IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MARGARET BUNCH 202 North Linn Malta Bend, Missouri 65339

I’ :, ’ -‘-ii-(:,; ,;\

~,
/I‘

/. 4

I’ ,/’ ‘L ,d ‘\

Plaintiff,

)

-vs-

) Case No.:

RENT-A-CENTER, INC. SERVE: Registered Agent

i> @0-@364 -cy-y_ 3

Corporation Company

515 South Kansas Ave.

Topeka,Kansas66603

Defendant.

COMPLAINT COMES NOW plaintiff, Margaret Bunch, by and through the undersigned counsel, and for her Complaint against the Defendant, alleges and states as follows:
PARTIES 1. Plaintiff resides in Malta Bend, Saline County, Missouri at the address more specifically set forth above. 2. Plaintiff’s gender is female. 3. Defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. is a Kansas Corporation, in good standing which conducts business in the State of Missouri. Defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. owns and operates over 1,000 rent-to-own stores across the United States and Canada, and employs thousands of employees, primarily in the rent-to-own business.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Plaintiff timely filed her charge of discrimination with the Equal
1

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 04/19/00 Page 1 of 12

Employment Opportunity Commission and with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, within 180 days of the acts herein complained of, alleging discrimination against her by defendant based on her sex and retaliation. A true and correct copy of plaintiffs charge of discrimination is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
5. On or about April 5, 2000, the EEOC issued its Notice of Right to Sue and plaintiff has filed this complaint within 90 days of her receipt of such notice. A copy of plaintiff’s Notice of Right to Sue is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
6. Plaintiff’s Complaint is filed pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her Complaint by virtue of the federal questions involved.
7. Venue is proper in the United States District for the Western District of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §I391 because the defendant resides in the Western District of Missouri.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 8. Plaintiff was hired by defendant on August 17, 1998 and was told she would fill the position of store manager of the store in Marshall, Missouri, and earn $24,000 a year. 9. Defendant assigned plaintiff to the Moberly, Missouri store, and initially only paid her on an hourly basis. 10. Marty Roustio continued to promise plaintiff that she would be a store manager at another store, but defendant never gave plaintiff that position.
2
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 04/19/00 Page 2 of 12

11. Throughout the term of her employment with defendant, plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome, offensive, derogatory and hostile comments by store manager Matt Langley based on her sex, including but not limited to comments such as “bitch”, “cunt”, comments that defendant never should have hired women, and comments that women were useless.
12. On at least two occasions, plaintiff was delivering a sofa with store manager Matt Langley, and Langley flipped the sofa upwards so that it struck plaintiff in the mouth and plaintiff’s mouth was cut and bleeding.
13. Matt Langley told plaintiff to wear a bikini to the store, and take customers in the back room and do whatever was necessary to make a sale.
14. Plaintiff told Matt Langley that the store was full of cockroaches, and Langley told her to take a shower and they would go away.
15. Langley told plaintiff she could not do her job and she needed to go home and be a grandma.
16. Throughout the term of her employment with defendant, plaintiff was subjected to less favorable terms and conditions of employment than the similarly situated male employees, including less pay, less promotional opportunities, less favorable job duties, and plaintiff was judged by different standards in her job performance.
17. Plaintiff repeatedly complained to store manager Matt Langley about the hostile and offensive work environment and the unequal terms and conditions of employment”
18. Langley told her to “get used to it or quit,” and otherwise ignored plaintiff’s 3
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 04/19/00 Page 3 of 12

complaints and her requests that the harassment and discrimination stop. 19. Plaintiff also complained about the hostile and offensive work environment
and the unequal terms and conditions of employment to market manager Marty Roustio, and he did nothing to remedy the situation.
20. On or about December 23, 2000, defendant fired plaintiff on the basis of her sex, and in retaliation for her complaints of sexual discrimination and harassment.
21. Defendant knew or should have known of the sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation alleged above and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.
22. At all times referenced herein, the individuals referred to herein, including but not limited to Matt Langley and Marty Roustio, were acting within the course and scope of their employment, agency and representation of the defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc.
COUNT I TITLE VII -SEXUAL HARASSMENT 23. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 24. Throughout the term of plaintiff’s employment with defendant, plaintiff’s store manager Matt Langley pervasively and regularly subjected plaintiff to offensive and unwelcome sexually derogatory language, sexual comments, and sexual innuendos, all on the basis of her sex, female. 25. Defendant’s sexually discriminatory conduct detrimentally affected plaintiff and created a hostile and offensive working environment.
4
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 04/19/00 Page 4 of 12

26. Defendant’s sexually discriminatory conduct would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person of the same sex in plaintiff’s position.
27. Plaintiff complained to her store manager, Matt Langley, and market manager, Marty Roustio, and defendant thereby knew, or should have known, of the sexual harassment of plaintiff and that said sexual harassment would detrimentally affect plaintiff.
28. Defendant failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action remedy the sexual harassment of plaintiff, and the hostile work environment not only continued after plaintiff’s complaints, but it intensified in retaliation for plaintiff’s complaints.
29. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e by the foregoing sexual harassment.
30. As a result of defendant’s discriminatory conduct creating a hostile work environment for plaintiff, plaintiff was damaged and is entitled to all remedies available to her as provided in 42 U.S.C. §2000e and 42 U.S.C. §1981a, including but not limited to damages for embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, lost wages, back pay and front pay all in an exact amount which is unknown at this time, and plaintiff is reasonably expected to suffer from such damages in the future.
31. Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because of defendant’s evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiff, thereby entitling plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount that will punish defendant and will deter defendant and others from like conduct.
32. Plaintiff further requests an award of attorney’s fees and expenses of 5
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 04/19/00 Page 5 of 12

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 04/19/00 Page 6 of 12

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 04/19/00 Page 7 of 12

43. The foregoing conduct of the Defendant through its agents and employees was motivated by the plaintiff’s sex, and constituted discrimination against plaintiff by defendant on the basis of her sex.
44. Defendant knew or should have known of the sex discrimination alleged above and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.
45. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. 52000e by the foregoing sex discrimination.
46. Plaintiff was damaged by the above mentioned discrimination and is entitled to all remedies available to her as provided in 42 U.S.C. §2000e and 42 U.S.C. §1981(a), including but not limited to damages for loss of income, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, damage to her reputation, diminution in earnings capacity, and other damages as yet undetermined, and plaintiff is reasonably expected to suffer from such damages in the future.
47. The conduct of the defendant was outrageous and was intentional or was recklessly indifferent to plaintiff’s rights, thereby entitling plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount that will punish Defendant and deter Defendant and others from like conduct.
48. Plaintiff further requests an award of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §I 988.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court grant her judgment against the defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. in an amount that is fair and reasonable, for punitive damages, for her costs and attorneys’ fees, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 04/19/00 Page 8 of 12

WHITE ALLINDER & GRAHAM, L.L.C.
Iidependence, Missouri 64055 (816) 373-90801 FAX 373-9319 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW plaintiff, by and through the undersigned and hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues in the above-referenced Complaint.
LINDER & GR
dependence, Missouri 64055 (816) 373-9080/ FAX 373-9319 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 04/19/00 Page 9 of 12

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

AGENCY

CHARGE NUMBER

This form is afkcted by the Privacy Act of 1974; See
Privacy Act S:a:ement before complettng this form [

[ ] FEPA

]EEOC

.

P

‘, ,'L I yL ,J (;,,Q -3

.2i t

MISSOURI COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS and EEOC ’

State of local Agency, if any

Name:(/ndicatz Mr., Ms.. Mrs.)
Ms. MargaI.et J. Bunch

Home telephone (include area code) (660)595-2411

Street Address

Ctty State and Zip Code

Date of Birth

202 North Linn, Malta Bend, MO 65339

519151

NAMED IS TkE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION. EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, STATE OF

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (Ifmore than one list 6elow.J

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS

TELEPHONE(inc/ude area code)

Rent-A-Center

Unknown

(660)263-6944

Street Address

City State and Zip Code

County

322 W. Reed

Moberly, Missouri 65270

Randolph

Name

Telephone Number (Include area code)

Street Address

City, State and Zip Code

County

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

IRACE [

ICOLOR [X ]SEX [

] RELIGION [

IAGE [

t

] NATIONAL ORIGIN

[ ] DISABILITY [

] OTHER (Spece)

] RETALIATION

DATE OF DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE:
EARLIEST (ADE‘WPA) 8117198

LATEST (ALL) 12123198

[ X ] CONT!NUING A C T I O N

THE PARTICULARS ARE

I was discriminated against and sexually harassed by my employer as a result of my gender, female. I was subjected to unwelcome, derogatory and sexually explicit language and comments made to me by my store manager, Matt Langley. I was treated less favorably than the similarly situated white males that were employed at Rent-A-Center.

I was denied promotional opportunities because of my gender and in retaliation for my complaints about the discriminatory and harassing treatment I was receiving.

I was discharged in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination and harassment that went on in the work place.

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS DocumEeXnHt I1B-I2T AFiled 04/19/00 Page 10 of 12

charae filed with both EEOC and the State of Local Agency. if any. I will advise the agencies if I change my address or telephone number and I will cooperate fully with them rn the pro&sing of my charge in accordance with their procedures. I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I declare under penalty
of perjury that the foregoing IS true and correct.

Date:

3- 19 ‘\r\ S ronature of Complainant:R Ly-A -i%-*\ ‘1

NOTARY: Subscribed and sworn to before me this date:

-

I

/\

---....w
---
Notary Public - Notary Seal
STATEOFMISSOURI JACKSONCOUNn
MYCOMMISSDNEXP OCT 26,2ocO

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 04/19/00 Page 11 of 12

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE
I Issued on request)

To: Margaret Bunch 202 NORTH LINN
MALTA BEND, MO 65339

m On behalf of a perwh ccgpeved wizosc idcnriry is CONFIDEMLQ

(29 C.F.R 1601.7(a) )

-. .

Charge Number

EEOC Representtiive

28o990667

Maggle McFadden

From:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COWM.
St. l,ocls r):strict O f f i c e 1222 Sprcce St. ?,oom 8.100 St. LOULS) MO 63103
_ --.
Telephone Number
(314) 539-7800

( SCC The a d d i t i o n a l lnformarlon aftached to this f o r m )

NOTICE TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1864 and/or the Amerlcsnm with Disabilities Act (ADA): 1~s AS your Notice 01 Right to Sue. I t 1s

issued unaer Tlfle VI1 and/or tne ADA Dased on Khe above-numbered charge. It has been lssuea at your request. Your lewsult u n d e r

Title VII or rnc ADA must be filed In federal court HTHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of thlr Notlce. Ofnerwlfo, your right on this charge will De loff. (The time limit for Tllln~ sull based on e state claim may ba different.)

to 8ue based

a More than 180 days have passed since tnc flllng or t n l s c h a r g e . r-J Les: than 1.80 days have passed since the tiling of this charge, but I nave Oefermlned that 11 1s unllrsly rhaf the EEOC will be
a b l e fo cofflplete Ifs admlnlstratlve p r o c e s s i n g w i t h i n 1 8 0 d a y s trOtI tne llllng of fne c h a r g e . n Tne EEOC 1s Teralnatlng 1Is processing ot this c h a r g e . m T h e E E O C Will continue t o p r o c e s s this Charge.

Age Discrimination In Employment Act (ADEA): You may sue under the MEA at any tlate-room 60 days after the cnarge was f lled untfl QO days aTfer you receive norlce thal w e h a v e complerea action o n t n e c h a r g e . In this r e g a r d , the paragreph merked below appliee to your case:
a me EEoc lo closing your CJSC. Therefore, your lawsuit under the WA must be filed In federal ooun WITHIN 90 DAYS of your
recelptofthlrN&e. OThoTWlse, your righr to SUB based on tne above-numbered charge will be 1061. 0 TM EEOC is contlnulng its handling of your ADEA case. However, iI 80 clays have passe0 slncs the rrllng of your c h a r g e , y o u
m a y Tlla s u i t i n f e d e r a l o r s t a t e c o u r t under tnc AbEA 8r rnrs flme,

Equal Pay Act (EPA): YOU already nave the rlgnr to sue under the EPA (Tlllng an EEOC charge Is not roqulred). EPA cults must be brought ln federal or state court wlThln 2 years (3 years (or *iUTul vlolatlon6) 07 tno alleged CM underpayment. Tnls moans that backpay d u e f o r a n y vloletions r h a r o c c u r r e d - yBilLB) before you file ault may no1 be collectible.

17 You file suit based on rnls charge, please send d copy of your court complainf to Chis'oTTlcc.
O n B e h a l f o f the Commission

Enclosure(o)
:=: RENT-A-CENTS3
322 REED STREE?'
MORERLY, MO 65270
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 04/19/00 Page 12 of 12
EXHIBIT B

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

MARGARET BUNCH

)

202 North Linn

)

Malta Bend, Missouri 65339

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

-vs-

) Case No.: 00-364-CV-W-3-ECF

)

RENT-A-CENTER, INC.

)

SERVE: Registered Agent

)

Corporation Company )

515 South Kansas Ave. )

Topeka, Kansas 66603 )

)

Defendant.

)

________________________________)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW plaintiff, Margaret Bunch, by and through the undersigned

counsel, and for her Complaint against the Defendant, alleges and states as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff resides in Malta Bend, Saline County, Missouri at the address

more specifically set forth above.

