostility has forced Mr. Jordan to contend with specific challenges, including racist threats and taunts, denial of promotions and other employment opportunities, disparate terms and conditions of employment, and other forms of discrimination. 92. On February 16, 2006, Mr. Ward received a letter from Gerald J. Nelson (“Director Nelson”), Director of Human Resources at Super Steel, alleging the recent completion of an “investigation” into the more than six months of racial harassment Mr. Ward has experienced as an employee at Super Steel. 93. The first incident cited in Director Nelson’s letter involved a KKK mask that was left on Mr. Ward’s bag. In approximately September 2005, Mr. Ward’s white co-worker John Kalament (“Mr. Kalament”) told Mr. Ward that he had put something on Mr. Ward’s bag to help Mr. Ward “keep up” his work ethic. The item Mr. Kalament left was a KKK mask with “Kill Blackie” written on the forehead. Mr. Ward told Mr. Kalament that Mr. Kalament could not do things like that. Mr. Ward then went to his Supervisor, white male Henry Bendixon (“Supervisor Bendixon”) to tell Supervisor Bendixon what had happened. Supervisor Bendixon, expressing an interest in “keeping the peace,” chose not to take any action. 94. In Director Nelson’s letter, Director Nelson claims that both Mr. Kalament and Mr. Ward agreed that Mr. Kalament’s actions were performed in jest. This is not accurate. Mr.
21

Ward’s decision to report the incident to Supervisor Bendixon accurately reflects Mr. Ward’s serious concern about what had happened.
95. Mr. Ward was also subject to other harassment by his white co-workers. For example, Jason Bombard (“Mr. Bombard”) would block Mr. Ward’s path when Mr. Ward was trying to walk, look at Mr. Ward in a hostile way, and lose his temper with Mr. Ward. Another co-worker, Mike _____, would move closer to Mr. Ward when he passed him in the hall. Mike would walk until his face was right next to Mr. Ward’s, and stare at him in a threatening manner as he passed.
96. Russ _____, a long-term employee of Super Steel and Supervisor Bendixon’s stepson, told Mr. Ward that Mike treated Mr. Ward in such a hostile manner because Mike was part of a white supremacist gang called the Aryan Nation. Russ also told Mr. Ward that there was a lot of racism at Super Steel, and that the company did not like to hire African Americans.
97. Russ’s assertion that Super Steel did not like to hire African Americans accorded with Mr. Ward’s experience at the company. After Mr. Ward was hired, he was told that there were two white, female applicants for his position, and that Super Steel had tried to hire, in turn, each of them. However, both women failed their drug tests. When Super Steel ran out of white applicants, the company hired Mr. Ward. To commemorate the conditions of his hiring, one of Mr. Ward’s white co-workers, Bill Kohinke (“Mr. Kohinke”), called Mr. Ward “DH”: “Default Hire.”
98. When Mr. Ward began his employment at Super Steel, he was the only African American in his department. The white employees in Mr. Ward’s department often spoke derisively about another African American employee, Robert Thomas (“Mr. Thomas”), who worked in the department prior to Mr. Ward’s arrival, and who had moved to another department to try to escape the constant racism he had found among the employees with whom Mr. Ward was now working. When Mr. Ward met Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thomas told Mr. Ward to
22

be careful. Mr. Thomas warned Mr. Ward that the workers in his department were racist, and would gang up on Mr. Ward to attempt to push him out of the room.
99. Mr. Ward quickly found that his white co-workers took part in many racially offensive conversations. One such conversation involved Mr. Kohinke and another white worker, Laurie Jones (“Ms. Jones”). In that conversation, Mr. Kohinke and Ms. Jones were discussing slavery. Ms. Jones turned to Mr. Ward and made numerous comments about how all African Americans are the same. She said that African Americans all think that white people owe them something, and that all African Americans are drug dealers. Mr. Ward tried to ignore these conversations and concentrate on his work.
100. Another of Mr. Ward’s white co-workers, Mary _____, had been making things difficult for Mr. Ward since he started in his department by telling Super Steel management that he was not working. As her claims were false, Mr. Ward decided to ignore them.
101. However, when Mary walked right near Mr. Ward and loudly declared that she “hate[s] negroes,” Mr. Ward felt that he needed to say something. He told Supervisor Bendixon about Mary’s harassment and about what she had said. Supervisor Bendixon took no steps to reprimand Mary for her hostility.
102. Director Nelson, in his February 16, 2006 letter, describes Mary’s comment as “isolated.”
103. However, even Supervisor Bendixon commented to Mr. Ward that there were many racists at Super Steel. While making this comment, Supervisor Bendixon began to point to the employees that he knew were racist. Supervisor Bendixon said that he even had people in his family that were part of the Aryan Nation.
104. After incidents of violence between white and African American employees at Super Steel, including one in which Mr. Ward was pushed by Jason Bombard, and after Plaintiff Criss Murphy’s locker was covered with racist graffiti, Mr. Ward felt so threatened by his work environment that he started to bring a razor blade into the bathroom with him for self-protection.
23

105. As an employee at Super Steel, Mr. Ward has also faced discrimination with respect to potential promotions and appropriate salary increases. For example, in December 2005 Mr. Ward expressed interest in a better paying position as a forklift operator. Mr. Ward was told that Super Steel wanted him to have the job. As Mr. Ward prepared for the move, however, he was told that the job had been given to a white employee. Mr. Ward was given no explanation as to why he was dropped in favor of this employee.
106. More recently, Mr. Ward was offered an appraisal of his salary. Although he was told that this would result in his first pay raise, Mr. Ward never received the appraisal. Again, Mr. Ward was never given an explanation for this oversight.
107. As a result of the racial discrimination he has experienced at Super Steel, Mr. Ward has suffered, and continues to suffer, extreme harm.
D. EDDIE BARNES, JR. 108. Class Representative Eddie Barnes, Jr. is a resident of Moss Point, Mississippi. Mr. Barnes was contracted from Global Manpower to work at Super Steel from approximately February 2004 until September 2004, and from approximately February 2005 until October 2005. Mr. Barnes was hired in February 2004 to blast and spray trains. Mr. Barnes worked in this capacity for one week, after which he was transferred to another department to build trains. Mr. Barnes built trains until September 2004. When Mr. Barnes returned to Super Steel in February 2005, he blasted and sprayed trains for the remainder of his tenure. 109. As an employee at Super Steel, Mr. Barnes worked daily in an environment that was rife with racial hostility. As an African American employee at Super Steel, this hostility forced Mr. Barnes to contend with specific challenges, including racist threats and taunts, disparate terms and conditions of employment, and other forms of discrimination. 110. In February 2004, Mr. Barnes traveled from Moss Point, Mississippi to Schenectady, New York, to blast and spray trains at Super Steel. Upon his arrival at Super Steel, Mr. Barnes was assigned to work with an all-white paint crew. This assignment quickly
24

proved problematic. Mr. Barnes’ white co-workers not only ignored him, but would not let him paint. Approximately one week from his starting date, Mr. Barnes was told that he was not needed in his assigned department, and was transferred to a department where trains were being framed and built. This transfer put Mr. Barnes at a significant disadvantage, as he had no experience framing or building trains. In addition, Mr. Barnes’ new group of white co-workers was as hostile as the first group.
111. However, in contrast to his previous department, one other African American employee, Mr. Bill Hall (“Mr. Hall”) worked in Mr. Barnes’ new department. Mr. Hall taught Mr. Barnes the skills he needed to frame and build trains. With Mr. Hall’s assistance, Mr. Barnes was able to continue his employment at Super Steel, and not have to make a financially difficult trek back to Mississippi.
112. In one of his conversations with Mr. Hall, Mr. Barnes commented about the lack of African American employees at Super Steel. Mr. Hall told Mr. Barnes that racism drove Super Steel’s limited hiring of African American employees.
113. Mr. Barnes saw one reflection of this racism in the derogatory language used by Super Steel’s white employees. The day that Mr. Barnes returned to Super Steel in February 2005, Bennie _____, a white employee, approached Mr. Barnes and asked him where contracted employee Kennard Morris (“Mr. Morris”), was. Mr. Barnes told Bennie that Mr. Morris had found another job. Bennie responded, “Well that nigger told me he was coming back.” Bennie used this racial slur on multiple occasions.
114. After one particularly harsh use of the word “nigger,” Mr. Barnes raised the issue of Bennie’s racist language with Supervisor Woolard. Supervisor Woolard assured Mr. Barnes that he would take care of the problem. However, on information and belief, Bennie received no punishment. Instead, approximately one week after Mr. Barnes lodged his complaint, Bennie was one of a select number of employees chosen to go to Milwaukee for a special job skills training session.
25

115. In approximately September 2005, Mr. Barnes and other contract employees had to leave Super Steel to deal with the damage to their homes caused by Hurricane Katrina. Although Mr. Barnes explained that his home was flooded with five feet of water, and that his family needed him, Super Steel tried to pressure Mr. Barnes not to go. Super Steel also initially refused the request of some African American employees for some of the money they had already earned.
116. Two weeks later, after confronting the physical devastation at home, Mr. Barnes returned to the hostile work environment at Super Steel. Mr. Barnes arrived in New York at 12:00 a.m. and was at work by 9:00 a.m. When Mr. Barnes arrived at work, he was immediately approached by Supervisor Harry _____ (“Supervisor Harry”). Supervisor Harry said that Mr. Barnes could not “walk the floor,” as Mr. Barnes did every morning to check in with the contract employees. Instead, Supervisor Harry said Mr. Barnes had two options: to clock in and immediately start working or to go home. Mr. Barnes told Supervisor Harry that he worked very hard at his job, that he worked very long hours, and that the short time he spent walking the floor was one of his job responsibilities. Supervisor Harry responded by repeating himself, speaking loudly and rudely, and pointing and clapping at Mr. Barnes like he was a dog.
117. Mr. Barnes told Supervisor Harry that Supervisor Harry could not speak to him in that way. Meanwhile, Supervisor Allen and Project Manager Todd stood by and said nothing. Mr. Barnes clocked in and worked for forty minutes. Disgusted with the situation, he then clocked out and went home.
118. Mr. Barnes reported this incident to the Floor Supervisor, Chris Fain. On information and belief, no action was taken to discipline Supervisor Harry for his actions.
119. Soon after, Mr. Barnes’ contract was finished and he returned to Mississippi. 120. As a result of the racial discrimination he experienced at Super Steel, Mr. Barnes suffered extreme harm.
26

E. PAUL HANNON 121. Class Representative Paul Hannon is a resident of Jackson, Alabama. Mr. Hannon was contracted from Global Manpower to work for Super Steel from June 2004 until November 2004, and from February 2005 until October 2005. Mr. Hannon spent his first six month period at Super Steel as a Spackler in the Paint Department. When he returned to Super Steel in February 2005, he worked as a Straightener in the Straightening Department until April 2005, and then as a Blaster in the Paint Department until October 2005. 122. As an employee at Super Steel, Mr. Hannon worked daily in an environment that was rife with racial hostility. As an African American employee at Super Steel, this hostility forced Mr. Hannon to contend with specific challenges, including racist threats and taunts, disparate terms and conditions of employment, and other forms of discrimination. 123. When Mr. Hannon entered his new workplace in Schenectady, New York, a recent arrival from Jackson, Alabama, Mr. Hannon immediately noticed how few African American employees worked at Super Steel. The small proportion of African Americans in Super Steel’s permanent workforce contrasted sharply with the ethnic make-up of Mr. Hannon’s peer group from Global Manpower, which consisted mainly of African Americans, with one or two white workers among them. 124. Whereas the few white contract workers from Global Manpower were welcomed by the crowd of white permanent employees at Super Steel, Mr. Hannon and his African American counterparts immediately felt singled out for disparate treatment. 125. Specifically, Mr. Hannon found that the white supervisors at Super Steel targeted African American workers for longer hours, more strenuous work, and blame and criticism when things went wrong. 126. The disparate treatment dispensed by white supervisors was amplified by the generally hostile environment in which it took place. Mr. Hannon found that his workday included using a restroom where “KKK” slogans and other racist graffiti were written on the
27

walls, trying to complete assignments on time when white co-workers locked up the tools that he and other African American employees needed to do their work, and trying to ignore the racial slurs and racially hostile attitudes that permeated the workplace.
127. Mr. Hannon heard many white employees use racist language at Super Steel. For example, one of the company’s Leadmen, Ben Rodgers (“Leadman Rodgers”), used the word “nigger” on multiple occasions.
128. Following one such occasion, Mr. Hannon reported Leadman Rodger’s aggressive, racist language to Supervisor Gary Woolard (“Supervisor Woolard”) and Project Manager Todd Thelan (“Project Manager Thelan”). Supervisor Woolard and Project Manager Thelan told Mr. Hannon that they would “take care of it.”
129. The next day, Project Manager Thelan approached Mr. Hannon and assured him that action was being taken with respect to Leadman Rodgers. When Mr. Hannon asked Project Manager Thelan what action, specifically, was being taken, Project Manager Thelan told him that Leadman Rodgers was being written up to the maximum. Project Manager Thelan said that this meant that if Leadman Rodgers had any other write-ups, he would be terminated.
130. However, Mr. Hannon witnessed Leadman Rodgers get written up for another, non-racial incident consequent to this incident. Leadman Rodgers was not fired. When Mr. Hannon asked a friend in the office about Leadman Rodger’s write-ups, Mr. Hannon’s friend checked the records and told Mr. Hannon that Leadman Rodgers was never written up for his racial slurs. Moreover, soon after Supervisor Woolard and Project Manager Thelan met with Leadman Rodgers to discuss his racism, Leadman Rodgers was chosen above other employees to attend a special job skills training in Milwaukee.
131. Mr. Hannon was constantly worried that the racial tension at Super Steel would lead to physical confrontations. He was careful to remain vigilant while working to protect himself from such an eventuality. Given the choice of staying to work at Super Steel and
28

returning home to Alabama to find a new work assignment, Mr. Hannon chose to return to the relative safety of Alabama.
132. As a result of the racial discrimination he experienced at Super Steel, Mr. Hannon suffered extreme harm.
F. CURTIS NELSON 133. Class Representative Curtis Nelson is a resident of Moss Point, Mississippi. Mr. Nelson was contracted to work at Super Steel from approximately June 2004 until August 2004, and from approximately June 2005 until August 2005. Mr. Nelson worked as a Metal Straightener during both of his employment periods at Super Steel. 134. As an employee at Super Steel, Mr. Nelson worked daily in an environment that was rife with racial hostility. As an African American employee at Super Steel, this hostility forced Mr. Nelson to contend with specific challenges, including racist threats and taunts, disparate terms and conditions of employment, and other forms of discrimination. 135. Mr. Nelson compares his arrival at Super Steel to that of a slave being sold at market. His white co-workers treated him with such a degree of disrespect and hostility that he felt as though he had been “ordered up” by this group of white New Yorkers from “some small farm” in Mississippi. His white Supervisors gave him orders as if he was a “boy” that was “not supposed to know any better.” 136. During his employment with Super Steel in the summer of 2005, Mr. Nelson was approached by his brother, Vincent Safford (“Mr. Safford”), who appeared upset. Mr. Safford told Mr. Nelson that Mr. Nelson needed to look at the locker that the brothers shared. When Mr. Nelson went to the locker room, he found that someone had drawn a picture of a person with a noose around his neck on the locker door. This was only one day after Plaintiff Norman Jordan filed a police report about a picture that had been drawn on a train that he was working on of someone hanging by a noose.
29

137. Mr. Nelson immediately reported the incident to the Plant Manager Todd _____ (“Plant Manager Todd”). Plant Manager Todd asked Mr. Nelson to open other lockers to look for more graffiti. Mr. Nelson is aware that similar graffiti was drawn in the locker of at least one other African American. Plant Manager Todd took pictures of the drawings and promised Mr. Nelson that he would “straighten it all out.”
138. However, neither Mr. Nelson nor Mr. Safford was ever informed of any followup. Despite the similarity of the racist graffiti found on that day to the racist graffiti targeted at Mr. Jordan, Super Steel chose not to involve the police in the matter.
139. The racist graffiti on Mr. Nelson’s locker followed a number of daily, race-based indignities that Mr. Nelson had been forced to deal with since he was first contracted to work at Super Steel in 2004. For example, the bathrooms were filled with racist graffiti similar to that which Mr. Nelson found in his locker.
140. In addition, Mr. Nelson’s white co-workers told the African American employees that they could not eat at certain tables, and that they could not smoke or take breaks in certain places. Management did not intervene to prevent the racial segregation.
141. Mr. Nelson found it difficult to protest the forced segregation at Super Steel because there were so few African American workers employed by the company. In fact, throughout Mr. Nelson’s tenure at Super Steel, he saw many black applicants walk through the company, but never saw any of them get hired.
142. Mr. Nelson was also hesitant to raise his concerns because of racism among managerial employees at Super Steel. During the summer of 2005, Mr. Nelson’s Supervisor was Ed _____ (“Supervisor Ed”). Supervisor Ed consistently treated Mr. Nelson in a hostile manner. Supervisor Ed would give Mr. Nelson dirty looks and target him for criticism and harassment. For example, Supervisor Ed told Mr. Nelson that he could not make telephone calls and could not smoke during his break, even though Plant Manager Todd had confirmed that Mr. Nelson could do both of these things. Although Plant Manager Todd was aware of Supervisor Ed’s
30

harassment, Plant Manager Todd never took any steps to stop Supervisor Ed from harassing Mr. Nelson.
143. Near the end of Mr. Nelson’s second term at Super Steel, Hurricane Katrina hit the area where many of the African American contractors working at Super Steel lived in Mississippi. When Mr. Nelson and his co-workers told Super Steel that they needed to leave, management insisted that they stay. As the workers needed to return to their families, they repeated their requests to leave. The workers also asked Super Steel to pay them for the work that they had already completed, so that they would have enough money to get home. Super Steel refused on the grounds that it could not get in contact with the company from which the workers had been contracted. Super Steel refused to negotiate even though the contracting company in Mississippi was unavailable because it was flooded during the hurricane. After pleading with different people in management for some small amount of money, Mr. Nelson finally convinced Plant Manager Todd to give him a small amount to cover some of the transportation costs of returning to Mississippi. Although Mr. Nelson received this small advance on his paycheck, he ultimately returned to Mississippi without his earned, final pay.
144. As a result of the racial discrimination he experienced at Super Steel, Mr. Nelson suffered extreme harm.
G. DAVID CHAMBERS 145. Class Representative David Chambers is a resident of Reserve, Louisiana. Mr. Chambers was contracted to work as a welder at Super Steel from approximately February 2005 until September 2005. 146. As an employee at Super Steel, Mr. Chambers worked daily in an environment that was rife with racial hostility. As an African American employee at Super Steel, this hostility forced Mr. Chambers to contend with specific challenges, including racist threats and taunts, the denial of promotions and other employment opportunities, disparate terms and conditions of employment, and other forms of discrimination.
31

147. In September 2005, Mr. Chambers was terminated with four other African American employees that had been contracted to work at Super Steel, including “Slim” and Nick _____. Mr. Chambers had no advance notice of his termination, as he had always completed his job assignments and was never told of any problems with his work.
148. The African American workers terminated at the same time as Mr. Chambers had arrived at Super Steel only two weeks prior to their terminations. The supervisors terminating these workers claimed that the men did not have the appropriate skills for their jobs. To verify this allegation, the supervisors asked the workers questions relating to fitting. However, fitting was not part of the job description that had brought these African Americans from the South to work at Super Steel. Rather, the terminated employees had been hired as welders. Accordingly, they had taken two tests, one given in Mississippi before they came to Super Steel, and the other given upon arrival at Super Steel, to test their welding skills. They passed both of these tests.
149. On information and belief, white contract employees with similar qualifications as the terminated African American employees were kept on at Super Steel even as the African American employees were fired. Super Steel allowed these white employees the time necessary to learn the skills they needed for the additional responsibilities. In contrast, the terminated African American employees were left without employment and with the expenses of traveling between New York and their home states.
150. Although caught unawares by his termination at Super Steel, Mr. Chambers had faced hostility from various supervisors at the company throughout his employment there. For example, one day when Mr. Chambers and his cousin, Plaintiff Criss Murphy, arrived at work, Supervisor Ed _____ (“Supervisor Ed”) was distributing job assignments. Mr. Chambers and Mr. C. Murphy waited for forty-five minutes while Supervisor Ed assigned jobs to the white employees. After Supervisor Ed finished assigning jobs to the white employees, Supervisor Ed walked away, leaving Mr. Chambers and Mr. C. Murphy in the middle of the plant floor alone.
32

When Mr. Chambers and Mr. C. Murphy realized that Supervisor Ed did not plan to give them work, the two men left.
151. Mr. Chambers and Mr. C. Murphy returned the next day, though only to collect their checks and to quit. On the way to get the checks, Mr. Chambers and Mr. C. Murphy ran into Supervisor Wayne Allen (“Supervisor Allen”) and Supervisor Kevin Harrington (“Supervisor Harrington”). Mr. Chambers and Mr. C. Murphy told the supervisors what had happened. Mr. Chambers and Mr. C. Murphy agreed not to quit after Supervisors Allen and Harrington promised they would talk to Supervisor Ed.
152. However, Supervisor Allen, when distributing job assignments the following day, again left Mr. Chambers standing for thirty-five minutes. When Supervisor Allen was done distributing job assignments to other workers, he approached Mr. Chambers and asked why Mr. Chambers had not left. Mr. Chambers said that he believed that Supervisor Allen would eventually give him work. After this incident, Mr. Chambers was separated from Mr. C. Murphy and transferred to work on the night shift.
153. While working under the command of Supervisor Allen, Mr. Chambers was subjected to various instances of disparate treatment. On one occasion, for example, Mr. Chambers was working hard to complete one of his assigned projects when Supervisor Allen called him away from his work. Supervisor Allen told Mr. Chambers that Mr. Chambers needed to interrupt what he was doing to scrub the paint off of a train that a different group of employees was working on. Mr. Chambers was forced to leave his assigned project to scrub the paint while the white workers who were assigned to finish the train stood around and watched him work.
154. This assignment, like many others given to Mr. Chambers during his employment at Super Steel, did not accord with his position as a welder. Mr. Chambers found that he was often given menial assignments, and often denied opportunities to use and improve his skills as a welder. For example, when work was slow Mr. Chambers asked if he could do some welding
33

on the stainless steel part of the train, which was more interesting work. Mr. Chambers was told that Super Steel had certified people to do that work. When Mr. Chambers brought attention to his own certification, he was told that his certification was not enough.
155. Super Steel promised to get Mr. Chambers the training and related certification that management claimed was needed for the stainless steel welding. In the meantime, the employees who completed the stainless steel welding were all white. Mr. Chambers was never given the promised certification.
156. On another occasion, Mr. Chambers asked to be transferred to the back room, where he would do more welding and less of the fitting and other projects that did not utilize his skills. Most of the employees in the back room were white. Despite Mr. Chambers’ extensive training as a welder, Super Steel refused to transfer him.
157. Mr. Chambers was denied these opportunities, and ultimately terminated, despite his record of good work at Super Steel. Following his termination, Mr. Chambers returned to Louisiana to seek new employment opportunities.
158. As a result of the racial discrimination he experienced at Super Steel, Mr. Chambers suffered extreme harm.
H. HERION MURPHY 159. Plaintiff Herion Murphy is a resident of Marrero, Louisiana. Mr. H. Murphy was hired to work as a Mig Welder at Super Steel in approximately July 2005. Mr. H. Murphy resigned from this position in November 2005. 160. As an employee at Super Steel, Mr. H. Murphy worked daily in an environment that was rife with racial hostility. As an African American employee at Super Steel, this hostility forced Mr. H. Murphy to contend with specific challenges, including racist threats and taunts, disparate terms and conditions of employment, and other forms of discrimination. 161. Mr. H. Murphy traveled from New Orleans, Louisiana to Schenectady, New York for a job at Super Steel in July 2005. He traveled to New York with the understanding that he
34

would be paid $17.50 per hour. When Mr. H. Murphy arrived at Super Steel, he was given a test that was supposed to measure his skills. Following this test, Super Steel assigned Mr. H. Murphy to the lowest tier of workers, and said they were only going to pay him $13.00 per hour.
162. When Mr. H. Murphy asked the managers at Super Steel what the problems with his test were, the managers told him that they would look into it and get back to him. In the meantime, Mr. H. Murphy started work.
163. When Super Steel’s managers finally responded to Mr. H. Murphy, they told him that he was getting paid so little because he could not read blueprints. This was inaccurate. When Mr. H. Murphy demonstrated to the managers that he could read blueprints, he was promised a raise.
164. Meanwhile, Mr. H. Murphy was performing the same work at the same quality as the top ranked employees at Super Steel. Management at Super Steel demonstrated that they were aware of Mr. H. Murphy’s talent by sending the white employees that they hired after and at the same time as Mr. H. Murphy to Mr. H. Murphy for training. While Mr. H. Murphy was training these employees, he was aware that they had been assigned to higher tiers than he was, and, consequently, were getting paid substantially more than he was.
165. Even Mr. H. Murphy’s Foreman, Jim _____ (“Foreman Jim”), supported Mr. H. Murphy in his efforts to get a raise. Foreman Jim expressed disbelief that Mr. H. Murphy was getting paid so little for his work. Mr. H. Murphy raised the issue of his pay with Super Steel at least once a month. Each time, Mr. H. Murphy’s requests that he be paid fairly were put off or rebuffed.
166. Mr. H. Murphy intensified his requests for the promised raise when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans during the summer of 2005. Mr. H. Murphy needed money to send home, and the $13.00 per hour he was making was paltry compared to what he could have been making elsewhere.
35