2. Plaintiff’s gender is female.

3. Defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. is a Kansas Corporation, in good standing

which conducts business in the State of Missouri and had 15 or more employees at all

relevant times herein. Defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. owns and operates over 1,000

rent-to-own stores across the United States and Canada, and employs thousands of

employees, primarily in the rent-to-own business.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 1 of 14

4. Plaintiff timely filed her charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, within 180 days of the acts herein complained of, alleging discrimination against her by defendant based on her sex and retaliation. A true and correct copy of plaintiff’s charge of discrimination is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
5. On or about April 5, 2000, the EEOC issued its Notice of Right to Sue and plaintiff has filed this complaint within 90 days of her receipt of such notice. On or about May 22, 2000, the MCHR issued its Notice of Right to Sue, and plaintiff has filed this complaint within 90 days of her receipt of such notice. A copy of plaintiff’s EEOC and MCHR Notice of Right to Sue are attached hereto as Exhibit B and C, respectively, and incorporated herein by reference.
6. Plaintiff’s Complaint is filed pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, and Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her Complaint by virtue of the federal questions involved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, and has supplemented jurisdiction over the Missouri Human Rights Act claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
7. Venue is proper in the United States District for the Western District of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because the defendant resides in the Western District of Missouri.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 8. Plaintiff was hired by defendant on August 17, 1998 and was told she
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 2 of 14

would fill the position of store manager of the store in Marshall, Missouri, and earn $24,000 a year.
9. Defendant assigned plaintiff to the Moberly, Missouri store, and initially only paid her on an hourly basis.
10. Marty Roustio continued to promise plaintiff that she would be a store manager at another store, but defendant never gave plaintiff that position.
11. Throughout the term of her employment with defendant, plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome, offensive, derogatory and hostile comments by store manager Matt Langley based on her sex, including but not limited to comments such as “bitch”, “cunt”, comments that defendant never should have hired women, and comments that women were useless.
12. On at least two occasions, plaintiff was delivering a sofa with store manager Matt Langley, and Langley flipped the sofa upwards so that it struck plaintiff in the mouth and plaintiff’s mouth was cut and bleeding.
13. Matt Langley told plaintiff to wear a bikini to the store, and take customers in the back room and do whatever was necessary to make a sale.
14. Plaintiff told Matt Langley that the store was full of cockroaches, and Langley told her to take a shower and they would go away.
15. Langley told plaintiff she could not do her job and she needed to go home and be a grandma.
16. Throughout the term of her employment with defendant, plaintiff was subjected to less favorable terms and conditions of employment than the similarly situated male employees, including less pay, less promotional opportunities, less
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 3 of 14

favorable job duties, and plaintiff was judged by different standards in her job performance.
17. Plaintiff repeatedly complained to store manager Matt Langley about the hostile and offensive work environment and the unequal terms and conditions of employment.
18. Langley told her to “get used to it or quit,” and otherwise ignored plaintiff’s complaints and her requests that the harassment and discrimination stop.
19. Plaintiff also complained about the hostile and offensive work environment and the unequal terms and conditions of employment to market manager Marty Roustio, and he did nothing to remedy the situation.
20. On or about December 23, 2000, defendant fired plaintiff on the basis of her sex, and in retaliation for her complaints of sexual discrimination and harassment.
21. Defendant knew or should have known of the sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation alleged above and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.
22. At all times referenced herein, the individuals referred to herein, including but not limited to Matt Langley and Marty Roustio, were acting within the course and scope of their employment, agency and representation of the defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc.
COUNT I TITLE VII -SEXUAL HARASSMENT 23. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 4 of 14

24. Throughout the term of plaintiff’s employment with defendant, plaintiff’s store manager Matt Langley pervasively and regularly subjected plaintiff to offensive and unwelcome sexually derogatory language, sexual comments, and sexual innuendos, all on the basis of her sex, female.
25. Defendant’s sexually discriminatory conduct detrimentally affected plaintiff and created a hostile and offensive working environment.
26. Defendant’s sexually discriminatory conduct would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person of the same sex in plaintiff’s position.
27. Plaintiff complained to her store manager, Matt Langley, and market manager, Marty Roustio, and defendant thereby knew, or should have known, of the sexual harassment of plaintiff and that said sexual harassment would detrimentally affect plaintiff.
28. Defendant failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action to remedy the sexual harassment of plaintiff, and the hostile work environment not only continued after plaintiff’s complaints, but it intensified in retaliation for plaintiff’s complaints.
29. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e by the foregoing sexual harassment.
30. As a result of defendant’s discriminatory conduct creating a hostile work environment for plaintiff, plaintiff was damaged and is entitled to all remedies available to her as provided in 42 U.S.C. §2000e and 42 U.S.C. §1981a, including but not limited to damages for embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, lost wages, back pay and front pay all in an exact amount which is unknown at this time, and plaintiff is
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 5 of 14

reasonably expected to suffer from such damages in the future. 31. Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because of defendant’s evil motive
or reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiff, thereby entitling plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount that will punish defendant and will deter defendant and others from like conduct.
32. Plaintiff further requests an award of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §1988.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court grant her judgment against the defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. in an amount that is fair and reasonable, for punitive damages, for her costs and attorneys’ fees, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II MHRA- SEXUAL HARASSMENT 33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 34. Throughout the term of plaintiff’s employment with defendant, plaintiff’s store manager Matt Langley pervasively and regularly subjected plaintiff to offensive and unwelcome sexually derogatory language, sexual comments, and sexual innuendos, all on the basis of her sex, female. 35. Defendant’s sexually discriminatory conduct detrimentally affected plaintiff and created a hostile and offensive working environment. 36. Defendant’s sexually discriminatory conduct would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person of the same sex in plaintiff’s position.
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 6 of 14

37. Plaintiff complained to her store manager, Matt Langley, and market manager, Marty Roustio, and defendant thereby knew, or should have known, of the sexual harassment of plaintiff and that said sexual harassment would detrimentally affect plaintiff.
38. Defendant failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action to remedy the sexual harassment of plaintiff, and the hostile work environment not only continued after plaintiff’s complaints, but it intensified in retaliation for plaintiff’s complaints.
39. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 et seq., by the foregoing sexual harassment.
40. As a result of defendant’s discriminatory conduct creating a hostile work environment for plaintiff, plaintiff was damaged and is entitled to all remedies available to her as provided in Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 et seq., including but not limited to damages for embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, lost wages, back pay and front pay all in an exact amount which is unknown at this time, and plaintiff is reasonably expected to suffer from such damages in the future.
41. Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because of defendant’s evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiff, thereby entitling plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount that will punish defendant and will deter defendant and others from like conduct.
42. Plaintiff further requests an award of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in accordance with Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 et seq..
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court grant her judgment against the
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 7 of 14

defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. in an amount that is fair and reasonable, for punitive damages, for her costs and attorneys’ fees, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III TITLE VII - RETALIATION 43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein. 44. After plaintiff reported the sexual harassment and hostile work environment to her store manager, Matt Langley, and her market manager, Marty Roustio, defendant retaliated against plaintiff. 45. The retaliation included, but was not limited to, the continuation of the offensive and unwelcome derogatory sexual remarks, unfavorable to changes to plaintiff’s work assignments, and plaintiff’s ultimate termination on December 23, 1998. 46. Defendant knew or should have known of the retaliation against plaintiff, and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action to remedy the retaliation against plaintiff. 47. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e by the foregoing retaliation. 48. As a result of defendant’s unlawful retaliation against plaintiff, plaintiff was damaged and is entitled to all remedies available to her as provided in 42 U.S.C. §2000e and 42 U.S.C. §1981a, including but not limited to damages for embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, lost wages, back pay and front pay, all in an amount which is unknown at this time, and plaintiff is reasonably expected to
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 8 of 14

suffer from such damages in the future. 49. Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because of defendant’s evil motive
or reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiff, thereby entitling plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount that will punish defendant and will deter defendant and others from like conduct.
50. Plaintiff further requests an award of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §1988.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court grant her judgment against the defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. in an amount that is fair and reasonable, for punitive damages, for her costs and attorneys’ fees, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VI MHRA - RETALIATION 51. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though
fully set forth herein. 52. After plaintiff reported the sexual harassment and hostile work
environment to her store manager, Matt Langley, and her market manager, Marty Roustio, defendant retaliated against plaintiff.
53. The retaliation included, but was not limited to, the continuation of the offensive and unwelcome derogatory sexual remarks, unfavorable to changes to plaintiff’s work assignments, and plaintiff’s ultimate termination on December 23, 1998.
54. Defendant knew or should have known of the retaliation against plaintiff,
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 9 of 14

and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action to remedy the retaliation against plaintiff.
55. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 et seq., by the foregoing retaliation.
56. As a result of defendant’s unlawful retaliation against plaintiff, plaintiff was damaged and is entitled to all remedies available to her as provided in Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 et seq., including but not limited to damages for embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, lost wages, back pay and front pay, all in an amount which is unknown at this time, and plaintiff is reasonably expected to suffer from such damages in the future.
57. Defendant’s conduct was outrageous because of defendant’s evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiff, thereby entitling plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount that will punish defendant and will deter defendant and others from like conduct.
58. Plaintiff further requests an award of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in accordance with Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 et seq..
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court grant her judgment against the defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. in an amount that is fair and reasonable, for punitive damages, for her costs and attorneys’ fees, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT V TITLE VII - SEX DISCRIMINATION 59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 10 of 14

fully set forth herein. 60. Throughout the term of her employment with defendant, plaintiff was
subjected to unequal terms and conditions of employment on the basis of her sex, female, as compared to similarly situated males, including but not limited to: plaintiff received less pay, plaintiff received less promotional opportunities, plaintiff was assigned less favorable job duties, plaintiff was judged by different standards in her job performance, and plaintiff was ultimately terminated on December 23, 1998.
61. The foregoing conduct of the Defendant through its agents and employees was motivated by the plaintiff’s sex, and constituted discrimination against plaintiff by defendant on the basis of her sex.
62. Defendant knew or should have known of the sex discrimination alleged above and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.
63. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e by the foregoing sex discrimination.
64. Plaintiff was damaged by the above mentioned discrimination and is entitled to all remedies available to her as provided in 42 U.S.C. §2000e and 42 U.S.C. §1981(a), including but not limited to damages for loss of income, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, damage to her reputation, diminution in earnings capacity, and other damages as yet undetermined, and plaintiff is reasonably expected to suffer from such damages in the future.
65. The conduct of the defendant was outrageous and was intentional or was recklessly indifferent to plaintiff’s rights, thereby entitling plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount that will punish Defendant and deter Defendant and others from like
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 11 of 14

conduct. 66. Plaintiff further requests an award of attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §1988. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court grant her judgment against the
defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. in an amount that is fair and reasonable, for punitive damages, for her costs and attorneys’ fees, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VI MHRA - SEX DISCRIMINATION 67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein. 68. Throughout the term of her employment with defendant, plaintiff was subjected to unequal terms and conditions of employment on the basis of her sex, female, as compared to similarly situated males, including but not limited to: plaintiff received less pay, plaintiff received less promotional opportunities, plaintiff was assigned less favorable job duties, plaintiff was judged by different standards in her job performance, and plaintiff was ultimately terminated on December 23, 1998. 69. The foregoing conduct of the Defendant through its agents and employees was motivated by the plaintiff’s sex, and constituted discrimination against plaintiff by defendant on the basis of her sex. 70. Defendant knew or should have known of the sex discrimination alleged above and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action. 71. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 12 of 14

violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 et seq., by the foregoing sex discrimination.

72. Plaintiff was damaged by the above mentioned discrimination and is

entitled to all remedies available to her as provided in Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 et seq.,

including but not limited to damages for loss of income, embarrassment, humiliation,

emotional distress, damage to her reputation, diminution in earnings capacity, and

other damages as yet undetermined, and plaintiff is reasonably expected to suffer from

such damages in the future.

73. The conduct of the defendant was outrageous and was intentional or was

recklessly indifferent to plaintiff’s rights, thereby entitling plaintiff to punitive damages in

an amount that will punish Defendant and deter Defendant and others from like

conduct.

74. Plaintiff further requests an award of attorney’s fees and expenses of

litigation in accordance with Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 et seq.

.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court grant her judgment against the

defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. in an amount that is fair and reasonable, for punitive

damages, for her costs and attorneys’ fees, and for such other relief as this Court

deems just and proper.

WHITE, ALLINDER & GRAHAM, L.L.C.

BY: /s/ Gene P. Graham, Jr. GENE P. GRAHAM, JR. 34950 MO MARY BETH CLUNE 43005 MO 14801 East 42nd Street Independence, Missouri 64055 (816) 373-9080/ FAX 373-9319 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 13 of 14

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW plaintiff, by and through the undersigned and hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues in the above-referenced Complaint.
WHITE, ALLINDER & GRAHAM, L.L.C. BY: /s/ Gene P. Graham, Jr.
GENE P. GRAHAM, JR. 34950 MO MARY BETH CLUNE 43005 MO 14801 East 42nd Street Independence, Missouri 64055 (816) 373-9080/ FAX 373-9319 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
F:\APPS\DOCUMENT\KATHY\ECF\BUNCH.PLE
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 3 Filed 06/12/00 Page 14 of 14

 
 DEC, 5,2000 1: 40PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO, 4788 p, 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURl

TRACY LEVINGS, Plaintiff,
v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC.,
Defendant.

) ) )
) Case No. OO.Q596-CV-W-SOW ) )
)
) .JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)

MARGARET BUNCH. Plaintiff.
v.
RENT-A-CENTER. INC.,
Defendant.

) ) )
) Case No. 00-364..CV-W-3-ECF
) ) )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiffs. and for the causes of action 'on behalf of themselves and the Class described here, state and allege the following;
NATURE OF IRE CLAIM 1. This is a Class Action brouKht by Tracy Levings and Margaret Bunch on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly situated against defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. (hereinafter RAC). Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief. injunctive rellef, and monetary damages to redress the deprivation of rights suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c ;1S. (Title Vll) and Mo. Rev.

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 1 of 20

DEC. 5.2000 1:40PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO. 4788 P. 7

Stat. § 213.010 ma. Plaintiffs are female former employees ofRAC who have been the victim
of discriminatory employment policies and practices based on their gender. Plaintiffs and the
Class described herein have been damaged as a result of defendant RAe's purposeful
discriminatory pattern and practice in employment with respect to female employees.
2. Plaintiffs and all Class Members have had the terms and/or conditions of their
employment with Defendant RAC affected in one or more of the following ways:
(a) Pursuant to an established pattern and practice of discrimination in employment, Plaintiffs and other female employees are subjected to a hostile and offensive working enviromnent. This environment is materially different from the environment to which similarly situated. or less qualified male employees are subjected. In furthering this discriminatory and hostile environment based on gender, RAC fails to respond to or investigate reports of such discrimination and hostility.
(b) Pursuant to an established pattern and practice of discrimination in
employment at RAe. Plaintiffs and other female employees are subjected
to job requirements which are materially different from those imposed on similarly situated or less qualified male employees.
(c) Pursuant to an established pattern and practice, Plaintiff and other female employees are denied promotional opportunities extended to similarly situated or less qualified male employees.
(d) Pursuant to an established pattern and practice, Plaintiffs and. other female employees are compensated less than Similarly situated. or less qualified male employees.
(e) RAe disciplines, tcnninates, and/or otherwise punishes employees Who complain of the gender-based discriminatory practices at RAC.
(f) That RAe has recently imposed a 7S pound lifting requirement on all new
hires which although facially neutral. is discriminatory in its impact on female employees.
(a) That since the formation ofRAC Inc. the 7S pound lifting policy has been used to discriminate against females in hiring new females. retention of existing females and thereby reduced the number of females being considered for promotion, thereby reducing the number of female employees in manasement positions company wide.

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 2 of 20

DEC. 5.2000 1: 40PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO. 4788 P. 8

(h) That the imposition of the policy requiring each employee to be able to lift 7S pounds was designed in an effort to create a bamer to hiring new female employees and to eliminate existing female employees job positioD,s.
(i) That RAC has utilized the 75 pound lifting restriction to deny females the opportunity to acquire the experience and opportunities necessary to obtain the qualifications to be promoted.
3. Defendant has had actual notice of the aforementioned, but has taken inadequate steps to eliminate said discriminatory policies, procedures, and practices.
.DJRISDICTlQN AND VENUE 4. This action is brought as a class action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e mSQ. (Title VII).
5. Jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1342t as well as U.S.C. § 2000e-S(f)(3).
6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-S(f)(3).
7. Plaintiffs have satisfied the administrative prerequisites to suit under Title VII.
PARTIES
8. Each Plaintiff is a former female employee of RAC, as described more fully in
this Complaint. 9. Defendant RAC is a Kansas Corporation, in good standing, which conducts
business in the State ofMissouri and had 15 or more employees at all relevant times herein.
Defendant RAC owns and operates over 1000 rent-to-own stores across the United States and
Canada, and employs thousands of employees. primarily in the rent-to-own business.
CLASSALLEGAUONS
10. Plaintiffs sue on behalf ofthemselves and a Class of similarly situated persons

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 3 of 20

DEC, 5,2000 1:41PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO, 4788 p, 9

pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all present, fonner, and future female employees who have, because of their sex, been denied promotion, been discharged or constructively discharged, endured retaliation for complaining of defendant's discriminatory practices, or been subjected to sexual harassment while in defendant's employ.
11. Subsection (a)(l) of Rule 23 is satisfied in that the class Plaintiffs seek to represent is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. Upon infonnation and belief. the number
of current and former female employees of RAe is at least one thousand.
12. Subscc:tion (a)(2) of Rule 23 is satisfied in that there are questions of fact and law common to the members of the Class which predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members, to wit: whether Rent-A-Center maintained and does currently maintain. a
continuing pattern and practice of discrimination a&ainst women in employment. 13. Subsection (a)(3) of Rule 23 is satisfied in that the claims of Class
Representatives Levings and. Bunch are typical of the claims of the Class. 14. Subsection (a)(4) of Rule 23 is satisfied in that the Representative Plaintiffs will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 15. Subsection (b)(2) of Rule 23 is satisfied in that defendant RAC has acted or
refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class thereby making appropriate the rendering of final injunctive and/or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class.
16. Pursuant to subs~tion (b)(3) of Rule 23. a Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy described herein.
17. Pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of Rule 23, there arc questions of law and fact common to this Class and which predominate over any questions solely affecting individual

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 4 of 20

DEC, 5,2000 1:41PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BOG

-----.--.~.----.--
NO, 4788 p, 10

members of the Class. The questions of law and fact common to this Class include, but are not
limited to. the foUowin& issues:
(a) Whether Federal Civil Rights laws were violated by RAC's policies and practices as alleged herein;
(b) Whether RAC maintained the gender-based discriminatory policies and
practices as alleged herein;
(e) Whether RAC's gender-based discriminatory policies and practices constitute purposeful discrimination;
(d) Whether RAC's gender-based. discriminatory policies and practices result in disparate impact andlor disparate treatment ofwomen;
(c) Whether RAC has maintained and continues to maintain a hostile working environment for female employees;
(f) Whether RAC has a practice of retaliating against employees who complain of the sexually harassing and hostile environment;
(g) Whether RAC has routinely and commonly subjected female employees to unlawful terms and conditions ofemployment that were different that those for similarly situated or less qualified male employees, including, but not limited to pay, promotion, and other terms and conditions for employees;
(h) Whether the lender of female employees was a motivating factor in RAC's gender-based discriminatory policies, protedures, and company-wide practices;
(i) Whether RAe's discriminatory conduct violated Title VII;
(j) Whether RAe's discriminatory policies and practices continue to affects its employees necessitating injunctive relief and monitoring by the Court;
(k) Whether RAe's actions were willful. intentional. wanton and/or in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and members ofthe Class~ and
(1) Whether, and in what amount, RAC should be assessed punitive damages to punish it and other companies like RAC from engaging in similar eonciuct in the future.
ALJ,EGATIQNS OF BEPBESENTATIYE UAINTIFFS

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 5 of 20

DEC. 5.2000 1:41PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO. 4788 P. 11

TraO' LevinD 21. Plaintiff Tracy Levings is a resident ofthe State of Missouri at 523 East Burkhart~
Moberly, Missouri 65270. Ms. Levings was employed by defendant RAe from July! 1998 until
November, 1998 as a Rental Specialist. Throughout the term of her employment with RAe, Ms. Levings was subjected to unwelcome, offensive, derogatory and hostile comments by Store Manager Matt Langley based on her sex, inclucling but not limited to comments such as "bitch;' "cunt," comments that defendant should never have hired women, and comments that women were useless.
22. In August of 1998, Store Manager Matt Langley told Ms. Levings to take off all of her clothes and go la.y on one of the beds in the showroom floor to attract customers.
23. On another occasion in August, 198, Store Manager Matt Langley physically touched Ms Levings' person without her consent, and put his hand down the back of Ms. Levings' pants, grabbed ber belt and pulled her backwards when she was trying to unload an entertainment center from a van. That Levings found this to be offensive.
24. Matt Langley told Ms. Levings to wear a bikini to the store so customers would see her.
25. Throughout the term ofhcr employment with defendant. Ms. Levings was subjected to less favorable tenns and conditions ofemployment than the similarly situated male employees~ including less pay. less promotional opportunities. less favorable job duties, and Ms. Levings was judged by different standards in her job perfonnance.
26. Ms. Levings repeatedly complained to her store manager Matt Langley about the hostile and offensive work environment and unequal terms and conditions of employment. That Langley has a.dmitted that he discussed Levings complaints with Market Manager Rustio who

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 6 of 20

DEC. 5.2000 1:42PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

'--'-------------
NO. 4788 P. 12

took no disciplinary action against Langley. 27. Ms. Lovings also complained on several occasions about the hostile and offensive
work environment and the unequal tenns and conditions of employment to market manager
Marty Roustio. Nothing was clone to remedy the situation and no investigation was conducted of
these occurrences. 28. After Ms. Levings complained about the sexual harassment and less favorable
terms and conditions, the harassment and discrimination not only continued, but intensified in retaliation for her complaints.
29. On or about November 11. 1998, defendant terminated. Ms. Levings on the basis of her sex, and in retaliation for her complaints of sexual discrimination and harassment.
30. Marty Roustio told Ms. Levings she was being fued. Ms. Levings believes her tennination was in retaliation for complaining of gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and sexual harassment.
31. Defendant RAe knew. or should have known, of the gender discrimination,
sexual harassment. and retaliation alleged above and yet failed to implement prompt and appropriate: corrective action.
32. At all times referenced herein, the individuals referred to herein, including but not limited to Matt Langley and Marty Roustio, were acting within the course and scope of their
employment, agency and representation of the defendant RAe.
Maruot BUDGh 33. Plaintiff Margaret Bunch is a resident of the State of Missouri at 202 North Linn, Malta Bend, Missouri~ 65339. Ms. Bunch was hired by RAe on August 17, 1998, and was told she would fill the position of store manager of the store in Marshall, Missouri and earn $24.000

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 7 of 20

DEC. 5.2000 1:42PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO. 4788 P. 13

annually. That this amount would have been less than other similarly situated male managers aeross the country in the employ ofRent-A-Ccnter Inc.
34. Ms. Bunch was assigned. by RAe to the Moberly, Missouri store and initially only paid on an hourly basis, less than similarly situated male employees in similar positions.
35. Market Manager Marty Roustio continued to promise Ms. Bunch that she would be made a store manager at another store, but RAC never gave Ms. Bunch that position.
36. Throughout the term of her employment with RAC. Ms. Bunch was subjected to unwelcome, offensive. derogatory and hostile comments by store manager Matt Langley based on her sex, including but not limited to, comments such as "bitch/' "cunt," comments that defendant never should have hired women, and comments that women were useless.
37. On at least two occasions, Ms. Bunch was delivering a sofa with store manager Matt Langley and Langley flipped. the sofa upwards so that it struck Ms. Bunch in the mouth and Ms. Bunch's mouth was cut and bleeding.
38. Matt Langley told plaintiff to wear a bikini to the store, and take customers in the back room and do whatever was necessary to make a sale.
39. When Ms. Bunch informed Matt Langley that the store was full of cockroaches, Langley told Ms. Bunch to take a shower and they would go away.
40. Langley told Ms. Bunch that she could not do her job and that she needed to go home and be a grandmother.
41. Throu&b.out the tenn of her employment with defendant, Ms. Bunch was SUbjected to less favorable terms and conditions of employment than the similarly situated male employees, including less pay, less promotional opportunities, less favorable job duties, and Ms. Bunch was judged by different standards in her job performance than similarly situated males.

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 8 of 20

DEC, 5,2000 1:42PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO, 4788 p, 14

42. Ms. Bunch repeatedly complained to store manager Matt Langley about the hostile and offensive work environment, filthy remarks and the unequal terms and conditions of employment.
43. Langley told Ms. Bunch to "get used to it or quit," and otherwise ignored Ms. Bunch's complaints and her requests that the harassment and discrimination stop.
44. Ms. Bunch also complained about Langley's behavior and the hostile and offensive work environment and the unequal terms and conditions of employment to market manager Marty Roustio but nothing was done to remedy the hostile and offensive work enviromnent.
45. On or about December 23, 1999, RAC terminated Ms. Bunch on the basis of her sex, and in retaliation for her complaints of sexual discrimination and harassment.
46. Defendant RAe knew or should have known of the sexual discrimination, harassment, and retaliation alleged above Blld failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.
47. At all time referenced here~ the individuals referred to herein, including but not limited to Matt Langley and Marty Roustio. were acting within the course and scope of their employment, agency and representation of the defendant RAC.
48. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (RAe) was formerly known as Renters Choice. Renters
Choice has engaged in a systematic scheme of intentional sex-based discrimination directed toward females. This pattern of gender based discrimination was continued by the same managers once Renters Choice merged with Rent..A-Center in the formation ofthe new entity, on or around August 3, 1998, which became the present day corporation, Rent-A-Center. Inc. The system and pattern includes:

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 9 of 20

DEC. 5.2000 1:42PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO. 4788 P. 15

<a) Elimination ofjob classifications previously held by women.
(b) Imposition of a weight lifting requirement unrelated to the actual requirement ofthe work, and further that females had previously held these positions and perfunned all necessary duties without need of any arbitrary 75 pound weight lifting restriction.
(c) Administering intrusive and non-job related psychological tests.
(d) Gender based and gender motivated harassment of females. including assignment of cleaning and clerical duties~ negative comments about female's perfonnance and their suitability for positions with the company, intense and unwarranted scrutiny of the perfonnance of female employees, unfair and unequal imposition of discipline based upon sex, and adverse treatment because of pregnancy and other faJnilial obligations.
49. As a result ofthc systematic practices outlined above female employees have been
and continue to be discharged and constructively discharged on account oftheil' sex. Female
employees have been denied promotions and been demoted because of their sex. Females have
been discouraged from applying for work in the company's stores on account of their sex.
Women who have applied for positions in the company's stores have been denied employment
on account of their sex.
51. Rent-A-Centcr has maintained a pattern and practic;e of sex discrimiMtion against
female employees and women applicants for employment in the following ways:
(a) Discharging and constructively discharging women employees on account of their sex, while retaining comparable and less qualified men;
(b) Failing to promote women employees on account of their sex; while selecting less qualified men for promotion;
(c) Demoting women employees on account oftheir sex, while retaining less qualified men;
(d) Discouraging women from applying for employment OD account of their sex including placing ads for new hires that mention 7S pound weight
liftin& requirement, although men who apply are never tested for this
weisht lifting requirement;

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 10 of 20

DEC. 5.2000 1: 43PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO. 4788 P. 16