167. Mr. H. Murphy was willing to stay at Super Steel even if the company only gave him the few extra dollars per hour they had promised, and not the $17.50 that he knew his white trainees were receiving, and which had brought him from Louisiana in the first place. Mr. H. Murphy worked hard and pushed for the money until November, at which time he realized that Super Steel had no intention of paying him the money that he deserved.
168. During his few months at Super Steel, Mr. H. Murphy experienced and witnessed racism throughout the company. Mr. H. Murphy knew of a number of white employees that were openly hostile to African Americans. Some of them would give Mr. H. Murphy and other African Americans hostile looks as they walked by. On one occasion, Mr. H. Murphy saw that someone had written “KKK” and “nigger” on an African American employee’s locker. Similar graffiti was in the bathrooms.
169. When the contract workers came to Super Steel, they greatly increased the number of African Americans at the company. Without them, there were very few African American employees working at Super Steel.
170. Accordingly, Mr. H. Murphy saw that the racism was particularly apparent when directed at this African American group of workers. For example, Mr. H. Murphy frequently heard the African American contract employees being criticized and saw their work being much more closely examined than that of their white counterparts. Mr. H. Murphy’s impression was that Super Steel would fire the African American contract workers for the smallest mistakes. He saw many African American contract workers terminated accordingly. In contrast, Mr. H. Murphy never heard of any white contract employees being terminated.
171. As a result of the racial discrimination he experienced at Super Steel, Mr. H. Murphy suffered extreme harm.
36

I. VINCENT SAFFORD 172. Plaintiff Vincent Safford is a resident of Moss Point, Mississippi. Mr. Safford was contracted from Global Manpower to work at Super Steel as a Heat Straightener in the Integration Department from approximately April 2005 until the end of August 2005. 173. As an employee of Super Steel, Mr. Safford worked daily in an environment that was rife with racial hostility. As an African American employee of Super Steel, this hostility as forced Mr. Safford to contend with specific challenges, including racist threats and taunts, disparate terms and conditions of employment, and other forms of discrimination. 174. As a fifty-year-old African American male, born and raised in Mississippi, Mr. Safford never experienced the type of blatant racism that he found at Super Steel in Schenectady, New York. Being one of only a limited number of African American employees was not in itself a problem for Mr. Safford; he had attended predominantly white schools in Mississippi as a “test case” in the 1960s, beginning when he was in the fifth grade. 175. What became a problem for Mr. Safford was the fact that he was one of a small minority of African American employees in an environment permeated by racism. Racism appeared in the graffiti of nooses and racial slurs about “niggers” in the bathrooms, on the walls in some of the working areas, and in the locker room. Mr. Safford found racism in the hostile manner of his white co-workers, who made the work of Mr. Safford and his African American peers more difficult and unpleasant. Mr. Safford confronted racism when his white supervisors treated him and other African American employees more harshly and more critically than their white co-workers. 176. Recognizing this racism, Mr. Safford made a concerted effort to keep a low profile, not cause any trouble, and stay out of everyone’s way. He wanted to do his work, complete his contract, and return to Mississippi.
37

177. Despite Mr. Safford’s efforts to avoid the racism, he was confronted directly by it in July 2005. During this time, Mr. Safford returned from getting a snack to find that someone had drawn a picture on his locker of a black man hanging from a rope around his neck.
178. Mr. Safford went immediately to tell his brother, Plaintiff Curtis Nelson, with whom he shared the locker, about the drawing. Mr. Safford then reported the incident to Plant Manager Todd _____ (“Plant Manager Todd”), who took pictures of the drawing, told everyone to leave the locker room, and then spray-painted over it. Mr. Safford was told that the company was going to investigate to find out who had drawn the graffiti. To Mr. Safford’s knowledge, no follow-up action was taken.
179. It was difficult for Mr. Safford to guess who drew the picture of the hanging man. He felt hostility from many of his white co-workers, despite his conscious efforts to avoid trouble. For example, Mr. Safford did not take his breaks near the picnic tables because it was clear that the white workers that were usually there did not want African Americans to come around.
180. Mr. Safford found his instinct to avoid the picnic tables worthwhile when he learned that one African American that did take a break there, Bobby Fairly (“Mr. Fairly”), ended up in a fight with a white worker, Mark _____. Mark punched Mr. Fairly in the face.
181. Following that altercation, Mr. Safford told Supervisor Ed _____ (“Supervisor Ed”) that he needed some safety glasses for his work. Supervisor Ed told Mr. Safford to get the glasses that were left on the bench by Mr. Fairly after the fight. The glasses were bent and scratched. Laughing, Supervisor Ed told Mr. Safford that he could use the glasses if he could fix them.
182. Supervisor Ed was close friends with Mark. After Mark and Mr. Fairly were fired, Mr. Safford saw Mark on Super Steel property talking with Ed and other white Super Steel employees, even though Mark was not supposed to be on Super Steel’s premises because he had been terminated.
38

183. Mr. Safford experienced Supervisor Ed being hostile towards African American workers in a number of ways. For example, Supervisor Ed would always nitpick the work of Mr. Safford and other African American employees, and blame them for any problems with production. Supervisor Ed would also try to find extra work to make the African American employees do.
184. Supervisor Ed’s criticisms of the African American employees were echoed by Mr. Safford’s white co-workers. These co-workers said that Mr. Safford and his African American co-workers were not doing their work properly, and accused them of not finishing their work. Mr. Safford’s white co-workers would say this even though the African American contract employees were working longer hours than the white employees to finish the projects that they were given.
185. If Mr. Safford had another option, he would have chosen to leave the racism at Super Steel. However, Mr. Safford was far from home and he had to work. He also felt a responsibility to complete his contract. Consequently, Mr. Safford endured the racism at Super Steel until his contract expired in September 2005. At that time, he returned to Mississippi.
186. As a result of the racial discrimination he experienced at Super Steel, Mr. Safford suffered extreme harm.
CLASS COUNT
COUNT I (Class Representatives and Class Members) VIOLATIONS OF § 1981
RACIALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (African-American Plaintiffs Against Defendant) 187. African-American Class Representatives re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein. 188. This Count is brought on behalf of African-American Class Representatives and African-American members of the class.
39

189. Defendant has denied African-American Class Representatives and members of the class the same right to make and enforce contracts as enjoyed by white citizens employed by Super Steel, including rights involving the making, performance, modification and termination of contracts with Defendants, as well as the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of that relationship, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C § 1981, as amended.
190. In the employment practices described above, Defendant intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of African-American Class Representatives and the class, entitling Class Representatives and the class to punitive damages.
191. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct persistent throughout the employment of African-American Class Representatives and members of the class, Class Representatives and the class are entitled to application of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations alleged herein.
192. Defendant’s conduct in violation of § 1981 has injured and damaged the AfricanAmerican Class Representatives and the class.
193. African-American Class Representatives and the class have suffered and continue to suffer harm, including, but not limited to, lost earnings, lost benefits and other financial loss, as well as humiliation, embarrassment, emotional and physical distress and mental anguish.
194. By reason of Defendant’s discrimination, African-American Class Representatives and the class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of § 1981, including an award of punitive damages.
195. Attorneys’ fees should be awarded under § 1981, et seq. 196. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy of law to redress the wrongs alleged herein and this suit for backpay, an injunction, and a declaratory judgment is their only means of securing adequate equitable relief. The Plaintiffs
40

and the Class Members are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from the defendant=s unlawful policies and practices as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ON CLASS CLAIMS
197. Wherefore, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class members whom they seek to represent, request the following relief:
a. Acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause; b. Certification of the case as a class action maintainable under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 (a) and (b)(2), on behalf of the proposed Plaintiff class, and designation of the Plaintiffs as representatives of the class and their counsel of record as class counsel; c. A declaratory judgment that Defendant Super Steel’s employment practices challenged herein are illegal and in violation of Section One of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981; d. A temporary and permanent injunction against Defendant Super Steel and its partners, officers, owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in any further unlawful practices, policies, customs and usages by Defendant Super Steel set forth herein; e. An Order requiring Defendant Super Steel to initiate and implement programs that (i) remedy the racially hostile work environment at Super Steel; (ii) ensure prompt, remedial action regarding all claims of racial harassment; (iii) eliminate the continuing effects of the discriminatory and retaliatory practices described above; f. An Order establishing a task force on equality and fairness to determine the effectiveness of the programs described in (e) and (f), above, which would provide for (i) the monitoring, reporting and retaining of jurisdiction to ensure equal employment opportunity, (ii) the assurance that injunctive relief is properly implemented, and (iii) a quarterly report setting
41

forth information relevant to the determination of the effectiveness of the programs described in
(e) and (f), above;
g. Nominal damages;
h. Compensatory damages, in an amount not less than $25,000,000.00;
i. Punitive damages, in an amount not less than $150,000,000.00;
j. An award of litigation costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s
fees to the Plaintiffs and class members;
k. Prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and
l. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
VIII. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
198. Plaintiffs and class demand a trial by jury of all issues.
Respectfully submitted this 18th day of April, 2006.
__S/___________________________________ David Sanford, D.C. Bar No. 457933 Laura Fentonmiller, D.C. Bar No. 450813 Shayna Bloom, MD Bar Janette Wipper, D.C. Bar No. 467313 SANFORD, WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 2121 K Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 942-9124 Facsimile: (202) 628-8189
Steven Wittels, (SLW-8110) Jeremy Heisler, (JH-0145) SANFORD, WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 950 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 723-2947 Facsimile: (646) 723-2948
42

Grant Morris, D.C. Bar No. 926253 LAW OFFICES OF GRANT E. MORRIS 2121 K Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 661-3510 Facsimile: (202) 628-8189 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
43

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALBANY DIVISION

CRISS MURPHY, NORMAN JORDAN, )

ANDINO WARD, EDDIE BARNES, JR., )

PAUL HANNON, CURTIS NELSON,

)

DAVID CHAMBERS, HERION

)

MURPHY, and VINCENT SAFFORD, )

Individually and on Behalf of Others

)

Similarly Situated,

)

)

PLAINTIFFS,

)

v.

)

)

SUPER STEEL SCHENECTADY, INC., )

)

DEFENDANT.

)

)

)

CASE NO. 06-CV-00480-GLS-DRH

PROPOSED ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE CLASS SETTLEMENT
WHEREAS, this matter having been opened to the Court by plaintiff CRISS MURPHY, ET AL., by SANFORD, WITTELS, & HEISLER, LLP, counsel for plaintiff and the class, by application for an order preliminarily approving the settlement of the above captioned class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which, together with the consent decree and appendices annexed thereto sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of the Action; and the Defendant SUPER STEEL SCHENECTADY, INC. (hereafter “SSSI”) having appeared by its counsel, KAUFMAN BORGEEST & RYAN LLP, and joined in the application;
WHEREAS, the parties and their attorneys have entered into a Consent Decree (hereafter “Settlement Agreement” or “Consent Decree”), as revised and submitted to the Court dated January 19, 2007, in which the parties have agreed upon a settlement of the Action, subject to the final approval of the Court as to the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement which, if approved at a fairness hearing, will result in dismissal of the Action with prejudice.
NOW, THEREFORE, upon reviewing the Settlement Agreement, including the appendices attached thereto, and upon reviewing all prior proceedings herein, and upon application of the parties based on the record.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to the right of any Class Member to challenge the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement and to show cause, if any exists, why a final judgment dismissing the Action and all Released Claims and awarding compensation to Class Counsel,

should not be entered after due and adequate notice to the Class and after a hearing on final approval.
2. The Class is preliminarily certified pursuant to the Settlement Agreement as follows: all African Americans individuals who have been employed by or provided contract services to SSSI, at any time, or for any length of time, during the liability period.
3. A hearing (the “Fairness Hearing”) shall be held before this Court on ___________, 2007 at ____ a.m., at the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, James T. Foley – U.S. Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207, before the Honorable Gary L. Sharpe, to determine whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); whether the Judgment as provided in the Settlement should be entered herein; and to determine the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses that should be awarded to Class Counsel.
4. The Court approves, as to form and manner of notice, the Notice of Settlement (the “Notice”) and the Claim Form, annexed to the Settlement Agreement. Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c), the Notice will include a) the Consent Decree’s provisions that a class member may request exclusion from the monetary relief of the settlement within forty-five (45) days of the date Notice was mailed, b) that the class member may enter an appearance through counsel, c) that the class judgment will have a binding effect on class members, and d) the date, time, and location of the Fairness Hearing. The parties are directed to mail such Notice and Claim Form to the Class within 10 days after the Court enters this Order.
5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715(a) and (b), no later than ten (10) days from January 25, 2007, SSSI shall serve upon an appropriate state official, as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1715(a)(2), notice of the proposed class action settlement and the materials listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b). SSSI shall provide both the Court and plaintiffs’ counsel with proof of such service no later than March 1, 2007.
6. The Court reserves the right to adjourn the date of the Fairness Hearing without further notice to the Class Members, and retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of or connected with the proposed Settlement Agreement. The Court may approve the Settlement Agreement, with such modifications as may be agreed to by the settling parties, if appropriate, without further notice to the Class.
7. As of the date hereof, all discovery and other proceedings in the Action are stayed until further order of this Court, except as may be necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
_____________________________________ Hon. Gary L. Sharpe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January ___, 2007
2

 
 01/24/2007 19:48 FAX

lji] 003/004

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALBANY DIVISION

CRISS MURPHY, NORMAN JORDAN, )

ANDINO WARD, EDDIE BARNES, JR., )

PAUL HANNON, CURTIS NELSON,

)

DAVID CHAMBERS, HERION

)

MURPHY, and VINCENT S.t\FFORD, )

Individually ahd on Behalf of Others

)

Similarly Situated,

)

)

PLAINTIFFS,

)

~

)

)

SUPER STEEL SCHENECTADY, INC., )

)

DEFENDANT.