(e) Failina to hire women applicants on account of their sex, while selecting less qualified men for employment;
(f) Harassing women employees on the basis of sex.
COUNT!
roLE VII - SEXIJAL HARASSMENT
52. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 51 of the First Amended Class
Action Complaint, by reference, as iffully set forth herein.
S3. RAC has maintained a pattern and practice of sexual harassment against female
employees in the following ways:
<a) Subjecting female employees to offensive, derogatory, and unwelcome sexually derogatory language. sexual comments ~ and sexual itmuendos and offensive physical touching and battery, all on the basis of their sex, female;
(b) Creating a sexually hostile and offensive work environment for its female employees;
(c) Failing to take prompt and corrective actions to remedy the sexual harassment and hostile environment after female employees complained.
(d) Failing to promote females to positions of store manager, market manager, regional director and vice president.
(e) Failing to develop a non-discriminatory method for promotions resulting in the absence of females from positions above the entry level positions.
54. Defendant RAC intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e by the foregoing sexual harassment.
55. As a result of defendant RAC's discriminatory conduct crea.ting a hostile work
environment for Plaintiffs and other female employees, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have
been damaged and are entitled to all remedies available to them as provided in 42 U.S.C. §
2000e~ including but not limited to, damages for embarrassment, humiliation, emotio:nal distress,

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 11 of 20

DEC, 5,2000 1:43PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO, 47BB p, 17

lost wages. back pay and front pay all in an exact amount which is unknown at this time. 56. RAe's conduct was outrageous because of RAe's evil motive Dr reckless
indifference to the rights ofthe Plaintiffs and members of the Class, thereby entitling Plaintiffs and Class Members to punitive damages in an amount that will punish defendant and will deter defendant and others from like conduct.
57. Plaintiffs further request an award ofattorneys' fees and expenses of litigation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COllNTU
TITLE VB BUAIATION
58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations previously pleaded herein. 59. After plaintiffs Levings and Bunch, and others, reported the sexual harassment and gender discrimination and hostile work environment to their store manager Matt Langley and market manager Marty Rustio. plaintiff's Levings, Bunch and others were retaliated against and tenninated. 60. That the retaliation included, but was Dot limited to, the continuation of the offensive and unwelcome derogatory sexual remarks, unfavorable changes to plaintiffs work assignments and termination. 61. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of 42 U,S.C. 2000e by the foregoing retaliation. 62. As a result of defendant's unlawful retaliation against plaintiffs, plaintiffs were damaged and are entitled to all remedies available to them as provided in 42 U.S,C.2000e, including but not limited to damages for embarrassment, humiliation, emotional disttess. lost wages, back pay and front pay, all in an amount which is unknown at this time, and plaintiffs are

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 12 of 20
------------

DEC. 5.2000 1:43PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

... __.. ---------
NO. 47BB P. 1B

reasonably expected to suffer from such damages in the future. 63. Defendant's conduct was outrageous because of defendant's evil motive or
reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiffs. thereby entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount suffi.;ient to punish defendants and to deter defendant and others from like conduct.
64. Plaintiffs seck an. award of attorneys fees and expenses.
COVNTm TITLE vn - SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION 65. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the foregoing paragraphs ofthe First Amended Class Action Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 66. The foregoing conduct of Rcnt-A-Center violates the rights of the Plaintiffs and
the class they represent to be free from discrimination on aceount of sex under Title vn of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, under both the disparate treatment and disparate impact analysis. 67. The foregoing conduct of RAe was willful, malicious and undertaken with
reokless indifference to the federally proteoted rights of the Plaintiff"s and all present, fonner and future female employees and female applicants for employment who have, because of their sex been denied promotions, discharged or construotively discharged, denied. employment, received less pay, assigned less favorable job duties. and judged by different standards in their job performance .
68. The foregoing conduct of Rent-A-Center, Inc. is and has been continuing in nature.
69. That as a consequenee of the foregoing conduct the Plaintiffs and members of the class they seek to represent have suffered past and future lost wages~ loss of earning capacity and other employment benefits.

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 13 of 20

DEC. 5.2000 1:43PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BOG

NO. 4788 P. 19

70. Defendant knew or should have known of the sex discrimination alleged above and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.
71. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e by the foregoing sex discrimination.
72. Plaintiffs were damaged by the above mentioned discrimination and is entitled to all remedies available as provided in 42 U.S.C. f2000e and 42 U.S.C. §1981(a), including but not limited to damages for loss of income, embarrassment, humlliatioIlp emotional distress. damage to reputatioIlp diminution in earnin&s capacity, and other damages as yet undetennined, and plaintiffs are reasonably expected to suffer from such damages in the future.
73. The conduct ofthe defendant was outrageous and was intentional or was recklessly indifferent to plaintiffs rights, thereby entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount that will punish Defendant and deter Defendant and others from like conduct.
74. Plaintiffs further requests an award ofattomey's fees and expenses of litigation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §1988.
CQUNTIY MIIRA·SEXUAL HARASSMENt 75. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as thouah fully set forth herein. 76. Throughout the term of plaintiffs' employu1ent with defendan~ defendants store managers, market mllbagers and regional directors pervasively and regularly subjected females to offensive and Wlwelcome sexually derogatory language, sexual comments, and sexual innuendos. and offensive touching. all on the basis of the plaintiffs' sex, female. 17. Defendant's sexually discriminatory conduct would have detrimentally affected a

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 14 of 20

DEC, 5, 2000 1: 44PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO, 4788 p, 20

reasonable person ofthe same sex in these plaintiffs positions. 78. PlaintiffS complained to their store managers, tnarket managers, human resource
personnel, and regional directors, and defendant thereby knew, or should have known, ofthe sexual harassment of plaintiffs and that said harassment and touching would detrimentally affect these plaintiffs.
79. Defendant failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrcctive action to remedy the sexual harassment and gender discrimination of plaintiffs, and the hostile work environment not only continued after plaintiffs' complaints, but it intensified in retaliation for plaintiffs' complaints, including in some instances termination of plaintiffs for reporting the c:onduct. That upon the merger of Renters Choice and Rent-A-Center the new corporation, RentA-Center, Inc. immediately disbanded the entire human resources department and eliminated the employee's that had been trained to investigate and respond to complaints of discrimination, harassment and retaliation. That the human resources department was eliminated in order to make it more difficult for aggrieved females to obtain any relief from the harassment and discrimination.
80. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat.213.010.et seg... As a result of defendant's discriminatory conduct creating a hostile work environment for plaintiffs. plaintiffs were damaged and are entitled to all remedies
available to them as provided in Mo. Rev. Stat. 213.010 It seq., including but not limited to
damages for embarassment, humiliation, emotional distress, lost wages, back pay and front pay all in an amount which is unknown at this time, and plaintiff is reasonably expected to suffer from such damages in the future.
81. Defendant's conduct was outrageous because ofdefendant's evil motive or

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 15 of 20

DEC. 5. 2000 1: 44PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO. 4788 P. 21

reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiffs, thereby entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages

in an amount that will punish defendant and deter defendant and others from like conduct.

82. Plaintiffs request an award of attorneys fees and '''penses in accordance with Mo.

Rev. Stat. 213.010.

COUNTy
MURA-BETALlATlON

83. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set

forth herein.

84. After plaintiffs reported the sexual harassment and hostile work environment to

their store managers, market managers, human resource personnel, regional directors ot the

manager of customer relations department, they began to experience retaliation. The retaliation

included, but was not limited to, the continuation of the oft'ensive and unwelcome derogatory

sexual remarks, unfavorable work assignments, and termination.

85. Defendant knew or should have known of the retaliation against the plaintiff's and

failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action to remedy the retaliation. against

plaintiff.

86. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of

Mo. Rev. Stat. 213.010 by eIlJaging in the foregoing retaliation.

87. As a result of the defendant's unlawful retaliation against these plaintiff's, they

were damaged and are entitled to all remedies available to them as provided in Mo. Rev. Stat.

213.010, et, seq., including, but not limited to damages for embarassment, hwniliation, emotional

distress, lost wages, back pay, front pay. all in an amount which is unknown at this time, and all

damages plaintiff is expected to suffer in the future.

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 16 of 20

DEC, 5, 2000 1: 44PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO, 4788 p, 22

88. Defendant's conduct was outrageous because of defendant's evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiffs thereby entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount that will punish defendant and will deter defendant and others from like conduct.
89. Plaintiffs request an award ofattomeys fees and expenses of litigation in accordance with Mo. Rev. Stat. 213.010 el seq".
~QUNTVI
M1IBA - SEX mSCRlMlNATION
90. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein.
91. The foregoing conduct of RAC was willful. malicious and undertaken with reckless indifference to the protected riahts of the Plaintiffs and all present, fanner and future female employees and female applicants for employment who have, because of their sex been denied promotions. discharged or constIuctively discharged, denied employment, received less pay, assigned less favorable job duties. and judged by different standards in their job perfonnance .
92. The foregoing conduct of Rent-A-Center, Inc. is and bas been continuing in
nature. 93. That as a consequence of the foregoing conduct the Plaintiffs and members of the
class they seek to represen.t have suffered past and future lost wages, loss of earning capacity and other employment benefits.
94. Defendant knew or should have known of the sex discrimination alleged above and failed to implement prompt and appropriate coIl'CCtive action.
95. Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 17 of 20

DEC. 5. 2000 1: 44PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO. 4788 P. 23

m..... Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010

by the fore&oing sex discrimination.

96. Plaintiffs were damaged by the above mentioned discrimination and are entitled to

all remedies available as provided in Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 m..Jsul., including but not limited to

damages for loss of income, embarrassment, humiliation. e%l1otional distress, damage to

reputation, diminution in earnings capat;ity, and other damages as yet undctennined. and

plaintiffs are reasonably expected to suffer from such damages in the future.

97. The conduct of the defendant was outrageous and was intentional or was

recklessly indifferent to plaintiffs' rights, thel'eby entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages in an

amount that will punish Defendant and deter Defendant and others from like conduct.

98. Plaintiffs further requests an award ofattorney's fees and expenses of litigation in

accordance with Mo. Rev. Stat. §213.010 ~..
PRAYER FOR RBUEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:

(A) Certify this case as a Class Action;

(B) Enter a judgment pursuant to jury verdicts that the acts and practices of

Defendants complained of herein are in violation ofthe laws ofthe United States and the State of

Missouri;

CC) Pursuant to jury verdicts award. plaintiffs and the Class lost wages, including all

lost fringe benefits and back pay, including, without limitation, compensation differential and

any lost benefits that would have otherwise been accorded. Plaintiffs absent the illegal

discrimination;

CD) Award Plaintiffs and the Class, pursuant to jury verdi~, compensatory and

punitive damages;

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 18 of 20

DEC. 5.2000 1: 45PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO. 4788 P. 24

(E) Award Plaintiffs the costs ofthis action, including the fees and costs of experts,
together with reasonable attorneys fees;
(F) Order injunctive relief as the Court deems necessary to correct ongoing
discriminatory praetices and prevent future discriminatory practices. Grant Plaintiffs and the
Class equitable relief enjoining Defendants from discriminatory acts and. practices and
monitoring Defendant's compliance with anti-discrimination laws, along with other affinnative
injunctive relief which the Court deems proper;
(0) Order such relief as the Court deems appropriate.
WIDTE, ALLINDER. GRAHAM & COMPTON, L.L.C
By: Is! Oene P. Graham. Jr.
Gene P. Graham, Jr. #34950 Maxy Beth Compton #43005
Hidden Creek Law Building 14801 East 42nd Street Independence, Missouri 64055 (816) 373-9080 Fax: 373-9319
ATTORNEYSFORPL~F
THE POPHAM LAW FIRM, P.C. Dennis Egan, MO 27449 Bert S. Braud, MO 34325
323 West 8th Street, Suite 200
Kansas City, Missouri 64105-1679
KLAMANN & HUBBARD, P.A. John M. Klamann MO 29335 Dirk L. Hubbard MO 37936 7101 College Blvd., Ste. 130 Overland Park, KS 66210 SANDERS, SIMPSON, FLETCHER
&SMlTH,LLC Michael Fletcher MO 47495 112S Grand #1400

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 19 of 20

DEC. 5.2000 1: 45PM HIDDEN CREEK LAW BDG

NO. 4788 P. 25

Kansas City, Missouri 64106
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND
ALL OTHER CLASS MEMBERS
SIMILARLY SITIJATED

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 23 Filed 12/18/00 Page 20 of 20

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET BUNCH, et al.

)

Individually, and as

)

Class Representatives

)

Plaintiffs,

)

Case No. 00-0364-CV-W-3

)

vs.

)

)

RENT-A-CENTER, INC.,

)

Defendant.

)

_____________________________________________________________________

TRACY LEVINGS,

)

Individually, and as

)

Class Representatives

)

Plaintiffs,

)

Case No. 00-0596-CV-W-3

)

vs.

)

)

RENT-A-CENTER, INC.,

)

Defendant.

)

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT, AND FORM, ADEQUACY AND MANNER OF NOTICE, CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING A SETTLEMENT CLASS, DIRECTING
NOTICE TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AND SETTING A HEARING ON THE SETTLEMENT AND CERTAIN APPLICATIONS
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, AWARDS, AND COSTS

The Plaintiffs and Defendant have entered into Stipulation and Settlement

Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) dated October 31, 2001. The Court has reviewed

and considered the terms of the Settlement Agreement and presentation by counsel of

the reasons underlying the Settlement contemplated thereby, and the appropriateness of

conditional certification of the Settlement Class. The Court determines, preliminarily,

without prejudice to the rights of Settlement Class Members to object to the Settlement,

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 108 Filed 11/29/01 Page 1 of 8

the following: that all the requirements of Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied with respect to the conditional maintenance of this action as a Class Action solely for the purpose of considering and acting on the Settlement; that the terms of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement are fair, adequate and reasonable and that they have been negotiated at arms’ length and without collusion; that certification of a Settlement Class, conditioned upon final approval of the Settlement Agreement, is appropriate; that the form, content and method of the Notices by mail and the Summary Notice by publication will adequately inform absent Settlement Class Members of their rights; and, that such Notices constitute the best practicable notice under the circumstances and comport with due process.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Class Certification. This action is certified as a Class Action on behalf of
the Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, under subparagraphs (a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure solely for the purpose of considering and acting on the proposed Settlement. For Settlement purposes, this action shall be maintained as a Class Action on behalf of the following Class of Plaintiffs:
All females who worked at, applied for work, and/or who attempted to apply but were affirmatively discouraged by the Defendant from applying for work at any Rent-A-Center, Rent-A-Center, Inc., or Renters Choice, Inc. store in the United States or any of its territories, at any time between April 19, 1998 and October 1, 2001 (the “Class Period”), except that the Class does not include any female employed as a Market Manager and/or Regional Director nor any female who previously entered into a written settlement
2
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 108 Filed 11/29/01 Page 2 of 8

agreement with Rent-A-Center, Rent-A-Center, Inc., or Renters Choice, Inc. which releases claims of gender discrimination. ("Class Members")
2. Class Representatives. The Court approves for settlement purposes the
following individuals as Class Representatives in this case: Margaret Bunch, Tracy
Levings, Christy Johnson, Ruby Smith, Stephanie Robinson, Angela Byrd, Claudetta
Davis Burns, Kimberly Hall, Sheree Watson, April Anderson, Retta Stevenson, and Nicole
Brown.
3. Class Counsel. The Court has approved the following attorneys and Law
Firms as Counsel to represent the Class in this action:
WHITE, ALLINDER & GRAHAM, L.L.C. Steven White Gene Graham Mary Beth Compton Hidden Creek Building 14801 E. 42nd Street Independence, Missouri 64055
KLAMANN & HUBBARD, P.A. John M. Klamann Dirk L. Hubbard Courtney Hueser 7101 College Blvd., Suite 120 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 327-7600 Telecopier: (913) 327-7800
THE POPHAM LAW FIRM, P.C. Dennis Egan Bert S. Braud 323 W. 8th Street Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64106
3
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 108 Filed 11/29/01 Page 3 of 8

Telephone: (816) 221-2288 Telecopier: (816) 221-3999
4. Proposed Settlement. The Proposed Settlement between the Plaintiff
Class and the Defendant appears, upon preliminary review, to be within the range of
reasonableness and accordingly shall be submitted to the Class Members for their
consideration and for a hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
5. Hearing. A hearing shall be held on Wednesday, March 6 at 9:00 a.m. to
determine the lawfulness, reasonableness, adequacy and fairness of the Settlement,
whether the Settlement should be finally approved, whether an Order and Judgment
granting Final Judicial Approval should be entered thereon, and whether Class Members
should be bound by the Release set forth in the Settlement Agreement. At that time or
as soon thereafter as practicable, the Court will also consider and rule upon all
objections, if any, to the proposed Settlement, any pending disputes as to settlement
allocations, and any pending Applications for award of Attorneys fees and for
reimbursement of costs, and any objections thereto, all subject to the following:
(a) Objections by Class Members (persons who do not timely exclude themselves from the Class) to the proposed Settlement and any disputes as to employment duration for allocation purposes will be considered only if submitted in writing and mailed to the Clerk of the District Court at a post office box address to be established by the Settlement Administrator and postmarked on or before January 25, 2001.
(b) At the hearing, Class Members (persons who do not timely opt out and exclude themselves from the Class) may be heard orally in support of or in opposition to the proposed Settlement and/or any Application for Attorneys Fees and/or reimbursement of expenses, or disputes as to employment duration, provided such persons mail to the Clerk of the District Court at a post office box address to be established by the administrator and postmarked on or before January 25, 2001, a written notification of the 4
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 108 Filed 11/29/01 Page 4 of 8

desire to appear personally, indicating briefly the nature of the objection or the nature of the matter on which they otherwise wish to be heard;
(c) Class Counsel and counsel for the Defendant shall file or otherwise provide to the Court copies of all written objections, summaries of opt-out notices, and other material pertinent to the subject-matter of the hearing on final approval of the Settlement in a timely fashion so as to enable the Court to give due consideration to such matters and the arguments pertaining thereto before and/or at the time of the hearing. Counsel for the Class and for the Defendant should be prepared at the hearing to respond to objections, if any, filed by Class Members and to provide other information, as appropriate, bearing on whether or not the proposed Settlement, Applications, and distribution of settlement proceeds should be approved.
6. Notice. The mailing and publication of Notice as provided herein constitute
the best Notice practical under the circumstances to the Settlement Class; and such
Notices comport with due process and are due and sufficient notice for all purposes to all
persons entitled thereto.
7. Settlement Administration and Notice. Consistent with the Parties’
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, the Court hereby appoints Rust Consulting, Inc.
as Settlement Administrator for the purpose of carrying out the mandates of this Order
and the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement applicable to the Settlement Administrator.
Class Counsel and Defendant shall work to provide necessary assistance to the
Settlement Administrator who in turn shall no later than December 10, 2001 use
reasonable efforts to cause to be mailed in the name of the Clerk by first class mail,
postage prepaid, to certain identifiable Class Members a Notice in substantially the same
form as Exhibit C to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. This Notice will be
mailed to Class Members who can be identified through an examination of Defendant’s
records consisting of the database and/or Verified List of employees heretofore provided 5
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 108 Filed 11/29/01 Page 5 of 8

to Class Counsel by Defendant pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. The Notices shall be mailed in envelopes bearing the return address: “Clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District", indicating a post office box address to be established by the administrator, and stating "PLEASE FORWARD." In addition, on or before December 28, 2001, the Settlement Administrator and/or Class Counsel shall use best efforts to cause to be published a summary Notice in substantially the same form as Exhibit D to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. That summary Notice is to be published in the USA Today newspaper. On or before January 11, 2001, Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator shall file with the Court an Affidavit that such Notice described herein has been effectuated.
Further, Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrator shall rent a post office box in the name of the Clerk of the District Court for the return of undeliverable notices, for the receipt of opt-out forms and written requests for review of employment duration, and for the receipt of written objections to the Settlement; and for other communications from the Class; and Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator shall mail to Counsel for Defendant exemplar copies of all Notices sent by the Settlement Administrator, all written objections, all written requests for review of employment duration, and all completed and returned opt-out forms.
8. Exclusion. That period of time commencing with the date of this Order and ending on January 25, 2001 shall be the “Opt-Out Period.” All Class Members wishing to opt out of the Settlement Class must do so in writing as ordered within the “Opt-Out Period.” Class Members may exclude themselves from the Class by mailing the
6
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 108 Filed 11/29/01 Page 6 of 8

“Request for Exclusion from Class Action Settlement” form appended to the Mailed Notice or some other appropriate written indication that they request exclusion from the Class to the Clerk of the District Court at a post office box address to be established by the administrator and postmarked on or before January 25, 2001. Class Counsel shall retain Rust Consulting, Inc. as Settlement Administrator who will arrange for the post office box and who will receive and tabulate requests for exclusion, which tabulation will be presented to defense counsel prior to the hearing on final approval of the Settlement.
9. List of Class Members. Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator will file with the Clerk and provide to counsel for RAC by February 15, 2001, an Affidavit identifying the persons to whom Notice has been mailed and who have not timely requested exclusion. Class Counsel is authorized to respond to inquiries from Settlement Class members concerning the Settlement and the status of the case.
10. Payment of Funds to Settlement Administrator. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Defendant is Ordered to pay $500,000 Settlement Administration Costs Fund - to the Settlement Administrator within two days of the Entry of this Order. The Settlement Administrator is instructed to retain these Funds (with appropriate investments pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement) until further Order of this Court, except that the Settlement Administrator may expend monies from the Settlement Administration Costs Fund to pay for the costs of Settlement Administration.
7
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 108 Filed 11/29/01 Page 7 of 8

11. Termination of Settlement. This Order shall become null and void, and shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Parties, all of whom shall be restored to their respective positions existing immediately before this Court entered this Order, if (i) the proposed Settlement is not finally approved by the Court, or does not become final, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; or (ii) the proposed Settlement is terminated in accordance with the Settlement Agreement or does not become effective as required by the terms of the Settlement Agreement for any other reason. In such event, the proposed Settlement and the Settlement Agreement shall become null and void and be of no further force and effect, and neither the Settlement Agreement nor this Order, shall be used or referred to for any purpose whatsoever.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: November 29, 2001

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 108 Filed 11/29/01 Page 8 of 8

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

MARGARET BUNCH, TRACY LEVINGS, STEPHANIE ROBINSON, RUBY P. SMITH, CHRISTY JOHNSON, CLAUDETTA DAVIS BARNES, ANGELA BYRD, KIMBERLY HALL, RETTA STEVENSON, SHEREE WATSON, APRIL ANDERSON, and, NICOLE BROWN,
On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 00-364-CV-W-3-ECF

)

)

)

)

JOINT DECLARATION OF CLASS COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF FINAL CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS
AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT Steve White, Gene Graham, Dennis Egan, Bert Braud, John Klamann, Dirk Hubbard, and Courtney Hueser declare as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. I, Steve White, am a senior partner of the firm of White, Allinder, Graham & Buckley, Plaintiffs’ co-counsel in the above-captioned action (the “Class Action”). I, together with my co-counsel representing Plaintiffs (collectively “Class Counsel”), have participated in the preparation and presentation of this matter which comes on for final approval of a Class

1 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 1 of 37

Action Settlement, final certification of a Settlement Class under Rule 23, and approval of an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses.
2. I, Gene Graham, am a senior partner of the firm of White, Allinder and Graham, Plaintiffs’ co-counsel in the above-captioned action (the “Class Action”). I, together with other Class Counsel herein, have likewise participated in the preparation and presentation of this matter which comes on for final approval of a Class Action Settlement, final certification of a Settlement Class under Rule 23, and approval of an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. I was responsible for the day-to-day management and prosecution of this Class Action. I, along with other Class Counsel, was directly involved in the negotiation of the terms of this Settlement. I have been directly involved in the Class Administration during the opt-out and post-opt-out periods and have had direct communications with numerous of the present and absent Class members.
3. I, Dennis Egan, am a senior partner of The Popham Law Firm, Plaintiffs’ cocounsel in the above-captioned action (the “Class Action”). I, together with other Class Counsel herein, have likewise participated in the preparation and presentation of this matter which comes on for final approval of a Class Action Settlement, final certification of a Settlement Class under Rule 23, and approval of an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. I, along with other Class Counsel, was also directly involved in the negotiation of the terms of this Settlement.
4. I, Bert Braud, am a partner of The Popham Law Firm, Plaintiffs’ co-counsel in the above-captioned action (the “Class Action”). I, together with other Class Counsel herein, have likewise participated in the preparation and presentation of this matter which comes on for final approval of a Class Action Settlement, final certification of a Settlement Class under Rule 23,
2
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 2 of 37

and approval of an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. I, along with other Class Counsel, was directly involved in the Administration of this Settlement during the opt-out and post-opt-out periods and in such capacity had numerous conversations and communications with absent Class members concerning the Settlement.
5. I, John Klamann, am a senior partner of the firm of Klamann and Hubbard, Plaintiffs’ co-counsel in the above-captioned action (the “Class Action”). I, together with other Class Counsel herein, have participated in the preparation and presentation of this matter which comes on for final approval of a Class Action Settlement, final certification of a Settlement Class under Rule 23, and approval of an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. I, along with Gene Graham, was responsible for the day-to-day management and prosecution of this Class Action. I, along with other Class Counsel, was directly involved in the negotiation of the terms of this Settlement, and was directly involved in the Settlement Administration during the opt-out and post-opt-out periods.
6. I, Dirk Hubbard, am a senior partner of the firm of Klamann and Hubbard, Plaintiffs’ co-counsel in the above-captioned action (the “Class Action”). I, together with other Class Counsel herein, have participated in the preparation and presentation of this matter which comes on for final approval of a Class Action Settlement, final certification of a Settlement Class under Rule 23, and approval of an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. I, along with Gene Graham, John Klamann, and Courtney Hueser, was involved in the day-to-day prosecution of this Class Action. I, along with other Class Counsel, was directly involved in the negotiation of the terms of this Settlement, and was directly involved in the Settlement Administration during the opt-out and post-opt-out periods..
3
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 3 of 37