)

__________________________

)
)

CASE NO. 06-CV-00480-GLS-DRH

PROPOSED ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING mE CLASS SETTLEM,ENT
WHEREAS, this matter having been opened to the Court by plaintiff CRISS MURPHY, ET AL., by SANFORD, WITIELS, & HEISLER, LLP, counsel for plaintiff and the class, by application for an order preliminarily approving the settlement of the above captione:d class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which, together with the consent decree and appendices annexed thereto sets forth the terms and conditiom for a proposed settlement of the Action; and the Defendant SUPER STEEL SCHENECTADY, INC. (hereafter "SSSI") having appeared by its counsel, KAUFMAN BORGEEST & RYA\1 LLP, and joined in the application;
WHEREAS, the parties and their attorneys have entered into a Consent Decree (h1::reafter "Settlement Agreement" or "Consent Decree"), as revised and submitted to the Cowt dated January 19, 2007, in which the parties have agreed upon a settlement of the Action, suoject to the final approval of the Court as to the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement which, if approved at a fairness hearing, will result in dismissal of the Acti1>n with prejudice.
NOW, THEREFORE, upon reviewing the Settlement Agreement, including the appendices attached thereto, and upon reviewing all prior proceedings herein, and upon application of the parties based on the record
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
I. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to the right of any Class Member to challenge the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy ofthe Settlement Agreement and to show cause, if any exists, why a fmal judgment dismissing the Action and all Released Claims and awarding compensation to Class C:ounseL

01/24/2007 19:49 FAX

!gJ 004/004

should not be entered after due and adequate notice to the Class and after a hearing on final approval.
2. The Class is preliminarily certified pursuant to the Settlement Agreement as follCiws: all African Americans individuals who have been employed by or provided contract senices to SSSI, at any time, or for any length oftime, during the liability period.
A 3. A hearing (the "Fairness Hearing") shall be held before this Court on Pn I 2L_,
2007 at I i..30 p.m, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York,
James T. Foley - U.S. Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207, before the Ho::Jorable Gary L. Sharpe, to determine whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); whether the Judgment as provided in the Settlement should be entered herein; and to determine the amount of attorneys' fE:es and expenses that should be awarded to Class Counsel.
4. The Court approves, as to form and manner of notice, the Notice of Settlement (the "Notice'') and the Claim Form, annexed to the Settlement Agreement. Consistent with :Fed. R Civ. P. 23(c), the Notice will include a) the Consent Decree's provisions that a class member may request exclusion from the monetary relief of the settlement within forty-five (45) days of the date Notice was mailed, b) that the class member may enter an appearance through counsel, c) that the class judgment will have a binding effect on class members, and d) the date, time, and location of the Fairness Hearing. The parties are directed to mail such Notice and Claim Form to the Class within I 0 days after the Court enters this Order.
5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715(a) and (b), no later than ten (10) days from Janu:uy 25, 2007, SSSI shall serve upon an appropriate state official, as defined by 28 U.S. C. § l715(a)(2), notice of the proposed class action settlement and the materials listed in 28 U.S.C. § I '715(b). SSSI shall provide both the Court and plaintiffs' counsel with proof of such service no later than March I, 2007.
6. The Court reserves the right to adjourn the date of the Fairness Hearing without further notice to the Class Members, and retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of or connected with the proposed Settlement Agreement. The Court may apprc: ve the Settlement Agreement, with such modifications as may be agreed to by the settling pwties, if appropriate, without further notice to the Class.
7. As of the date hereo:f; all discovery and other proceedings in the Action are stayf:d until further order of this Court, except as may be necessary to implement the Settlement Agref:ment.

HOI).
UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January ~ 2007

2

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 22 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 1

CASE NAME:

MOTION HEARING MINUTES

Criss Murphy, et al.

VS Super Steel Schenectady, Inc.

CAUSE: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

DATE: April 23, 2007

PROCEEDING: LAW CLERKS:

Final Fairness Hearing CASE NUMBER: 1:06-cv-480 (GLS/DRH)

TRIAL DATE: **/**/** STENO: Theresa Casal

Note: None

PRINT NAME

FIRM NAME

PHONE #

Janette L. Wipper, Esq. Sanford, Wittels Law Firm (646) 723-2459

David Sanford, Esq. Sanford, Wittels Law Firm (646) 723-2459

Joan M. Gilbride, Esq. Kaufman, Borgeest Law Firm

(914) 741-6100

PARTY: Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Defendant

BEGINNING TIME: 1:55 P.M.

END TIME: 2:00 P.M,

APPEARANCES:. All attorney’s are present.

1:55 p.m.
1:55 p.m. 1:56 p.m. 1:56 p.m. 1:57 p.m.

Atty. Sanford states no opt outs or no objections; received 32 letters to opt in out of 100 notices that were sent. Court discusses proposed order which is docket number 21. Atty. Gilbride states no opposition. Court adopts the proposed order and intends to enter the judgment. Court will enter judgment accordingly.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALBANY DIVISION

CRISS MURPHY, NORMAN

)

JORDAN, ANDINO WARD, EDDIE )

BARNES, JR., PAUL HANNON,

)

CURTIS NELSON, DAVID

)

CHAMBERS, DENNIS COLEMAN, )

HERION MURPHY, and VINCENT )

SAFFORD, Individnally and

)

on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

SUPER STEEL SCHENECTADY,

)

INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

CASE NO. 06-CV-0480
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

WHEREAS, this matter comes before the Court on the joint request of Plaintiffs Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr., Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, and Vincent Safford and a class of persons similarly situated ("Class Representatives" or "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Super Steel Schenectady, Inc. ("Defendant" or "SSSI"), for (a) final approval of the Settlement of this case as memorialized in the Consent Decree (the "Agreement"), dated December 22, 2006, and (b) entry of a Judgment and Order dismissing this action with prejudice; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into the Agreement to settle this Class Action; and
WHEREAS, the Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order, dated January 25, 2007, preliminarily certifying the proposed Class for settlement purposes under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 23, ordering Notice to Class Members, and scheduling a Fairness Hearing for April 23, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed and considered the proposed Agreement, the submissions of the parties in support thereto, and held oral argument at the Fairness Hearing in this matter on April 23, 2007,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: I. Definitions. For the purposes of this Order, the Court adopts by reference the definitions set forth in the "Definitions" section of the Agreement. 2. Class Action Requirements. The Court finds that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a)(b)(2), and (b)(3) have been met, in that:
A. The Settlement Class is so numerous that the joinder of all members is impracticable;
B. There are questions oflaw or fact common to the Settlement Class, which questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.
C. The Settlement Class Representative's claims are typical of the other Settlement Class Members' claims;
D. The Settlement Class Representative and Settlement Class Counsel have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Settlement Class and absent Settlement Class members. The Settlement Class Representatives retained counsel experienced in bringing class action and civil rights litigation;
E. The settlement class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy; and
2

F. The party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief or declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
3. Certification of Settlement Class. The requirements ofFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 having been met, the Court certifies the following Settlement Class for the purpose of effectuating the Settlement: all African-American individuals who have been employed by or provided contract services to SSSI, at any time, or for any length of time, from April2003 to January 25, 2007.
4. Notice. The Court finds that dissemination of the Notice as provided for in the Preliminary Approval Order, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to potential Settlement Class Members and complied fully with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, any and all substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and any other applicable law.
5. Final Approval of the Agreement. The Court finds that the proposed Agreement is APPROVED as fair, reasonable, and adequate, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(l)C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further finds that each and every term, provision, condition, and agreement of the Agreement, including all exhibits and amendments thereto, apply and are adopted, incorporated, and made part of this Judgment, as if copied herein in extenso and shall be effective, implemented, and enforced as provided in the Agreement.
6. Equitable Relief. Defendant SSSI shall effect, implement, and enforce all equitable relief provided for in the General Equitable Provisions described in Section X, A-F of the Agreement.
3

7. Monetazy Relief. Defendant shall pay $250,000 to class representatives

Criss Murphy and Norman Jordan. Defendant shall pay the following amounts to the

following class representatives and/or class members:

Name Larry Marshall Dennis Coleman Andino Ward Eddie Barnes, Jr. Paul Hannon Curtis Nelson David Chambers Herion Murphy Vincent Safford Wayne Zimmerman Eddie Stewart

Monetary Amount $35,000 $35,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $25,000 $25,000

Defendant shall pay a common benefit fee in the amount of$105,000 for the benefit of class members qualified for monetary relief in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
8. Jurisdiction. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, the Settlement Class Representatives, the other Settlement Class Members, and the Defendant. Without affecting the finality of the Judgment, the Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction and venue with respect to the consummation, implementation, enforcement, construction, interpretation, performance, and administration of the Agreement and/or Judgment.
9. Attorneys' Fees. Costs and Expenses. The Court awards to Settlement Class Counsel, Attorneys' Fees and total costs and expenses in the amount of $444,000.00, which amount the Court finds is fair, adequate and reasonable. This amount shall be paid by Defendant SSSI within ten (1 0) days after the Final Approval Date as defined in Section IV of the Agreement.
13. Dismissal With Prejudice. The Court finds that the Class Action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE upon the Final Approval Date as defined in Section IV

4

of the Consent Decree, 14. Entry ofJudgment. There being no just reason to delay entry of this
Judgment, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to enter this Judgment forthwith pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED this 23~ay of April, 2007.

. c COx;L. s~

Honorable Judge Gary Sharpe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALBANY DIVISION

CRISS MURPHY, NORMAN JORDAN, )

ANDINO WARD, EDDIE BARNES, JR., )

PAUL HANNON, CURTIS NELSON,

)

DAVID CHAMBERS, DENNIS

)

COLEMAN, HERION MURPHY, and

)

VINCENT SAFFORD,

)

)

Individually and on Behalf of Others

)

Similarly Situated,

)

)

PLAINTIFFS,

)

)

)

)

- against -

)

)

SUPER STEEL SCHENECTADY, INC., )

)

DEFENDANT.

)

Case File No.: 06-CV-00480-GLS-DRH
CONSENT DECREE

I. INTRODUCTION
This Consent Decree has been entered into by and between Named Plaintiffs, Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr., Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, and Vincent Safford, on behalf of themselves individually and the Settlement Class and Super Steel Schenectady, Inc. (“SSSI” also referred to as the “Company”) (collectively the “parties”). This Decree fully and finally resolves in every respect this civil action filed by Named Plaintiffs, individually against SSSI, Civil Action Number 06-CV-00480 (GLS/DRH) (“the Alleged Class Action”). In addition, the provisions of this Decree fully and finally resolve in every respect any and all Charges of Discrimination filed by and/or submitted by Named Plaintiffs, Larry Marshall and Dennis Coleman with the New York State Division of Human Rights and/or the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Charges”) bearing Charge Numbers as follows:

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 26

Name Eddie Barnes David Chambers Dennis Coleman Paul Hannon Norman Jordan Larry Marshall Criss Murphy Herion Murphy Vincent Safford Curtis Nelson Andino Ward

SDHR No. 10112612 10112631 10112619 10112633 10107591 10112748 10112632 10112629 10112754 10112759 10112758

EEOC No. 16GA603723 16GA603738 16GA603728 16GA603739 NONE 16GA603825 16GA603736 16GA603735 16GA603829 16GA603839 16GA603838

In addition, the provisions of this Decree fully and finally resolve in every respect any and all potential claims that might have been asserted by Wayne Zimmerman and Eddie Stewart, former employees of SSSI.