7. I, Courtney Hueser, am an associate attorney employed by the firm of Klamann and Hubbard, Plaintiffs’ co-counsel in the above-captioned action (the “Class Action”). I, together with other Class Counsel herein, have participated in the preparation and presentation of this matter which comes on for final approval of a Class Action Settlement, final certification of a Settlement Class under Rule 23, and approval of an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. I, along with Gene Graham, John Klamann, and Dirk Hubbard, was involved in the day-to-day prosecution of this Class Action. I, along with other Class Counsel, was directly involved in the negotiation of the terms of this Settlement, and was directly involved in the Settlement Administration during the opt-out and post-opt-out periods. I have had numerous conversations and communications with present and absent Class members.
8. We submit this Joint Declaration in support of Class Representatives’ Brief in Support of Final Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Certification of Settlement Class, and Entry of Consent Decree (“Fairness Brief”). We have variously and actively participated in the material aspects of this litigation and the related settlement negotiations, and we are familiar with the facts set forth in this Joint Declaration.
9. The purpose of the Joint Declaration is to draw the Court’s attention to fundamental matters pertaining to the Court’s consideration of the Settlement, final certification of the Settlement Class, and Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses.
10. The proposed Settlement offers extraordinary relief for the Class of females currently and/or formerly employed at Rent-A-Center, as well as females who applied for work at Rent-A-Center but were refused employment during the Class Period. The Settlement provides
4
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 4 of 37

cash relief to the Class members in the amount of $12,250,000.00. Class members have the option to participate in either the automatic general relief (providing a minimum of $8,000,000.00 in guaranteed relief) or the ADR process wherein claims will be individually reviewed and scored and are eligible for up to $50,000.00 in relief per claim. The relief choices are designed to address the damages, if any, sustained by Class members and to provide meaningful relief that will fulfill their needs and expectations.
11. The Settlement’s automatic general relief benefits are available to all Class members, regardless of their proof of individual discrimination. The ADR Relief is intended to compensate Class members who desire an individualized review of their claims of discrimination. Each ADR Claimant has the right to submit her individualized claim for review in a non-adversarial, uncontested process and to seek her actual economic damages (up to certain specified caps). Specific details of the cash portions of the Settlement are spelled out in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, in the Notice of Settlement, and in the ADR Instructions which were included in the Notice Packets and are discussed further in the Fairness Brief in support of final approval. II. THE NATURE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
12. Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, Rent-A-Center discriminated against its female employees and applicants for employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e, et seq. (Title VII). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Rent-A-Center (“RAC”) discriminated against women in the terms and conditions of their employment, in hiring, promotion, and termination, and by sexually harassing them and retaliating against them. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and monetary
5
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 5 of 37

damages on behalf of female current and former employees and applicants for employment at RAC. Hereinafter, we respectfully refer the Court to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint for a more comprehensive statement of the Plaintiffs’ allegations. All references are to paragraphs (denoted as “¶” or as “¶¶”) in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
A. Rent-A-Center’s Seventy-Five Pound Weight-Lifting Policy 13. Plaintiffs allege that RAC imposed a 75 pound lifting requirement upon its employees. ¶ 2(g). The requirement had an alleged discriminatory impact upon females at RAC and discouraged them from applying for jobs and/or disqualified them from being hired or retained. ¶¶13, 16, 18, 28, 30, 79, 97, 108, 112. The alleged adverse impact of this requirement, which limited the numbers of women entering the workforce at RAC, was apparent from the EEO-1 forms and other data showing that women were employed at RAC in small numbers. Id. At no time prior to the litigation, however, did RAC perform a formal job analysis or jobrelatedness study to determine that this requirement was reasonable or business-related. Further, the 75 pound weight-lifting requirement was allegedly used to harass female employees at RAC. ¶¶13, 16, 79, 97, 108, . The existence of this requirement constituted one of the alleged common facts around which the Class was formed. ¶¶22(c), 22(d), 28(a), 30(d). B. Rent-A-Center’s Use of the APT Management Test 14. Once hired, women at RAC were routinely subjected to the so-called APT Management Test. ¶ 2(b). This was a test which purportedly measured the aptitude of employees at RAC for management positions and responsibilities. Plaintiffs alleged that they were required to take the test at RAC. ¶¶ 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 42, 61, 64, 73, 78, 85, 90, 107. Plaintiffs alleged that the APT Management Test was invasive and offensive in nature (¶ 16) and that the
6
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 6 of 37

Test and the associated “APT Profile” were discriminatory toward women, violated their privacy, sexually harassed them, and adversely impacted their employment opportunities at RAC. ¶¶ 42, 65, 69, 74, 78, 107. The alleged adverse impact upon women caused by the requirement to take the APT Test was one of the common issues upon which this Class Action was based. ¶¶ 22(e), 22 (f).
C. Rent-A-Center’s Pattern and Practice of Gender Discrimination 15. Plaintiffs allege that RAC engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination and sexual harassment against women employed by it. ¶¶ 1, 2(a), 2(c), 2(e), 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), 3, 11, 13, 16. The use of the 75 pound weight lifting requirement to restrict entry and/or limit retention of women and the implementation of the APT Management Test requirement to inhibit their advancement were a part of an alleged overall pattern and practice at RAC of discrimination against and sexual harassment of women. ¶¶ 28, 30,126. The question of whether such a pattern and practice existed and continued to exist was among the common issues around which the Class was organized. ¶¶ 22(t), 22(u), 22(w), 22(x). III. HISTORY OF LITIGATION AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS A. Procedural History 16. The procedural history of this action is set forth in detail in Section II of the Class Representatives’ Fairness Brief. B. Discovery and Investigation 17. During the initial pendency of these proceedings, the Plaintiffs’ counsel were actively engaged in the prosecution of other discrimination litigation against RAC. In that litigation, due to overlapping issues of concern about the general environment at RAC and its
7
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 7 of 37

overall policies and procedures (such as the elimination of the HR department after the merger between Thorn Americas, Inc. d/b/a Rent-A-Center and Renters Choice, Inc.), Plaintiffs’ counsel conducted substantial investigation into issues and matters relevant to this action. For example, the EEO-1 forms from RAC and its predecessor Renters Choice, whose management and business plan would succeed the merger and dominate the post-merger company, were discovered and analyzed, both for their reflection of the African American segment of the workforce in the race case and for their demonstration of the overwhelming predominance of males in the workforce, relevant to the gender case. In addition, the corporate hierarchy, structure and organization were discovered in the race cases and investigated at the same time in the gender case through contacts with the Texas and Delaware Secretaries of State as well as through depositions taken of Company representatives. The policies and procedures of the Company — such as the “Open Door Policy” — were simultaneously discovered and investigated in both cases. Witnesses were interviewed and deposed concerning the anecdotal evidence of discriminatory treatment of African Americans and of women. The depositions of all of the Regional Vice-Presidents were taken in the races cases and provided important investigatory information and leads for the gender case. A summary of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s work in these cases is contained in Exhibit 23 to the Fairness Brief.
18. In addition to the formal discovery in the race cases, Plaintiffs’ counsel were also interviewing witnesses and victims of gender discrimination at RAC during the early phases of this case. These interviews were important in ascertaining the pattern and practice elements of discriminatory treatment of women at RAC and in exploring and documenting the wide-spread
8
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 8 of 37

use and impact of the 75 pound weight-lifting requirement, the APT Test, and the general
hostility toward women at RAC.
19. Following the amendment of the Bunch and Levings cases to assert class action
allegations, Plaintiffs’ counsel devised a “discovery plan” and initiated substantial written
discovery, ultimately serving two separate sets of written interrogatories, five sets of document
requests, and a set of requests for admissions.
20. Further, Plaintiffs’ prepared a series of Rule 23(b)(3) deposition notices on the
Defendant, requesting testimony from the Company itself on the following subjects:
(a) The five most frequently cited reasons during the period November 11, 1995 through December 23, 1998 why female employees of Renters Choice, Inc. and Renter-A-Center, Inc. terminated their employment from either of said companies, as disclosed on the PCF (Personnel Change Forms) or otherwise. Exhibit 56 was developed and produced in response to this Request. The Defendant was then requested to exactly duplicate its efforts taken in response to the previous request of Plaintiffs for similar information concerning women and to prepare a spreadsheet exactly like Exhibit 56, except that the data shows the information for males who were terminated instead of the females. (Witness Marc Tuckey, 3-26-01)
(b) The numbers of men and women who held job titles which were the same as those shown on Exhibit 56 for women: 1) who were terminated for the reason set forth in termination code “job eliminated,” and 2) who were not terminated from the company;
(c) Any defense presented by Defendant in this case that conditions have changed and improved at Rent-A-Center, Inc. from what they were as of December 23, 1998;
(d) Compliance by Renters Choice, Inc. and Rent-A-Center, Inc. with 29 C.F.R. Section 1607.4 regarding testing, selection process, and job criteria;
(e) The maintenance of records and/or other information which will disclose the impact which its tests concerning weight lifting had upon employment opportunities for women;
9
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 9 of 37

(f) The maintenance of records and/or other information which will disclose the impact which its employment tests had upon employment opportunities for women;
(g) The maintenance of records and/or other information which will disclose the impact which its tests and other selection procedures had upon employment opportunities for women;
(h) Any and all data and other information concerning the representation of women in any labor market wherein Renters Choice, Inc. and/or Rent-ACenter, Inc. did business during the aforesaid time period;
(i) The creation, adoption, dissemination, implementation, oversight, and enforcement of any requirement that defendant’s employees have the physical strength to lift 75 pounds or any other weight as a condition of employment;
(j) RAC rules, regulation, policies, procedures, and practices regarding the entry of any information from “critical information reports” and/or “critical information sheets” into any database or other information retention or management system;
(k) The policies and procedures at Rent-A-Center, Inc. relating to discrimination based upon gender;
(l) The policies and procedures at Rent-A-Center, Inc. relating to any lifting requirement as a condition for employment;
(m) The policies and procedures at Rent-A-Center, Inc. relating to any job criteria or requirement which defendant contends establishes a legal basis for discriminating between males and females with regard for their respective qualifications for employment at Rent-A-Center;
(n) Official job titles and job descriptions for all positions from the entry level position through Regional Director at Rent-A-Center, Inc. and the identity of official company documents setting forth such titles and/or job descriptions;
(o) The identity, purpose, use, scoring, verification, documentation and computerization of any and all standardized tests (and test results), including without limitation any and all APT tests, administered to management personnel at Renters Choice, Inc. and/or Rent-A-Center, Inc.;
10
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 10 of 37

(p) The identity and weight of the items in the rent-to-own inventories of Renters Choice, Inc. and Rent-A-Center, Inc. during the period July 1, 1998 to the present and the average numbers of each type of furniture, TV, and appliance delivered by Renters Choice, Inc. and/or Rent-ACenter, Inc. per month; and,

(q) The operation, policies, procedures, and practices of the Operations, Inventory, Payroll, Benefits, and Computer departments of Renters Choice, Inc. and/or Rent-A-Center, Inc.;

21. RAC objected to numerous discovery and deposition requests, resulting in

substantial Motion practice in each of the first four months of 2001. Court Orders were entered

in approximately February, March, April, and May 2001 compelling discovery from the

Defendant.

22. In addition to the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions requested by Plaintiffs, several

targeted depositions were taken (some with the assistance of court orders) of specific RAC

witnesses and employees. Ultimately, whether by virtue of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition Notice or

by a specifically targeted Notice, the following witnesses from RAC were deposed by Plaintiffs’

counsel on at least the following topics:

Marty Roustio:

Manager of Co-Worker Relations and 30(b)(6) witness deposed on February 7, 2001.

Marc Tuckey:

Manager of Human Resources and 30(b)(6) witness deposed on various topics on February 9, March 15, and April 5, 2001.

Joe Arnette:

Vice President and 30(b)(6) witness on testing and training, deposed on March 6 and May 9, 2001.

Greg Toon:

Manager of the Payroll Department and 30(b)(6) witness on operations, policies, procedures and practices of the payroll department, deposed on March 7, 2001.

11 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 11 of 37

Kevin Marlin:

Vice President of Merchandising and 30(b)(6) witness on weight of inventory items, deposed on March 8, 2001.

Robert Davis:

Chief Financial Officer and 30(b)(6) witness on the termination of human resources department employees, deposed on March 15, 2001.

Kristi Toupal:

Director of Accounting Distributions and 30(b)(6) witness on EEO-1 Reports, deposed on March 14, 2001.

Dana Goble:

Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and 30(b)(6) witness on operations, compensation, and job descriptions, deposed on May 8, 2001.

Harry Weisbrod:

Head of Weisbrod & Associates, Rent-A-Center’s outsourced human resources department, deposed on May 21, 2001; and,

Ernie Talley:

Chairman of the Board, deposed on May 22, 2001.

23. Plaintiffs also pursued discovery of independent witnesses in this case, including

former HR and other employees of Thorn Americas, to demonstrate the significance of the

elimination of the HR Department from RAC following the merger.

24. Further, Plaintiffs aggressively pursued discovery from Associated Personnel

Technicians (APT) in Wichita, Kansas. APT had been used by Ernie Talley, the founder,

principal shareholder and Chairman of the Board of RAC, to do employment testing of

prospective and existing employees. The deposition was taken of Michael Walter, the business

manager of APT, and documents consisting of the validation and statistical work underlying the

testing were discovered. Many thousands of documents were reviewed, photocopied and

obtained from APT consisting of the actual test results and reports concerning female applicants

and employees of RAC. And, one of the country’s leading experts on such testing — Dr. James

12

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 12 of 37

N. Butcher from the University of Minnesota — was retained and consulted by Class Counsel regarding the use and effects of the APT Test.
25. Plaintiffs also discovered certain databases kept in the ordinary course of RAC’s business, including the AS400 database of Thorn employees used by RAC until January 1, 1999, the HighTouch database system used by Renters Choice and then Rent-A-Center, Inc., and the Lawson System used by Rent-A-Center, Inc. Plaintiffs had previously taken the deposition of Roscoe Wasco and others in the race discrimination cases concerning the use and elements of these databases. Plaintiffs retained the services of Dr. Charles Mann and Associates, a prominent statistician from Washington, D.C., to examine these databases in this case and opine concerning the treatment of females at RAC as reflected by the statistics.
26. Plaintiffs also retained the services of other experts: Dr. Leaetta Hough, an industrial psychologist, and Ms. Jan Duffy, an expert on human resource issues. Dr. Hough consulted with Plaintiffs concerning workplace issues such as the 75 pound weight-lifting requirement, various elements of the management testing, and other matters. Ms. Duffy had previously examined RAC’s HR policies and procedures in the race cases and was familiar with them. She has since provided expert consultation concerning the programmatic relief which has been structured as a part of the Settlement of this case.
27. Armed with the results of their extensive discovery and investigation, Plaintiffs were well-positioned to pursue and reach a favorable settlement agreement with RAC. Extensive and very contentious settlement negotiations continued over a period of three-and-one-half months before an agreement in principle was reached and reported to the Court on or about September 17, 2001. Another one-and one-half months of negotiations were conducted
13
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 13 of 37