II. PURPOSES OF THE CONSENT DECREE

The parties have entered into this Consent Decree for the following purposes: A. To resolve all disputes covered by this Consent Decree in such a way as to avoid further expensive and protracted litigation; B. To further SSSI’s continuing commitment to equal employment opportunity for African-American individuals working at SSSI; C. To increase the understanding and awareness of African-Americans working at SSSI concerning internal complaint procedures for handling complaints alleging Race Discrimination. D. To create an expedited procedure for distributing a monetary settlement to eligible members of the Settlement Class, and for implementing equitable relief pursuant to the terms of this Decree; and

2

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 26
E. To provide finality to the resolution of all claims and defenses asserted in the Alleged Class Action and the Charges.
III. DEFINITIONS
The following terms, when used in this Decree, in addition to the terms defined elsewhere in the Decree, shall have the following meanings:
A. "Approval Date" means the date upon which the Court signs this Decree, after having determined that it is fair, adequate and reasonable to the Class as a whole, after: (i) notice to the Class; (ii) an opportunity to opt out of the Settlement Class with respect to monetary relief; (iii) an opportunity to submit timely objections to the Decree; (iv) appropriate discovery of the specifics of any such timely objections; and (v) a hearing on the fairness of the settlement.
B. "Best Efforts" means implementing a plan reasonably designed to comply with the specified objectives to which the best efforts are directed.
C. "Settlement Class" is defined in Section VII of this Decree. D. "Class Counsel" means Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, LLP, and Law Offices of Grant E. Morris. E. “Class Representatives” means Eddie Barnes, Jr., David Chambers, Paul Hannon, Norman Jordan, Criss Murphy, Herion Murphy, Curtis Nelson, Vincent Safford, and Andino Ward. F. "Court" means the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. G. "Final Approval" means the signing of this Decree on the Approval Date by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. H. "Final Approval Date" is the date upon which Final Approval of this Decree is attained and any time for appeal of that Decree has expired. I. "Race Discrimination" or "Discriminating on the basis of Race" means unlawful discrimination against employees on the basis of their race and/or color, including, but not limited to, retaliation against an employee because he or she has opposed practices he or she believes in good faith to constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and/or color, or has participated in processes designed to obtain relief for alleged unlawful discrimination on the
3

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 4 of 26
basis of race and/or color. In addition, for all purposes of this Decree, "Race Discrimination" and "Discriminating on the basis of Race" also shall include: (1) racial harassment; (2) retaliation for opposing or complaining about alleged racial harassment; and/or (3) retaliation for participating in a process designed to obtain relief for alleged racial harassment.
J. "Liability Period" means the period between the Commencement Date for class members and the Preliminary Approval Date.
K. "Preliminary Approval Date" means the date upon which the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving this Decree, pending notice, setting an opportunity to opt out of the Settlement Class or submit objections to the Decree, and scheduling a fairness hearing thereon. That date is__________________, 2007.
L. "Term of this Consent Decree" is the period from the Final Approval Date until the expiration of the Decree pursuant to Section VI of this Decree.
M. "Commencement Date" shall mean the date which commences the statute of limitations period for Settlement Class members who reside in New York.
N. “Individually Identified Recipients” of monetary relief are those members of the Settlement Class, including the Class Representatives.
IV. LITIGATION BACKGROUND
On April 18, 2006, nine African-American former or current employees of SSSI filed the aforementioned Action, a lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of New York, brought under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended ("Section 1981"), asserting individual complaints of allegedly unlawful Discrimination on the basis of Race against them by SSSI.
In September 2005, Named Plaintiff Norman Jordan filed a Charge of Discrimination with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“SDHR”). SSSI responded to this Charge. To date, there has been no Determination by the SDHR regarding said Charge. Subsequently, all other Named Plaintiffs and two putative class members, Dennis Coleman and Larry Marshall, filed Charges of Discrimination with the SDHR, which may have been submitted to the EEOC. These Charges are currently pending and will be withdrawn upon the approval of this Consent Decree.
4

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 5 of 26
Prior to filing the Alleged Class Action, Class Counsel conducted an extensive investigation of suspected problem areas, as identified to them by the Class Representatives. The Class Representatives, Class Counsel and SSSI believe that the extensive investigation conducted by Class Counsel is sufficient to assess adequately the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective parties' class certification and merits positions, and to compromise the fundamental issues on a fair and equitable basis. As indicated by the signature of Class Counsel and counsel for SSSI at the end of this document, Named Plaintiffs and SSSI have consented to the entry of this Decree.
V. JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. Although the Court has no basis upon which to judge the merits of the Alleged Class Action, the Complaint asserts claims that, if proven, would authorize the Court to grant the equitable and monetary relief set forth in this Consent Decree. Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during the duration of the Decree solely for the purpose of entering any orders authorized hereunder which may be necessary to implement the relief provided herein.
VI. EFFECTIVE DATES AND DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE
A. Unless provided otherwise, the equitable provisions in this Decree are effective upon the Final Approval Date, although SSSI has expressed its intent to implement many of the items of equitable relief provided for herein as promptly as reasonably possible, notwithstanding that the approval of this Decree may still be pending.
B. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions of this Decree and the agreements contained herein shall remain in effect for two (2) years following the Final Approval Date. Unless earlier terminated by the Court for good cause shown by SSSI, or extended pursuant to Section IX(C)(2), this Decree shall expire without further action by the parties at midnight on the second anniversary of the Final Approval Date.
5

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 6 of 26

VII.

SETTLEMENT CLASS

A. For purposes of the monetary relief provided in this Decree, the Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and consists of all AfricanAmerican individuals who have been employed by or provided contract services to SSSI, at any time, or for any length of time, during the Liability Period. A member of the Settlement Class for purposes of monetary relief shall be entitled to a monetary award hereunder if he or she is either an Individually Identified Recipient of monetary relief or has submitted a verified claim on the form set forth in Appendix I demonstrating that he or she has a valid claim under the procedure and standards set forth in Section XI(A)(8)-(13) hereof.
B. For purposes of the equitable and declaratory relief provided for under this Decree, the Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and consists of all African-American individuals who have been employed by SSSI, at any time, and for any length of time, between the Commencement Date and the expiration of this Decree.
C. The Settlement Class for purposes of monetary relief closes on the Preliminary Approval Date. All African-Americans first hired by SSSI after the Preliminary Approval Date may avail themselves of the equitable relief provided pursuant to the Decree, but shall not be entitled to any portion of the monetary relief provided hereunder.
D. In the event that Final Approval of this Decree is not attained, nothing herein shall be deemed to waive any of SSSI’s objections and defenses, including but not limited to objections to class certification, and neither this Decree nor the Court's preliminary or provisionally final approval hereof shall be admissible in any court regarding the propriety of class certification or regarding any other issue or subject.

VIII.

RELEASE OF CLAIMS

A. Scope of Judicial Release 1. Release of Claims by Members of the Settlement Class
Upon Final Approval of the Decree, SSSI, Super Steel Products Corp. (“SSP”) and all of their respective directors, officers, managers, agents, employees, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns, and anyone acting in concert with or behalf of any of them, shall be fully released

6

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 7 of 26
and forever discharged from any and all individual and/or class-wide claims, demands, charges, complaints, rights and causes of action of any kind, known or unknown, by the Class Representatives, by the Settlement Class, and by each member of the Settlement Class, whether seeking monetary and/or equitable relief of any sort, which arise out of or are related to any matter, cause or thing whatsoever based on, arising out of, resulting from, or in any way connected, directly or indirectly with their employment or termination of employment with SSSI, expressly including, but not limited to, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991 as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1981, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, the New York State Executive Law, the New York City Administrative Code or under any other federal, state or local, civil or human rights law; or in contract, tort or equity, as all such laws may be amended rules and/or regulations, constitutions, ordinances, public policy, and any claim arising under common law, or any claim for costs, fees, or other expenses, including attorney fees, disbursements, and court costs incurred in the above actions. This includes but is not limited to (a) any conduct within the Liability Period allegedly constituting Race Discrimination (as defined above), whether under Title VII, § 1981, the New York State Executive Law, and/or any other law prohibiting such alleged conduct, whether statutory, pursuant to local ordinance, or at common law; (b) any conduct within the Liability Period allegedly constituting negligent misrepresentation, fraud, detrimental reliance, promissory estoppel or breach of contract. This release is final and shall survive the expiration of the Decree's term.
2. Release of Claims by Class Representatives and Other Individually Identified Recipients
Upon Final Approval of the Decree, for and in consideration of the mutual promises, terms and conditions by and between SSSI and the Class Representatives and other Individually Identified Recipients of monetary relief pursuant to Section XI(A) hereof, the sufficiency of which consideration is expressly acknowledged, the Class Representatives and all such other Individually Identified Recipients, do hereby fully, finally and forever release and discharge SSSI, SSP, and all of their respective directors, officers, managers, agents, employees, attorneys, insurers, successors and/or assigns, and anyone acting in concert with or on behalf of them, of and from any and all past and/or present claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, damages, liabilities, assessments, judgments, costs, losses, debts, obligations and expenses, of any and every nature whatsoever, whether or not known, allegedly incurred by such individual,
7

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 8 of 26
whether because of allegedly unlawful Race Discrimination (as defined above), or because of any other allegedly unlawful, tortious or wrongful actions by SSSI, SSP, and/or any of the other persons and entities released herein, of any type whatsoever, including but not limited to those arising in any way out of the alleged facts, circumstances and occurrences underlying those allegations of: (a) violations of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1981 which were asserted or which might have been asserted by or on behalf of these individuals either in the original complaint or in any and all subsequent amended complaints in the Alleged Class Action, and/or in any and all charges of discrimination filed against SSSI or SSP by some or all of these individuals with the EEOC or any other agency; (b) violations of the New York State Executive Law or any other state laws prohibiting Race Discrimination, or any other law prohibiting such alleged conduct, whether statutory, pursuant to local ordinance, or at common law; and/or (c) negligent misrepresentation, fraud, detrimental reliance, promissory estoppel, or breach of contract which arise out of or are related to any matter, cause or thing whatsoever based on, arising out of, resulting from, or in any way connected, directly or indirectly with their employment or termination of employment with SSSI. This release is final and shall survive the expiration of the Decree's term.
B. No Bar to Future Claims Nothing in the Decree shall be construed to bar any claims of members of the Settlement Class, the Class Representatives or any of the other Individually Identified Recipients of monetary relief based on or arising out of events occurring after the Preliminary Approval Date. C. Opt-Out Process
1. Pursuant to the Court approval process for this Decree, Settlement Class members shall be provided an opportunity to opt out of the monetary relief provisions of this Decree by submitting to the Court within a specified period of time a "Request to Opt Out." Each Settlement Class member who properly submits a timely Request to Opt Out, or for any other reason is permitted by the Court to opt out of the monetary relief provisions of this Decree, shall be excluded from all monetary relief provisions hereunder, and from the Judicial Release pursuant to Section VIII (A) hereof; all such individuals hereinafter shall be referred to in this Decree as a "Timely Opt Out."
2. Any Class Representative or other Individually Identified Recipient of monetary relief pursuant to Section XI who becomes a Timely Opt Out shall forfeit his or her
8

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 9 of 26

identified settlement amount, as set forth on in Section XI(A) hereof, and that amount shall revert immediately to SSSI.
3. Any other Settlement Class member who becomes a Timely Opt Out shall receive no monetary relief hereunder. In the event that any Named Plaintiff, Larry Marshall, Dennis Coleman, Wayne Zimmerman or Eddie Stewart become Timely Opt Outs, then SSSI shall have the unilateral right to abrogate this Consent Decree, and the settlement underlying it, by delivering notice of such abrogation to Class Counsel and the Court within thirty days following the Court-established deadline for Settlement Class members to submit a timely Request to Opt Out. (This deadline for SSSI to unilaterally abrogate this Consent Decree will be extended fifteen (15) days further following the fairness hearing established by the Court if the Court permits any Settlement Class member to be deemed a Timely Opt Out even though that Settlement Class member failed to submit a timely Request to Opt Out.) In the event that SSSI exercises its unilateral right to abrogate this Consent Decree, if any such right arises, then all aspects of this Consent Decree and the settlement underlying it, including but not limited to the provisional certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, shall be altogether null and void, and no aspect thereof shall serve either as any legal precedent or as any basis for legal or factual argument, in this or any other case.
4. SSSI shall not be required to pay any sum under this Consent Decree until, at the earliest, the Opt Out period has expired including any additional time allowed by the Court for such Opt Outs.

IX.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

A. Calculation of Time In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this Decree, unless otherwise stated, such computation or calculation shall be made consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) as it exists at the time at issue. B. No Admission of Liability This Decree represents the compromise of disputed Claims that the parties recognize would require protracted and costly litigation to determine. SSSI denies it has engaged in any policy, pattern or practice of unlawful Race Discrimination, and SSSI’s entry into this Decree is

9

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 10 of 26
not, and may not be used by any person or entity as, an admission or evidence supporting class certification in any putative class action, and/or an admission or evidence that SSSI has on any occasion engaged in Race Discrimination or any other discriminatory employment practices, such being expressly denied. SSSI has voluntarily entered into this Decree in order to terminate the Alleged Class Action and the Charges and because the actions SSSI has agreed to undertake demonstrate SSSI’s strong commitment to equal employment opportunity and diversity.
C. Modification and Severability of the Consent Decree 1. Whenever possible, each provision and term of this Decree shall be
interpreted in such a manner as to be valid and enforceable; provided, however, that in the event that after Final Approval hereof any provision or term of this Decree should be determined to be or rendered unenforceable on collateral review, all other provisions and terms of this Decree and the application thereof to all persons and circumstances subject thereto shall remain unaffected to the extent permitted by law. If any application of any provision or term of this Decree to any specific person or circumstance should be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the application of such provision or term to other persons or circumstances shall remain unaffected to the extent permitted by law.
2. Class Counsel and SSSI may jointly agree to modify the Decree, as may be necessary to fully effectuate its purposes while allowing SSSI to appropriately adapt its operations to changing circumstances. In the event of such a modification, Class Counsel and SSSI shall notify the Court, but formal Court approval of such modifications is not required.
D. Duty to Support and Defend the Decree The Class Representatives, Class Counsel, and SSSI each agree to abide by all of the terms of this Decree in good faith and to support it fully, and shall use their respective Best Efforts to defend this Decree from any legal challenge, whether by appeal, collateral attack or otherwise. E. Waiver of Right to Seek Future Employment Any individual that is entitled to relief pursuant to this Agreement, whether monetary or injunctive, waives any and all rights or claims which he/she may have to employment or affiliation with SSSI, SSP or any of their related companies, affiliates and/or subsidiaries, and agree that they will not apply for or otherwise seek employment, reinstatement, or affiliation with SSSI, SSP or any of their related companies, affiliates and/or subsidiaries at any time in the
10

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 11 of 26

future. Nothing in the provision constitutes a waiver of any right to employment by individuals currently employed at SSSI.
F. Nondisclosure Any individual that is entitled to relief pursuant to this Agreement, whether monetary or injunctive, Class Counsel, and SSSI agrees not to disclose, divulge or otherwise reveal the terms of this Agreement to any third party including, but not limited to, the media. Nothing in this provision prohibits any party from disclosing the terms of this Agreement to their immediate family, financial advisor, insurer, or the individuals at SSSI and/or SSP who are charged with the implementation of this Decree.