thereafter in preparation of the Settlement documentation. A Stipulation and Settlement Agreement was ultimately submitted to the Court on October 31, 2001.
C. Summary of Settlement Negotiations 28. Meaningful settlement negotiations commenced after both parties had engaged in contentious litigation, extensive discovery and a full evaluation of the case issues. 29. On or about May 22, 2001, the parties met for the deposition of Mr. Ernie Talley, the Chairman of the Board of RAC whose deposition had been ordered by the Court. During the course of that deposition, a suggestion was made by Defendant that settlement negotiations be undertaken. Thereafter, Defendant requested a written demand from the Plaintiffs and on June 1, 2001, a written demand for settlement was made by Plaintiffs. 30. Between June 1, 2001 and June 21, 2001, Plaintiffs continued their evaluation of the case and their settlement requirements. 31. On or about June 21 and 22, 2001, RAC and the Plaintiffs exchanged writings containing an offer and counter-offer. At this time, the parties were far apart on material terms and Settlement was far from certain, even unlikely. However, the parties remained engaged. 32. On June 28 and 29, 2001, the parties again exchanged written counter-offers. 33. On July 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 18, 20, and 24, 2001, the parties again were in written and/or oral communication concerning settlement. Written counter-offers were again exchanged and discussed. 34. On August 6, 14, 22, and 29, 2001, the parties were in telephone communication concerning settlement. On August 14, 2001, counsel for the parties had made sufficient progress in their negotiations that they began a series of face-to-face meetings for the express purpose of
14
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 14 of 37

continuing their negotiations in person. Follow-up meetings occurred on August 16 and 31, 2001. Each meeting occurred at the offices of Stinson, Mag and lasted generally from 9:00 in the morning to 3:00 in the afternoon. The meetings were usually attended by Bob Driscoll and Dan Dargene for the defendant and Gene Graham, John Klamann, Dirk Hubbard, and Dennis Egan for the Plaintiffs. Numerous proposals and counter-proposals were exchanged in the course of each meeting.
35. On September 5 and 6, 2001, the parties were again in telephone and written contact concerning settlement. Counter-offers were again exchanged by the parties. The parties met again on September 7, 2001, at the Stinson Mag offices in Kansas City and numerous counter-offers were exchanged. On September 10 and 14, 2001, the parties were again in contact by telephone and in writing to discuss and negotiate settlement. Finally, on September 17, 2001, final settlement proposals were made and an agreement in principle was reached concerning the major terms of the Settlement.
36. On September 17, 2001, the parties called the Court to advise that a class settlement in principle had been reached and that the parties would be filing documents with the Court for its consideration.
37. Between September 23, 2001 and October 31, 2001, the parties drafted and exchanged numerous versions of the settlement documentation which was detailed and complex. The Stipulation and Settlement Agreement alone contained more than twenty-five (25) pages. There were also nine (9) different attachments to the Agreement.
38. Throughout the course of the settlement negotiations, the Plaintiffs refused to discuss attorneys fees with the Defendant until the settlement amount for the Class and the
15
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 15 of 37

parameters of the programmatic relief for the Class had been agreed upon. The parties ultimately agreed that a cap would be placed upon the attorneys fees and costs but that no set amount of attorneys fees would be established and that the Court would determine attorneys fees based upon a submission to be made by the Plaintiffs’ counsel.
39. On October 31, 2001, the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court by ECF, followed by the paper filing of fully executed copies of the same with attachments on November 2, 2001. IV. OVERVIEW OF SETTLEMENT BENEFITS
A. Cash Benefits — The Automatic General Relief 40. Every Class member had the opportunity to participate in the cash awards provided by the Settlement. Under the automatic general relief, Class members were automatically entitled to an award calculated solely upon the objective criteria of their length of employment. Units of employment duration were defined in six month increments and $1,000 was to be paid for each six months that a Class member was employed at RAC during the Class Period. Class members could receive anywhere from $1,000 to $7,000, depending on the length of their employment with RAC. All Class members were to receive this automatic option unless they elected to participate in the ADR option. 41. It was the intent of the Settlement that the automatic general relief provide a costfree, automatic entitlement to cash settlement benefits. There was no requirement that any Class member make any showing of discrimination by RAC as a pre-condition to eligibility for the automatic general relief. It was also the intention of the Settlement that amounts be distributed within a short period of time following final approval of the Settlement, barring unforeseen
16
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 16 of 37

events or appeal. Most Class members have already been informed of the estimated amount of their automatic relief as calculated by the Settlement Administrator based upon the verified list provided by RAC from its databases. A Verification Form was provided in Class Notice Packets which set forth this amount and enabled Class members to verify or challenge the estimated amount. According to the data kept and reported by the Settlement Administrator, more than 1,600 Class members affirmatively sent in a Verification Form indicating their desire to obtain the automatic relief. Class members were also advised that sending in no form would result in their receiving the automatic general relief, and approximately 1400 Class members who are believed to have actually received mailed notice chose to do nothing and accept the automatic relief.
42. Based upon calculations by the Settlement Administrator and guarantees made by RAC, Class Counsel believe that sufficient funds exist in the Automatic General Relief fund to pay each class member the amount estimated in her Notice packet.
43. Applicant members of the Class should receive $500 in automatic relief once they have returned a Claim Form verifying their status as a Class member. Applicant members of the Class who suffered higher damages as a result of their application for employment at RAC were given the option to participate in the Applicant ADR where relief of up to $5,000 per claim was available. The Settlement Administrator reported that 53 Applicants requested a Claim Form and 28 Applicants returned their Claim Forms. Twenty-one (21) Applicants could receive automatic relief and seven (7) Applicants could participate in the Applicant ADR
44. Following the completion of the ADR and Applicant payment processes, monies left over from the funds segregated for those payments, if any, were to be rolled over into the
17
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 17 of 37

employee automatic general relief fund and a second distribution made to the employee members of the Class who received automatic relief.
B. Cash Benefits — The ADR Relief 45. Every Class member had the option to forego the automatic general relief and participate instead in the ADR process which had been established. The purpose of the ADR was to enable those Class members who wished to make individualized claims for discrimination and the resultant damages to do so. Approximately 115 Employee Class members and 7 Applicant Class members elected the ADR. 46. Although the ADR process was intended to provide a mechanism by which individual claims of discrimination could be reviewed and evaluated, the process was entirely voluntary, non- adversarial and uncontested. Each ADR claimant entered the process with a presumption in her favor of discrimination. RAC was not to participate in the process to resist claims and no monies dedicated to the ADR Fund are refundable to RAC. Four Million, TwoHundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($4,250,000.00), minus the amount payable to Applicant members of the Class, was dedicated to this Fund 47. Employee ADR claims of discrimination were broken out into four (4) categories: termination, promotion, terms and conditions, and harassment. The damages which could be awarded in each category were capped as follows: Termination – $30,000; promotion – $25,000; terms and conditions – $25,000; and harassment – $25,000. If an ADR claimant made claims in multiple categories, each category cap applied to the claim in that category and the total damages awardable to that Claimant are capped at $50,000.00.
18
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 18 of 37

48. The ADR process contemplated that a Claim Reviewer would be appointed and approved and that the Claim Reviewer would be responsible, with the assistance of Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator, for implementing the ADR process. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the Claim Reviewer would receive the ADR Claim Form and any accompanying documents supporting the claim submitted by the ADR Claimant. The Claim Reviewer would then assemble a claim file for each ADR Claimant which contained those documents and all other materials assembled or prepared in connection with the claim. The Claim Reviewer would obtain documents from RAC consisting of the personnel file for the employee. The Claim Reviewer would then score the claim and determine damages. Damage awards could consist of the automatic general relief to which the claimant was entitled if no affirmative evidence of discrimination was received, or 80%, 100%, or 120% of the damages depending upon the weight of the evidence of actual discrimination, employing either minimal, “preponderance,” and/or “clear and convincing” standards, respectively. Caps on damages applied as set forth in the previous paragraph. If the total amount of all ADR awards exceeded the amount in the ADR Fund, then individual damage awards would be pro rated to achieve a distribution of the entire sum in the ADR Fund to ADR claimants.
49. Class Counsel nominate Ms. Betsy Ann Stewart to be the Claim Reviewer. Ms. Stewart is an experienced litigator and trial attorney. She has substantial experience in the field of discrimination and equal employment opportunity litigation. She is also an experienced mediator and arbitrator. She is a member of numerous women’s organizations and an advocate for women’s rights and equity in the work place. Ms. Stewart’s CV is attached as Exhibit 1.
19
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 19 of 37

C. The Programmatic Relief 50. The Settlement also provides for substantial changes at Rent-A-Center, Inc., including the implementation of numerous new policies and procedures intended to improve the opportunities and protections afforded female employees at the Company. This bundle of changes is organized in seven (7) categories set forth in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement at paragraph 45, pages 16 through 22 and in the Consent Decree proposed by the parties. 51. The first category of relief establishes a Company-wide policy, dissemination of a policy statement, and a commitment to annual reaffirmation of the policy. It also provides for assignment of specific managerial responsibility for enforcing the policies. The Consent Decree provides for stipulated language to be used in the message from the Company and for specific language to be used in the policy documents themselves. 52. The second and third categories eliminate the 75 pound weight lifting requirement and the use of the APT Management Test results at RAC. Further, RAC is required to make disclosures and provide training regarding lifting activities and to use only properly designed, validated, and administered employment testing. 53. The fourth category addresses training. RAC is required to provide comprehensive, detailed workplace equity education for all of its employees on a continuing basis pursuant to mandated specifics. An outside consultant is to be retained and used to assist in the design and implementation of this training. 54. The fifth category of programmatic relief deals with the institution of discrimination and harassment complaint and reporting procedures. Requirements are
20
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 20 of 37

established for training, staffing, reporting, investigation, evaluation, discipline, and recordkeeping.
55. The sixth category of programmatic relief relates to hiring, retention, and promotion of women. Applicant flow data is to be kept for evaluation. Recruitment efforts are to be put in place with the aid of an outside consultant. New and/or improved policies and procedures are established to assure equal access to promotion opportunities. Hiring and promotion practices will be affirmatively reviewed to assure discrimination is not taking place. The full array of the new complaint and review procedures will automatically become available to females threatened with termination.
56. The seventh category of programmatic relief provided by the Settlement has to do with terms and conditions of employment. In addition to the complaint procedures mentioned above and which allow individual claims of discrimination to be filed, investigated and resolved, specific provisions are made in the Settlement to address problems which have arisen in the past wherein women at RAC have been subjected to duties assigned especially to them, such as housekeeping. Further, no pregnancy-related illegal discrimination will occur.
57. The parties have signed, consistent with the terms and spirit of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, a Consent Decree which the Court would be asked to enter in aid of the Settlement, spelling out the details of the Settlement, and providing for monitoring and enforcement. This Consent Decree would enable the members of the Class to, among other things, obtain enforcement of the terms of the Settlement and an equitable, gender-neutral environment, without the need to instigate new litigation.
21
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 21 of 37

D. Other Settlement Consideration to be Paid by Rent-A-Center, Inc. 58. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Rent-A-Center, Inc. is obligated to pay, up to a maximum of $500,000, other costs and expenses typically borne by the class (in addition to the automatic and ADR relief) consisting of settlement administration costs, including the costs of implementing and operating the ADR (including the compensation to be paid to the Claims Reviewer.) That $500,000.00 has already been paid over to the Settlement Administrator to be spent as directed and approved by Class Counsel, with periodic accounting to the Court. No part of this payment is refundable to RAC. Post-settlement administration costs have been budgeted so that they are expected to be less than the $500,000 paid by RAC. 59. In addition, Rent-A-Center, Inc. is required to pay, as a separate item, all attorneys fees and reimbursed expenses of Plaintiffs’ attorneys and Class Counsel. Usually, in class actions, such fees and expenses are paid out of the common fund created by the settlement. Here, however, the common fund of $12,250,000.00 was dedicated solely to paying the Class members their awards. Class Counsel will submit their Motion for attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses to the Court. The Court should consider that submission in light of RAC’s present agreement to pay these fees and expenses at the capped rate. Were the attorney fees and expenses cap plus and the net amounts payable to the Class members to be combined into a common fund from which attorneys fees and expenses were to be taken (resulting in a common fund of $15.25 million)1, the cap on attorneys fees and expenses would constitute an approximate
1Any amount left over from the $500,000 Settlement Administration Fund after the Settlement administration (including the ADR process) has been completed goes toward the attorney fees cap. Since more than $350,000 remains in the Fund, the “common fund” is approximately $15.25 million.
22
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 22 of 37

19.7% attorneys’ fee. This amount has been approved as reasonable in numerous cases. It is especially reasonable in light of the fact that it is paid by Defendant in addition to, and not as a part of, the awards to the Class. V. CLASS NOTICE AND OUTREACH PROGRAM
60. Plaintiffs negotiated an outreach program designed to inform and educate the Class members about the Settlement. This outreach program involved a detailed Notice Packet mailed by first class mail to Class members2 at addresses which RAC was required to provide to the Settlement Administrator in a verified list. All Notice packets returned by the U.S. Postal Service with a forwarding address were promptly re-mailed. For Notice Packets returned by the U.S. Postal Service without forwarding addresses, address searches were performed and Notice Packets were re-mailed to new addresses. The Notice Packets included this Court’s Notice which described in precise detail all necessary information concerning the Settlement and the Class members’ rights to participate, object to, or exclude themselves from the Settlement. The Notice Packets also contained an ADR Instruction booklet which provided substantial information concerning the ADR option. The Notice Packets also included color-coded forms which contained important information about the Settlement as well as guidance for participation in it and/or exclusion from it. These Color-coded forms for employee Class members included a yellow Verification Form, a green ADR Election Form, a blue form used to challenge dates of employment (Request for Review Form), and a beige/tan Request for Exclusion Form.
61. In addition to the individual Notice Packets which were mailed to Class members, a summary notice was published in the national edition of the USA Today newspaper on
2See Exhibit 14 to the Fairness Brief, the Declaration of Settlement Administrator. 23
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 23 of 37