X.

GENERAL EQUITABLE PROVISIONS

A. Distribution of Anti-Discrimination Policy Statements 1. Redistribution of Policies
Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, SSSI shall redistribute, to all of its employees, the written policies listed below. Prior to distribution, SSSI shall revise the “Violence in the Workplace” policy and the “Work Rules and Procedures” policy to emphasize SSSI’s anti-discrimination policy and complaint procedures. The distribution shall be accompanied by a written statement reiterating the Company’s commitment to and support of these policies. The written policies to be distributed in this manner shall include:
 Equal Employment Opportunity  Harassment Free Workplace  Violence in the Workplace  Work Rules and Procedures 2. Distribution to New Employees The written policies listed and the written statement described in subsection (1) above, in their then-current or updated form, shall be distributed to all new employees during the term of this Agreement.

11

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 12 of 26

B. Compliance Official

1.

Selection of Compliance Official

SSSI shall designate a Compliance Official who shall be charged with overall

responsibility for monitoring and assuring compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The

Compliance Official shall be the Vice President of Human Resources who shall report directly to

the CEO on this subject.

2.

Replacement of Compliance Official

a. In the event that the Vice President of HR position ceases to exist

for any reason, including reassignment of the Vice President of HR’s duties to another position,

the Company shall designate a successor Compliance Official as soon as practicable but not later

than thirty (30) days after the Vice President of HR’s position ceases to exist. In the event that

the Vice President of Human Resources position ceases to exist, the CEO will perform the duties

of the Compliance Official until it is determined which position will assume the duties of the

Compliance Official.

b. SSSI shall use Best Efforts to designate an individual who is

qualified to perform and will effectively carry out the duties and responsibilities set forth in

subsection (3) below.

3.

Duties of Compliance Official

The Compliance Official shall use Best Efforts to ensure SSSI’s implementation of, and

compliance with, the provisions of this Agreement. The Best Efforts of the Compliance Official

shall include the following: (i) monitoring the establishment, implementation, and review of the

provisions of Sections X(A) and X(E)(2) of this Agreement; (ii) ensuring the implementation and

monitoring of the anti-discrimination, anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies and training

required pursuant to Section X(D); and (iii) providing the internal reports and monitoring

required under Sections X(D)(5)-(6).

4.

Resources for Compliance Official

SSSI shall provide support staff, funds and other resources to the Compliance Official as

may be reasonably necessary to permit him or her to carry out the duties specified in subsection

(3) above and to discharge SSSI’s obligations under this Agreement.

12

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 13 of 26
C. Accountability of Management Personnel for Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity
1. Responsibility for EEO Compliance
It shall be the responsibility of every officer, senior manager and manager with authority over the Glenville facility to use Best Efforts to assure compliance with SSSI’s EEO and diversity policies and applicable EEO laws, to carry out his/her duties in conformance with applicable EEO laws, and to assure compliance with the provisions of this Agreement as related to such management personnel's job duties and functions. All such management personnel shall be informed in writing by a higher level of SSSI’s management of this specific responsibility, and shall be further informed of what this Agreement specifically requires with respect to the discharge of their own duties.
2. Evaluation of Performance on EEO Compliance Commencing with the first annual performance appraisal following the Effective Date of the management personnel with responsibility under subsection (1) above, the performance appraisal forms used to evaluate the performance of those employees shall include a professionally-designed performance competency regarding compliance with that responsibility ("EEO performance competency").
3. Consideration of Performance on EEO Competency in Promotion and Compensation Decisions
Evaluation of all management personnel within the scope of this Agreement on EEO performance competency as provided in subsection (2) above shall be taken into account, along with other aspects of performance evaluations, and shall be given significant weight in all compensation decisions and in considering such personnel for promotions or training to enhance their prospects for promotion. All current management personnel shall be informed in writing within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date that EEO performance competency shall be a factor in all such decisions, and all persons newly hired or promoted into management positions shall be so informed at the time they assume such positions.
4. EEO Violations a. Any manager who is found to have personally violated SSSI’s
policies concerning unlawful retaliation, discrimination or harassment on the basis of race or
13

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 14 of 26

national origin will continue, like all employees, to be subject to appropriate discipline, up to and including termination of employment.
b. Managers who fail to respond appropriately to any substantiated complaints of racial discrimination, harassment or retaliation within their area of responsibility or who fail to take appropriate actions to prevent or correct practices or instances of substantiated discrimination, harassment or retaliation shall be counseled with respect to the appropriate execution of his or her responsibility to insure compliance with the Company’s EEO Harassment Free Workplace, Violence in the Workplace and Work Rules and Procedures (together “EEOrelated responsibilities”); and the cause and substance of such counseling and by whom it was provided shall be documented, including but not limited to, in the manager's annual performance assessment and shall be considered for any purposes for which SSSI uses such performance assessments, including but not limited to determination of eligibility for compensation adjustments and promotions.
c. Managers who fail to execute their EEO-related responsibilities appropriately on a second or subsequent occasion, after counseling, shall be subject to appropriate discipline, up to and including termination.
D. Training of Managers and Human Resources Personnel

All managers and officers of the Company who possess the authority to hire, promote,

select for training leading to advancement, or discharge employees within the scope of this

Agreement shall receive training as specified in this Section. To the extent that SSSI has

provided training within the nine (9) months prior to the Effective Date to employees who would

otherwise be required to receive training under the provisions of this Section, such training need

not be repeated and the requirements of this Section may be satisfied by an appropriate

“refresher” training supplemented by training on subjects specified in subsection (2)(a)-(b)

below that were not included in the prior training.

1.

Timing

The training of personnel provided for in this Section shall be commenced within one

hundred eighty (180) days after the Effective Date, and shall be completed by the first

anniversary of the Effective Date, for all such managers, and officers employed by the Company

as of the Effective Date. All employees hired, promoted, or transferred into positions subject to

the training requirements of this Section after the Effective Date shall complete their training

14

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 15 of 26

within the period provided for above or within ninety (90) days after they assume such positions,

whichever is later.

2.

Content

The training provided under this Section shall include at least the following subjects, and

any other subjects included in such training shall specifically incorporate EEO/diversity goals

and fair employment practices considerations into their presentation in the training:

a. The prohibition of discrimination and harassment on the basis of

race in the workplace.

b. The prohibition and avoidance of retaliation and harassment on the

basis of race, including the protection required to be afforded to individuals who bring a

discrimination complaint or participate in its investigation or resolution; the nature of and

unacceptability of actions constituting prohibited harassment; the consequences of engaging in

such retaliation or harassment, including mandatory discipline up to and including termination;

and the remedies required to be made available to persons found to be victims of such retaliation

or harassment.

c. The content of the training provided for in this Section shall be

developed by one or more professionally qualified consultants, such as industrial/organizational

psychologists, personnel management and/or EEO/diversity practice consultants, etc.

3. Conduct of Training

The training may, at SSSI’s option, be conducted or presented to employees by such

professionally qualified consultants or SSSI’s own qualified HR personnel. However, any such

personnel of the Company who conduct such training or make such presentations to other

employees shall first be trained in conducting such training or making such presentations by the

consultants who design the training programs for SSSI.

4. Duration of Training

The training provided pursuant to this Section shall last a minimum of one full day for

HR personnel and a minimum of three (3) hours for managers and officers required to receive

such training.

5. Review of Training Effectiveness by SSSI

On an ongoing basis, SSSI shall assess and evaluate the effectiveness of its training

programs and the designers and presenters of the training, in light of the purposes and other

15

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 16 of 26
substantive provisions of this Agreement. SSSI shall make such adjustments or modifications of, or additions to its selections of consultants or trainers, and the training programs themselves, as are necessary and appropriate to effectuate those purposes and other substantive provisions.
6. Documentation of Completion of Training SSSI shall maintain records of attendance at the trainings provided for in this Section, including the name and job titles of attendees and the date(s) and subject(s) of training provided to them, during the term of this Agreement. E. Recordkeeping, Reporting and Review of Implementation of the Agreement
1. Recordkeeping During the Term of this Agreement, SSSI shall preserve and maintain documents pertaining to the administration of this Agreement and the policies and practices provided for it. For purposes of this provision, "document" shall include both hard copy and electronically recorded materials (where available), reports and information. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements provided for in this subsection shall apply to the Company's Glenville facility.
2. Internal Monitoring and Audits The Compliance Official appointed pursuant to this Agreement shall review and evaluate data and other information used to compile the reports and shall review and evaluate all record keeping maintained pursuant to X(E)(1), above, and shall produce a report evaluating compliance with this Agreement on a yearly basis to Class Counsel. This report shall be produced to Class Counsel for inspection no later than midnight before the anniversary date of the Final Approval Date for each of two years following the execution of this Agreement. The Compliance Official shall determine from the reports, data and other information so reviewed whether there is any reason to believe that discrimination on the basis of race or any conduct prohibited by this Agreement may have occurred, or that SSSI or any employees of SSSI may not have complied with the provisions of this Agreement. In the event the Compliance Official determines that such discriminatory or non-compliant actions or conduct may have occurred, the Compliance Official shall conduct an audit of the potentially discriminatory or non-compliant activity; reach a final determination with respect to whether any employee engaged in such activity; and if so, propose to responsible Company officials, remedial actions for persons affected by discrimination or non-compliant activity and appropriate disciplinary actions for persons responsible for engaging in or failing to control or report such activity.
16

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 17 of 26
F. Informal Dispute Resolution 1. Informal Dispute Resolution a. Initiation
If Class Counsel or SSSI has good reason to believe that a legitimate dispute exists as to the interpretation, application, or enforcement of any provisions of this Agreement, the initiating party shall promptly give written notice to the other party, including: (a) a reference to all specific provisions of the Agreement that are involved; (b) a statement of the issue; (c) a statement of the remedial action sought by the initiating party; and (d) a brief statement of the specific facts, circumstances and any other arguments supporting the position of the initiating party.
b. Response Within twenty (20) calendar days after receiving such notice, the non-initiating party shall respond in writing to the statement of facts and arguments set forth in the notice and shall provide its written position, including the facts and arguments upon which it relies in support of its position.
c. Parties’ Discussions Class Counsel and representatives of SSSI shall undertake good-faith negotiations, which should include a meeting or meetings by telephone or in person and the exchange of relevant documents and/or other information, to attempt to resolve the issue in dispute or alleged noncompliance.
2. Mediation a. Initiation
Both Class Counsel and SSSI agree to attempt mediation of any disputes not resolved through the Informal Dispute Resolution procedure above, and any such mediation shall be exhausted before either party resorts to Arbitration. Either party’s counsel may invoke such mediation, and the other party shall participate in mediation appropriate in duration to the nature and complexity of the matter in dispute. The parties shall cooperate in scheduling and expediting any such mediation in the interest of efficiency, economy, and resolution, by any appropriate means such as conducting the mediation by telephone where feasible and appropriate.
17

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 18 of 26
b. Selection of Mediator The parties shall cooperate to select a mutually acceptable mediator, who shall be an attorney or retired judge who is knowledgeable in the areas of employment discrimination law, personnel policies, and contract interpretation, without delay when a dispute requiring mediation arises.
c. Mediation Procedure and Duration The parties shall make Best Efforts to conclude any mediation initiated under this Section within thirty (30) days after the initiating party gives notice invoking mediation. In order to do this, and to conduct the mediation efficiently and economically, the parties and the Mediator shall use informal mediation procedures to the greatest extent possible. Unless the parties agree to extend the period for mediation, any dispute not resolved within forty-five (45) days after one party gives notice invoking mediation shall be considered to have failed to resolve the dispute between the parties.
3. Binding Arbitration a. Prerequisites to Arbitration
Prior to seeking Arbitration, a party wishing to invoke arbitration must first follow the procedures in subsections (1) and (2) above for informal dispute resolution and mediation of the specific matter to be submitted to arbitration. A matter not submitted to such prior procedures or pursued to impasse in those procedures shall not be submitted to or heard by any Arbitrator under this provision.
b. Initiation Upon the conditions set out in subsection (a) above, and within thirty (30) days after the end of any mediation proceeding on the disputed matter, either Class Counsel or SSSI may request final and binding arbitration before a single arbitrator who shall to the extent practicable in the circumstances, and without incurring undue delay or expense, apply the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) subject to the specific provisions set out below. However, the Arbitrator need not be appointed by, and the arbitration need not be administered by, the AAA. Failure to submit such a dispute to arbitration within thirty (30) days of the end of mediation shall operate as a waiver of the issue(s) raised at mediation and acceptance of the status quo as of the end of mediation.
18

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 19 of 26
c. Selection of Arbitrator The parties shall cooperate to select a mutually acceptable arbitrator, who shall be an attorney or retired judge who is knowledgeable in the areas of employment discrimination law, personnel policies, and contract interpretation, without delay when a dispute requiring arbitration arises.
d. Arbitration Procedures and Duration The parties may present written and oral argument to the arbitrator, as well as documents and the testimony of witnesses if deemed necessary and permitted by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall have the power to require any party to produce such documents and information prior to or at the arbitration hearing as the arbitrator may believe are necessary to determine fairly the disputed issue. The Arbitrator and the parties shall use Best Efforts to resolve the dispute within ninety (90) days after its submission to arbitration, or the appointment of the arbitrator, whichever is later.
e. Arbitration Costs Class Counsel and SSSI shall each be responsible for one-half of the Arbitrator's fees and costs.
f. Award Final, Non-Appealable and Enforceable In his or her award, the arbitrator may interpret the Agreement and decide whether SSSI is in material non-compliance with the Agreement. The Arbitrator’s decision shall be final and binding. In the event the Arbitrator finds material non-compliance with the Agreement, the Arbitrator may order SSSI to comply with the provision or provisions of the Settlement Agreement, by their own terms, with which there is found to be non-compliance. The Arbitrator may not add to, subtract from, amend or alter the Agreement, and may not order SSSI to perform any act not provided for in this Agreement. The Arbitrator may not award monetary damages. Any award which exceeds the Arbitrator's authority as stated herein shall be null and void. The party prevailing in arbitration may bring a court action to enforce compliance with the Arbitrator's decision. Such action may be brought only in state court in New York. In the event of such an action, the party resisting the arbitration award may defend by, inter alia, showing that the Arbitrator acted outside the scope of his or her authority; added to, subtracted from, or altered the Agreement; ignored its terms; or acted arbitrarily or capriciously. The prevailing party in such an action shall recover its court costs. A court that enters an order enforcing an
19

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 20 of 26
arbitration award shall further award to the prevailing party its litigation costs including attorney's fees.
4. Conclusion of Dispute Resolution Procedure Outside Term of Agreement
In the event that there is an ongoing dispute between the parties subject to the Dispute Resolution Procedure provided for in this Section at the time the Term of this Agreement ends, the party that submitted that dispute pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure may continue to invoke the procedures provided for in this Section, and the opposing party shall comply with such Procedures, notwithstanding the expiration of the Term of this Agreement before the dispute is fully resolved. Any party prevailing in such a Dispute Resolution Procedure, including mediation, arbitration, or a judicial enforcement action, is entitled to the rights and remedies resulting from prevailing on the disputed issues, as provided for in this Section, notwithstanding the expiration of the Term of the Agreement.
XI. MONETARY AWARDS AND CREDITED DECREE EXPENSES
A. Monetary Awards to Class Members 1. After the Final Approval Date, SSSI agrees to distribute in monetary
awards to class members a total of $1,250,000.00 (“Total Class Award”). This distribution shall be made as follows: (1) $1 million within ten (10) days after the Final Approval Date; (2) $75,000 on July 1, 2007; (3) $75,000 on January 1, 2008; (4) $100,000 on July 1, 2008. Distributions from the Total Class Award shall be utilized to provide individual monetary awards to members of the Settlement Class in accordance with the provisions of this Section. The Total Class Award includes all attorney’s fees and costs. SSSI will make payment in accordance with the schedule above to an escrow account designated by Class Counsel for that purpose. Class Counsel will be responsible for distribution of those funds to any individual recipient. Class Counsel will seek Court Approval of fees and costs incurred and defendant will not object to Class Counsel’s seeking same. Subject to Court Approval, those fees and costs, up to a maximum of 37% of the Total Class Award or $444,000 (“Class Counsel Fees and Costs”), will be deducted from the Total Class Award and paid to Class Counsel. Class Counsel Fees and Costs will be deducted from each individual award in proportionate shares.
20

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 21 of 26

2. SSSI shall pay Criss Murphy and Norman Jordan $250,000, less an amount representing their proportionate share of attorney’s fees after receipt of an executed release in the form attached as Appendix II. Payment will be made in accordance with the Payment Schedule set forth above in Section XI (A)(1) proportionately.
3. The other Named Plaintiffs, Larry Marshall, Dennis Coleman, Wayne Zimmerman and Eddie Stewart shall receive the following amounts, less an amount representing their proportionate share of attorney’s fees after receipt of an executed release in the form attached as Appendix II. Payment will be made in accordance with the Payment Schedule set forth above in Section XI (A)(1) proportionately.

Name Larry Marshall Dennis Coleman Andino Ward Eddie Barnes, Jr. Paul Hannon Curtis Nelson David Chambers Herion Murphy Vincent Safford Wayne Zimmerman Eddie Stewart

Monetary Amount $35,000 $35,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $25,000 $25,000

4. SSSI shall establish an interest bearing account for a Claims Fund and shall deposit $55,000 into the account for the benefit of additional Claimants qualified for monetary relief. Any interest on the account shall become part of the Claims Fund. SSSI shall appoint a Fund Administrator, an SSSI employee, who shall administer the fund and make payments from the fund in accordance with the terms of this Consent Decree and at the instructions of Class Counsel.
5. Upon five days notice, Class Counsel may inspect the records of the Claims Fund.

21

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 22 of 26
6. SSSI shall pay all costs associated with distributing and administering the Fund and no costs shall be deducted from the fund.
7. For purposes of this Decree, Potential Claimants are defined as AfricanAmerican employees of SSSI or contract workers who worked for SSSI in its Glenville facility from the Commencement Date up to the date of entry of this Decree, except Class Representatives, Larry Marshall, Dennis Coleman, Wayne Zimmerman or Eddie Stewart.
8. Within ten days after Preliminary Approval, SSSI will send all Potential Claimants a Notice of Settlement in the form attached as Appendix III, together with a Claim Form attached as Appendix I. The Claim Form will explicitly advise Potential Claimants of their responsibility to fully respond to each question in the Claim Form and to supply all of the requested information before the expiration of the deadlines set forth herein, and to keep Class Counsel advised of any change in name, address or telephone number, in order to preserve any rights they may have under the Decree. The deadline for returning the Claim Form will be prominently displayed at the top of the Claim Form. All Claim Forms submitted must be postmarked by the 90th day from the date of entry of this Decree.
10. The Notice of Settlement and Claim Form shall be sent to all Potential Claimants at their last known address both by regular First Class U.S. mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested. A list of Potential Claimants, their address, telephone number and Social Security number shall be provided simultaneously to Class Counsel. SSSI will provide Class Counsel with mail tracking information.
11. Each Potential Claimant will be offered an opportunity to submit a claim to Class Counsel. Any Potential Claimant wishing to file a claim must submit to Class Counsel a completed Claim Form within ninety (90) days of the date of entry of this Decree, together with all relevant information the Potential Claimant wishes to submit with his/her claim. Class Counsel, in its discretion, may request additional information. If a Potential Claimant fails to provide Class Counsel with a completed Claim Form and all relevant information the Potential Claimant wishes to submit with his/her claim by the deadline stated in this Decree, the Claim will be denied as untimely. If a Potential Claimant fails to timely provide other information which may be requested by Class Counsel, Class Counsel, in its discretion may deny the claim for failure to cooperate.
22

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 23 of 26
12. Class Counsel will review the Claims Forms and other relevant information timely received by Class Counsel in order to make a determination of the distribution of the Claims Fund. Class Counsel shall make all determinations as to eligibility for monetary relief which may include compensatory damages, back pay and/or front pay. Class Counsel will have sole discretion to deny any claims submitted to it. For purposes of this Consent Decree, an eligible Claimant is a person who Class Counsel has determined is eligible for relief from the Claims Fund in this matter. Class Counsel shall divide the Claims Fund among eligible Claimants in amounts to be determined by Class Counsel. Class Counsel retains sole discretion to determine the amounts to be awarded from the Claims Fund. No person or party has a right to object to Class Counsel’s determination.
13. Upon Class Counsel’s determination regarding the distribution of the Claims Fund, Class Counsel will notify SSSI in writing of the eligible Claimants and the amounts to be paid to each eligible Claimant. Class Counsel will also furnish SSSI with any updated information which has been received by Class Counsel from a Claimant regarding the Claimant’s name, address, or telephone number. Class Counsel shall also furnish to SSSI a Release in the form attached as Appendix II, executed by each Claimant for whom payment is required. Within thirty (30) days of the date Class Counsel provides the notice and properly executed Release to SSSI regarding distribution of the Claims Fund, SSSI will issue and send checks to the eligible Claimants in the amounts directed by Class Counsel, together with a notice to the eligible Claimant that the check must be cashed within 90 days of the date of the check, or the check will be void and the claim will be denied. SSSI will supply Class Counsel a copy of the checks and with mail tracking information. SSSI will pay all costs associated with mailing and distributing the funds.
14. If a Claimant has not cashed a check within 90 days after the date of the check, the check will be voided and the claim will be deemed denied.
15. On August 1, 2008, the Fund Administrator will advise Class Counsel in writing of the amount of any funds remaining in the Claims Fund account, including any funds which remain because checks were not cashed, funds which could not be distributed after diligent efforts by SSSI to locate a Claimant, and interest which has accrued. Class Counsel shall then instruct SSSI in writing to issue a check for the remaining balance in the Claims Fund account to an organization in New York selected by Class Counsel which promotes equal
23

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 24 of 26
employment opportunities for African-Americans, and qualifies for Section 501(c)(3) status under the Internal Revenue Code. SSSI shall issue a check to such organization within thirty (30) days of mailing of Class Counsel’s instruction regarding final distribution of the funds to such organization, and will send Class Counsel a copy of the check and cover letter. The Claims Fund account may then be closed.
16. SSSI will provide Class Counsel with copies of transmittal letters and checks sent to Claimants within thirty (30) days of issuance.
17. SSSI will issue Form 1099 to all eligible Claimants who have received funds from the Claims Fund.
B. Allocation of Monetary Awards All distributions of individual monetary awards to the Settlement Class members who are entitled to receive awards under this Decree shall be allocated as follows: 95% compensatory damages and 5% backpay and front pay, which is warranted by the facts and the law. Before submitting settlement funds to Class Counsel: SSSI shall calculate and withhold from each Settlement Class member's total gross award the amount due for federal, state and local income taxes on the entire gross award, and the amount due for the employee's share of F.I.C.A. on the back pay and front pay portion of the distribution. SSSI shall also determine the employer's share of F.I.C.A., F.U.T.A. and S.U.T.A. and be responsible for making those payments, which, unlike the Settlement Class members' share of these withholding taxes, will not be deducted from the Total Class Award. SSSI shall also be responsible for producing and submitting to Class Counsel, for distribution by them to each Settlement Class member who receives a monetary award, the respective W-2 and 1099 tax reporting forms, and SSSI shall also make the necessary tax reporting to the IRS or other appropriate agency. Any individual entitled to monetary relief under this Agreement shall be solely responsible for the payment of any and all taxes on the aforesaid amounts paid under this Consent Decree, and shall make no claim against SSSI for payment of any such taxes, or any interest or penalties, except as otherwise provided in this Consent Decree. In the event the Internal Revenue Service, or any other taxing entity, including, but not limited to, the State of New York or any court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction, ultimately determines that the foregoing payments, or any portion thereof, constitute wages or other remuneration for which any taxes are due and owing, the individuals entitled to monetary relief shall be solely responsible for the payment of such taxes,
24

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 25 of 26
and shall make no claim against SSSI for payment of any such taxes, or for the payment of any applicable interest or penalties. The validity of this Consent Decree shall not be affected in any way by any tax liability individuals may have with respect to these payments.

IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this _____day of

, 2007.

Hon. Gary L. Sharpe United States District Judge
[signatures on next page]

25

Case 1:06-cv-00480-GLS-DRH Document 11 Filed 01/19/07 Page 26 of 26 STIPULATED, ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO BY:

s/ David Sanford David Sanford SANFORD, WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 310 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 742-7780
s/ Steven Wittels Steven Wittels, (SLW-8110) Jeremy Heisler, (JH-0145) SANFORD, WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 950 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 (646) 723-2947

s/ Joan Gilbride Joan M. Gilbride KAUFMAN BORGEEST & RYAN LLP 99 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016 (212) 980-9600
COUNSEL FOR SUPER STEEL SCHENECTADY, INC.

s/ Grant Morris Grant Morris, D.C. Bar No. 926253 LAW OFFICE OF GRANT E. MORRIS 1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 310 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 742-7783
CLASS COUNSEL

26

 
 ADR, CLOSED
U.S. District Court Northern District of New York − Main Office (Syracuse) [LIVE − Version 3.1.2]
(Albany) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−00480−GLS−DRH

Murphy et al v. Super Steel Schenectady Inc. Assigned to: Judge Gary L. Sharpe Referred to: Magistrate Judge David R. Homer Demand: $175,000,000 Cause: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff
Criss Murphy Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated

Date Filed: 04/18/2006 Date Terminated: 04/23/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by David W. Sanford Sanford, Wittels Law Firm − DC Office 1666 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20009 202−742−7780 Fax: 202−742−7776 Email: dsanford@nydclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant E. Morris Office of Grant E. Morris 1666 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 310 Washington, DC 20009 202−742−7783 Fax: 202−742−7776 Email: grantemorris@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janette L. Wipper Sanford, Wittels Law Firm − NY Office 950 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 646−723−2459 Fax: 646−723−2948 Email: jwipper@nydclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Heisler Sanford, Wittels Law Firm − NY Office 950 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 646−723−2947 Fax: 646−723−2948 Email: jheisler@nydclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven L. Wittels Sanford, Wittels Law Firm − Armonk Office 18 Half Mile Road Armonk, NY 10504 914−273−7314 Fax: 914−273−7314

Plaintiff Norman Jordan Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiff Andino Ward Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiff Eddie Barnes, Jr. Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated

Email: swittels@nydclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant E. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janette L. Wipper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Heisler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant E. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janette L. Wipper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Heisler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant E. Morris

Plaintiff Paul Hannon Individually and on Behalf of Others Simiarly Situated
Plaintiff Curtis Nelson Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janette L. Wipper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Heisler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant E. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janette L. Wipper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Heisler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant E. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janette L. Wipper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Heisler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff David Chambers Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiff Herion Murphy Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiff Vincent Safford Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant E. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janette L. Wipper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Heisler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant E. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janette L. Wipper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Heisler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David W. Sanford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant E. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janette L. Wipper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Heisler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven L. Wittels (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Super Steel Schenectady Inc.

represented by Joan M. Gilbride Kaufman, Borgeest Law Firm − NY Office 99 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 212−980−9600 Fax: 212−980−9291 Email: jgilbride@kbrlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # 04/18/2006
04/18/2006 04/19/2006 06/07/2006 06/16/2006

Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Super Steel Schenectady Inc. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number ALB002239) filed by Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Vincent Safford, Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr.(wbl, ) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
2 G.O. 25 FILING ORDER ISSUED Initial Conference set for 8/22/2006 09:00 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge David R. Homer. Civil Case Management Plan due by 8/14/2006. (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
Summons Issued as to Super Steel Schenectady Inc.. (wbl, ) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
Filing fee for Pro Hac Vice Admissions of Grant Morris, David Sanford, and Janette Wipper, Esqs.: $ 90.00, receipt number ALB002431 (wbl, ) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
3 NOTICE by Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Vincent Safford, Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Sponsor for Admission Pro Hac Vice# 2 E−Filing Registration# 3 E−Filing Registration# 4 E−Filing Registration# 5 Certificate of Good Standing for D. Sanford# 6 Certificate of Good Standing for J. Wipper# 7 Certificate of Good Standing for J. Heisler# 8 E−Filing Registration# 9 Certificate of Good Standing for G. Morris# 10 Petition for Admission to Practice for D. Sanford# 11 Petition for Admission to Practice for G. Morris# 12 Petition for Admission to Practice for J. Wipper# 13 Petition for Admission to Practice for J. Heisler# 14 Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice)(Wittels, Steven)

06/23/2006 07/12/2006 08/15/2006 08/17/2006
08/28/2006 08/30/2006
10/13/2006 10/13/2006 12/22/2006
12/22/2006 01/05/2007 01/08/2007 01/10/2007 01/19/2007
01/24/2007

(Entered: 06/16/2006)
Filing fee for Pro Hac Vice admission of Jeremy Heisler, Esq.: $ 30.00, receipt number ALB002489 (wbl, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
4 ORDER granting 3 Motion for PHV Admission of Jeremy Heisler, David W. Sanford, Grant E. Morris, and Janette L. Wipper, Esqs., added for Pltfs. Signed by Judge David R. Homer on 7/12/06. (amt, ) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
5 NOTICE of Hearing: Initial Conference set for 9/12/2006 09:30 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Civil Case Management Plan due by 9/6/2006. (tab) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
6 Letter Motion from David W. Sanford for Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Vincent Safford, Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr requesting that the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference and Case Management Plan be postponed until after the 9/14−9/15 Mediation submitted to Judge David R. Homer. (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Joan M. Gilbride on behalf of Super Steel Schenectady Inc. (Gilbride, Joan) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
8 TEXT NOTICE. The Rule 16 conference previously rescheduled to 9/12/06 at 9:30 a.m. is RESCHEDULED to OCTOBER 18, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. pursuant to the letter/request of plaintiff's counsel dated 8/17/06 to allow the parties to participate in class mediation. The Rule 16 conference may be conducted by telephone. Plaintiff's counsel is to initiate telephone conference. The Case Management Plan's due date is 10/11/06. (lah, ) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
9 Letter from Atty Gilbride to the Court dd 10/11/06 advising of settlement, and requesting adjournment of Rule 16 conference; so ordered by Judge Homer. (sfp, ) Modified on 10/16/2006 to insert text re: request and order (cbm, ). (Entered: 10/13/2006)
Clerk traditionally served 9 letter upon non ecf parties. (sfp, ) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
10 NOTICE of Settlement and Request for Preliminary Approval Hearing re Consent Decree by Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Vincent Safford, Super Steel Schenectady Inc., Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree)(Sanford, David) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
COURT NOTICE, The Court is in receipt of a Joint Motion for a Preliminary Approval Hearing. Upon review of the papers, the court will issue a notice in due time advising the parties of a conference date. (jel, ) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on the 10 Joint Motion for a Preliminary Approval Hearing. Motion Hearing set for 1/25/2007 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
TEXT ONLY NOTICE, Due to a conflict in the court's calendar, the hearing scheduled for January 25, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. has been adjourned. Notice will be sent to all parties advising of a new date. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
TEXT ONLY NOTICE of Hearing on the 10 Joint Motion for a Preliminary Approval Hearing. Motion Hearing set for 1/25/2007 at 1:00 PM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.(jel, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
11 NOTICE by Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Vincent Safford, Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr re 10 Notice of Settlement, Consent Decree with Appendices (Attachments: # 1 Appendix I−Claim Form# 2 Appendix II−Release# 3 Appendix III−Notice of Settlement)(Sanford, David) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
12 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Proposed Order Preliminarily Approving Class Settlement by Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Vincent Safford, Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr.

01/25/2007
01/25/2007 03/21/2007 04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/23/2007

(Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : CRD: John Law; Preliminary Approval Hearing held on January 25, 2007 before Judge Gary L. Sharpe; Appearances Made: Janette L. Wipper and Steven L. Wittels, Esqs., for the plaintiffs and Joan M. Gilbride, Esq., for the defendant; Atty. Wittels requests the court to sign the preliminary approval order and set a fairness hearing; discusses procedure with the court; Court inquires of breakdown of monetary relief; Atty. Wittels discusses and indicates there are under 100 workers; Court states concerns that the court had; Atty. Wittels states other people have contacted him after hearing of possible settlement; Court sets Fairness Hearing date for April 23, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. at the proposal of counsel; Court understands the matter at issue and is satisfied at this point and will execute the proposed order. (Court Reporter Bonnie Buckley) Time: 1:00−1:15 p.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
14 ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE CLASS SETTLEMENT: Fairness Hearing set for 4/23/2007 at 01:30 PM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 1/25/2007. (jel, ) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
15 LETTER REQUEST AND ORDER re 11 Settlement Decree/Notice filed by Vincent Safford, Andino Ward, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Curtis Nelson, Paul Hannon, Eddie Barnes, Jr., Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan: AMENDING the Consent Decree due to a mathmatical error. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 3/21/07. (tab) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
16 NOTICE by Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Vincent Safford, Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr ltr to court re motion for approval of final consent decree (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
17 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment , Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Entry of Judgment Motion Hearing set for 4/23/2007 01:30 PM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe. by Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Vincent Safford, Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr. (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
18 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in support of motion for final approval of consent decree filed by Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Vincent Safford, Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s))(Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
19 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in support of unopposed motion for attorneys' fees and expenses filed by Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Vincent Safford, Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A−B# 2 Exhibit(s) C−E# 3 Exhibit(s) F−J# 4 Exhibit(s) K−M)(Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
20 AFFIDAVIT D. Sanford Declaration by Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Vincent Safford, Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr. (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
21 AFFIDAVIT of service by Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Vincent Safford, Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes, Jr. (Wittels, Steven) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
22 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gary L. Sharpe : CRD: John Law; Motion Hearing held on 4/23/2007 re 17 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment, Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Entry of Judgment filed by Vincent Safford, Andino Ward, David Chambers, Herion Murphy, Curtis Nelson, Paul Hannon, Eddie Barnes, Jr., Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan; Appearances Made: Janette L. Wipper and David Sanford, Esqs., for the plaintiffs and Joan M. Gilbride, Esq., for the defendant; Atty. Sanford states no opt outs or no objections; received 32 letters to opt in out of 100 notices that were sent. Court discusses proposed order which is docket number 21. Atty. Gilbride states no opposition. Court adopts the proposed order and intends to

04/23/2007 08/03/2007

enter the judgment. Court will enter judgment accordingly. (Court Reporter Theresa Casale) Time: 1:55−2:00 p.m. (jel, ) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
23 JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 4/23/2007. (jel, ) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
24 DOCUMENT REJECTION ORDER, returning letter to Bobby D. Fairley requesting the court to reopen the case. Time to object has expired. Case is now closed. Request is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 8/3/2007. (jel, ) (Entered: 08/03/2007)

 
 Workers file racial discrimination lawsuit vs. Super Steel Author: RP news wires Issue:
Nine current and former African-American employees of Super Steel in Schenectady, N.Y., filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on April 18 to redress the discrimination and harassment they say is deeply embedded in the Super Steel culture and work climate.
Plaintiffs in the matter are Criss Murphy, Norman Jordan, Andino Ward, Eddie Barnes Jr., Paul Hannon, Curtis Nelson, David Chambers, Herion Murphy and Vincent Safford and a class of current and former African-American employees of Super Steel. They are represented in the matter by David Sanford of Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, LLP, Washington, D.C.
Sanford was asked by the New York Commission on Human Rights and the NAACP to investigate a hate crime at Super Steel that occurred late in 2005. An employee of Super Steel vandalized an African-American's locker, writing "Die (expletive) Die" and "KKK" inside the door of the locker, and placed a monkey on the coat hook, its head torn off and its body ripped apart. That incident remains unsolved and continues to be investigated by local police.
That was the latest in a string of incidents dating back several years. A police officer investigating the drawing of a man hanging by a noose in another plaintiff's workstation commented in his police report that Super Steel "had not yet come to an understanding of the serious nature of the incident(s) and was still under the assumption that they [Super Steel] would be able to handle everything internally."
According to Sanford, racial discrimination and hostility "permeate every aspect of the working day of the African-Americans employed by Super Steel."
"A typical shift for African-American employees requires avoiding the 'white' parts of the break areas, using a restroom with graffiti that degrades African-Americans with depictions of black men hung from nooses and that expounds support for the KKK, and suffering under a non-responsive Human Resources Department," he said.
"As a 50-year old man, born and raised in Mississippi, I have never experienced the kind of racism that was at Super Steel," said one of the plantiffs.
Another plaintiff compared his arrival at Super Steel to that of a slave being sold at market. He described being treated as though he had been "ordered up" from "some small farm" in Mississippi, and being given orders as if he was a "boy" that was "not supposed to know any better." Still another plaintiff was told that a "(expletive) whipping" would

make him work faster, and that he should be hung.
Each of the nine plaintiffs' treatment at the hands of white fellow employees, supervisors and company management is discussed in the complaint, including the racial epithets, slurs and taunts black employees reportedly endure.
"Super Steel has repeatedly made decisions that create and cultivate an atmosphere where its African-American employees are threatened, harassed, criticized and denied advancement," said Sanford.
The complaint also documents the company's ongoing efforts to minimize, ignore and excuse the constant racial tension.
"It is nearly unthinkable that in this day and age African-Americans living in New York continue to encounter such blatant discrimination and prejudice in the workplace," said Fred Clark, vice president of the Schenectady NAACP. "The racially motivated behavior of white employees and supervisors that the black employees of Super Steel must endure to earn a living and support their families is shameful and must come to an end. We applaud the courage these nine men have shown in stepping forward and exposing the conditions to the light of day."
The nine plaintiffs seek certification of their case as a class action under federal statutes; their designation as representatives of the class and Sanford as counsel of record for the class; declaratory judgments that Super Steel's employment practices are illegal and in violation of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866; and temporary and permanent injunctions against Super Steel, which would bar Super Steel from engaging in further unlawful practices, policies and customs.
The nine plaintiffs also request an order requiring Super Steel to implement programs that effectively remedy the hostile work environment and eliminate the discriminatory and retaliatory practices currently in use; an order establishing a workplace task force on equality and fairness to monitor conditions at the company; and damages, including not less than $25 million dollars in compensatory damages, not less than $150 million dollars in punitive damages, and nominal damages.
The plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial in the matter.
Please reference this article as: RP news wires , "Workers file racial discrimination lawsuit vs. Super Steel". Reliable Plant Magazine. /