December 10, 2001.3 Class members were advised, inter alia, of the manner in which they could obtain Notice Packets from the Settlement Administrator and of the availability of a toll-free number and a post-office box through which they could seek additional information concerning the Settlement and their rights concerning the same.
62. Further, Plaintiffs created an information center at the offices of the Settlement Administrator. The information center was staffed by specially trained operators to answer Class members’ questions about the Settlement. A nationwide toll-free telephone number was established and provided to Class members in the Notice Packets and in the published notice.
63. The information center became operational on or about December 10, 2001, and it remained open until the expiration of the opt-out period. It was open Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. CST, except on legal holidays. The phone lines at the information center were staffed by operators trained jointly by Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator before the information center was opened. Data concerning the number of calls and related information was recorded by the Settlement Administrator.4 As of the close of business on January 25, 2002, the trained operators handled over 1200 telephone calls from Class members.5
64. Class Counsel herein reviewed, edited and approved all training materials and scripts for the operators and jointly trained the operators before the information center was opened (including instructing operators of their responsibilities to provide fair, accurate and
3Id. 4Id. 5Id.
24
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 24 of 37

impartial information to Class members). In addition, Class Counsel herein have been on-site monitoring incoming calls to ensure that accurate, complete information was provided to Class members. Class Counsel have also been on-site continuously to speak directly with Class members who either ask to speak with an attorney or whose questions were more properly answered by Class Counsel. As of January 25, 2002, Class Counsel had personally spoken with approximately 300 Class members.
65. In addition to the above, the information center also participated in and facilitated written communications as necessary between Class Counsel and Class members. This communication is described more fully in the Declaration of Bert Braud concerning Class Communications. (Exhibit 9 to Class Representatives’ Response to Objections). VI. THE RELEASE
66. In return for the benefits provided by the Settlement, Class members would release all claims that have been or could have been asserted in this lawsuit and would release Rent-A-Center, Inc. from liability as specified in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. The Release, however, was intended only to cover discrimination which occurred during the Class Period. VII. THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE
67. As discussed, the Settlement was extensively negotiated at arms’ length in an adversarial setting by experienced counsel who are fully familiar with all aspects of class action litigation. Before entering into the Settlement, Plaintiffs’ Counsel took into account, inter alia, the criteria for determining whether the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable. The recognized criteria include the judgment of experienced counsel and the promotion of the public
25
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 25 of 37

interest. We believe the Settlement exceeds the Eighth Circuit’s criteria for determining whether the Settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.
68. This Settlement promotes the public interest by providing aggrieved female employees, former employees, and applicants for employment an avenue of prompt and valuable relief for their claims at virtually no cost to them. In many cases, this Settlement provides relief where individual members of the Class had otherwise foregone their claims and had allowed their individual statutes of limitations to expire. In addition, this Settlement avoided the duplicative individual suits which drain the resources of the courts.
69. The Settlement also promotes the public interest in that it saves valuable resources of the courts (at both the District and Circuit levels), the parties, and the individual members of the Class which would otherwise be consumed were this case to remain ongoing as active litigation.
70. Moreover, while Plaintiffs’ claims are exceedingly strong — and were negotiated from this position — RAC nevertheless had a number of potentially-strong legal, factual, and technical defenses. RAC contested and expressed an intention to continue to contest, every aspect of Plaintiffs’ claims. All of those defenses are eliminated as to the Class by virtue of this Settlement.
71. The Settlement permits prompt, favorable resolution of the claims against Rent-ACenter, Inc. Thousands of women whose claims may have been barred by statutes of limitations or their failure to timely pursue administrative remedies, or by other defenses, now have access to awards in a cost-free process and indeed have access to a cost-free ADR where not only are their claims revived but they may be heard under a presumption of discrimination that otherwise
26
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 26 of 37

would be theirs only if they first prevail on the pattern and practice common issues trial. Further, these claimants would have their claims reviewed under standards of proof that are relaxed and in a process where personal appearances need not be made, evidentiary objections would not be made, and adversarial challenges would be non-existent.
72. The programmatic relief provided in the Settlement is carefully tailored to address the nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations and to assist the Class in obtaining a fair and equitable workplace at RAC. Further, the automatic cash relief offered by way of the Settlement is calculated to compensate in approximate terms for the amount of time the Class Member spent in the working environment at RAC, (regardless of personal experiences) while at the same time providing awards that are guaranteed, quick, and effortless to obtain. Through the ADR option, monetary relief is specifically tailored to address the nature of the allegations and the types of claims that individual Class members may have while allowing them to present evidence of and recover their actual damages up to specified limits reflecting calculable values for actual losses. In sum, the relief in this case is reasonably related to the claims in the case and Class Representatives receive no special relief or benefits. VIII. CONCLUSION
73. In view of the substantial benefits conferred by this Settlement on the Class and its fairness, reasonableness and adequacy and satisfaction of the requirements of Rule 23, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel respectfully request that this Settlement be found to be fair, reasonable and adequate. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel also request that the Settlement Class be finally certified and that the Settlement be given final approval in the event that an alternative global settlement is not approved which includes all members of this Class and which provides
27
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 27 of 37

benefits and relief equal to or in excess of the benefits and relief provided to each member of the Class herein. Class Representatives and Class Counsel also request the Court’s Order finding Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and expenses to be reasonable and ordering Rent-A-Center, Inc. to pay the agreed sum of $3 million to Class Counsel as attorneys’ fees and expenses for good and valuable services rendered in the interests of the Class, in aid of the settlement of Class claims, and in aid of the establishment of programmatic and injunctive relief.
28 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 28 of 37

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Missouri/Kansas that the

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I have personal knowledge of

the matters contained herein. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify

thereto.

Executed this 25th day of March, 2002, at Kansas City, Missouri.

/s/ Steve White STEVE WHITE

29 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 29 of 37

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Missouri/Kansas that the

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I have personal knowledge of

the matters contained herein. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify

thereto.

Executed this 25th day of March, 2002, at Kansas City, Missouri.

/s/ Gene Graham GENE GRAHAM

30 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 30 of 37

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Missouri/Kansas that the

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I have personal knowledge of

the matters contained herein. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify

thereto.

Executed this 21st day of March, 2002, at Kansas City, Missouri.

/s/ Dennis Egan DENNIS EGAN

31 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 31 of 37

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Missouri/Kansas that the

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I have personal knowledge of

the matters contained herein. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify

thereto.

Executed this 22nd day of March, 2002, at Kansas City, Missouri.

/s/ John Klamann JOHN KLAMANN

32 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 32 of 37

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Missouri/Kansas that the

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I have personal knowledge of

the matters contained herein. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify

thereto.

Executed this 26th day of March, 2002, at Kansas City, Missouri.

/s/ Dirk Hubbard DIRK HUBBARD

33 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 33 of 37

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Missouri/Kansas that the

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I have personal knowledge of

the matters contained herein. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify

thereto.

Executed this 26th day of March, 2002, at Kansas City, Missouri.

/s/ Courtney Hueser COURTNEY HUESER

34 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 34 of 37

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Missouri/Kansas that the

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I have personal knowledge of

the matters contained herein. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify

thereto.

Executed this 21st day of March, 2002, at Kansas City, Missouri.

/s/ Bert Braud BERT BRAUD

35 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 35 of 37

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that the foregoing was filed electronically and notice of such filing was
made electronically to defendant’s counsel pursuant to the Electronic Case Filing Rules of the
Western District of Missouri this 26th day of March, 2002, to:
Robert L. Driscoll Sarah E. Welch 1201 Walnut, Suite 2800 Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Fax: (816) 691-3495
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
Dan C. Dargene Lisa Winston Sorrell 5400 Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75270 Fax: (214) 745-5390
OF COUNSEL ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
Mary Anne Sedey, Esq. Sedey & Ray 3030 S. Grand Blvd., Ste 200 St. Louis, MO 63118
Donna Harper, Esq. Anne E. Gusewell, Esq. EEOC 1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103
Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Schlichter, Bogard & Denton 100 S. 4th Street, Ste 900 St. Louis MO 63102
36
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 36 of 37

Charles W. German Rouse Hendricks German et al. 1010 Walnut Kansas City MO 64106

/s/ John M. Klamann Attorney for Plaintiffs

37 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172 Filed 03/26/02 Page 37 of 37

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172-1 Filed 03/26/02 Page 1 of 10

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172-1 Filed 03/26/02 Page 2 of 10

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172-1 Filed 03/26/02 Page 3 of 10

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172-1 Filed 03/26/02 Page 4 of 10

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172-1 Filed 03/26/02 Page 5 of 10

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172-1 Filed 03/26/02 Page 6 of 10

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172-1 Filed 03/26/02 Page 7 of 10

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172-1 Filed 03/26/02 Page 8 of 10

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172-1 Filed 03/26/02 Page 9 of 10

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 172-1 Filed 03/26/02 Page 10 of 10

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET BUNCH,

§

TRACY LEVINGS,

§

STEPHANIE ROBINSON,

§

RUBY P. SMITH,

§

CHRISTY JOHNSON,

§

CLAUDETTA DAVIS BARNES,

§

ANGELA BYRD,

§

KIMBERLY HALL,

§

RETTA STEVENSON,

§

SHEREE WATSON,

§

APRIL ANDERSON, and

§

NICOLE BROWN,

§

On behalf of themselves and

§

all others similarly situated,

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

v.

§

Case No. 00-0364-CV-W-ODS

§

RENT-A-CENTER, INC.,

§

§

Defendant.

§

ORDER APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL ADR/APPLICANT FUND, APPROVING COMMUNICATION WITH CLASS MEMBERS, AND
APPROVING ATTORNEYS’ FEES OF CLASS COUNSEL

Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. have filed their Joint Status Report which includes a request that the Court issue an Order to Approve Supplemental ADR/Applicant Fund, to Approve Communication with Class Members, and to Approve Class Counsel’s Attorneys’ Fees, and the Court has heard evidence upon said Motions. The Court finds the relevant facts to be as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs' Counsel herein and Rent-A-Center, Inc. ("RAC") have previously

entered into a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (hereinafter "Settlement") for a Class Action Settlement of gender-based employment discrimination claims against RAC, which Settlement was filed in this Court on or about October 31, 2001;
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 188 Filed 07/15/02 Page 1 of 5

(2) The Court granted preliminary approval to the aforesaid Settlement by its Order entered on or about November 9, 2001 wherein it also established a Notice and opt-out period, and set a March 6, 2002 date for a Hearing on Final Approval of the Settlement;
(3) Following the announcement by the interested parties herein on March 5, 2002 that another settlement had been entered into by RAC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), and Class Counsel in Wilfong, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Case No. 00-680-DRH, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (hereinafter "Wilfong"), which was intended to supersede the Settlement herein, this Court, by its Order dated March 5, 2002, continued the Hearing on Final Approval of the Settlement and stayed further action in this matter pending the filing of Status Reports relating to the proposed final negotiation of a global class action settlement in the Wilfong case;
(4) The interested parties herein have appeared before this Court and presented the proposed terms and conditions of the Stipulation of Settlement, Consent Decree, proposed Notice, and Claim Forms (hereinafter "Wilfong Settlement Documents"), each of which RAC, the EEOC, and Class Counsel in Wilfong have now filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois in connection with the proposed global settlement of all class action claims against RAC for alleged gender-based employment discrimination;
(5) This Court makes no finding as to whether either the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement filed herein or the Settlement described in the Stipulation of Settlement filed in Wilfong was, or is reasonable, fair, and adequate, but the Court does find that RAC, Class Counsel herein, and Class Counsel in Wilfong have stipulated and agreed on the record of these proceedings that all Members of the Settlement Class preliminarily approved by this Court on November 9, 2001 are included in the definition of the Class in Wilfong, and are fully and completely eligible to partake in the benefits of the Wilfong settlement as proposed in
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Docume2nt 188 Filed 07/15/02 Page 2 of 5

the Wilfong Settlement Documents, so long as such individuals complete, sign, and timely submit the appropriate claim forms and releases;
(6) This Court further finds that with the entry and effectuation of payment pursuant to the Agreement attached as Amended Exhibit A to the Joint Status Report (“Exhibit A”), the filing, final approval, and implementation of the Wilfong Settlement Documents, and the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses as directed below, the parties are in substantial compliance with the representations and promises made to this Court on March 5, 2002;
(7) This Court further finds that the Agreement embodied in Exhibit A is intended to aid in the fulfillment of those representations and promises made to the Court on March 5, 2002, and the Court approves Class Counsel's entry into said Agreement and construes said Agreement as binding upon RAC for the benefit of the ADR and Applicant claimants in the Bunch/Levings Class Action Settlement;
(8) This Court further finds that the Supplemental ADR/Applicant Settlement Process attached as Exhibit B to the Joint Status Report (“Exhibit B”) is fair and reasonable, and that said Supplemental ADR/Applicant Settlement Process is in furtherance of the promises made to this Court on March 5, 2002, and is therefore approved;
(9) This Court further finds that the proposed letter communication to Bunch/Levings putative class members contained attached as Exhibit C (“Exhibit C”) to the Joint Status Report is fair and adequate Notice of the conditional dismissal without prejudice of these proceedings;
(10) This Court further finds that Plaintiffs' Counsel, previously approved by this Court as Settlement Class Counsel, have performed proper and appropriate services in aid of the Class claims herein, and that their services, as shown in the Application for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses previously filed herein on or about April 10, 2002, were reasonable, necessary, and beneficial to the conduct and settlement of this litigation. This Court
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Docume3nt 188 Filed 07/15/02 Page 3 of 5

further finds that the expenses incurred by Plaintiffs' Counsel/Settlement Class Counsel herein were reasonable and necessary to the advancement of the litigation and settlement of this class action case. Further, this Court finds that once the Wilfong Settlement is final and effective, Plaintiffs' Counsel/Settlement Class Counsel should be paid their attorneys' fees and reimbursed for their expenses in the total amount of TWO MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($2,625,000.00), plus any monies remaining in the Bunch/Levings Settlement Administration Fund once all expenses related thereto have been paid, according to the agreement of RAC made in this Court on March 5, 2002, and/or subsequently thereto.
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: (1) The Agreement between Class Counsel herein and RAC, as embodied in Exhibit A is approved, and the Parties thereto are ordered to comply with said Agreement, including the payment of the sum of TWO MILLION DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($2,000,000.00), which RAC is ordered to tender to the Bunch/Levings Settlement Administrator pursuant to the terms of said Agreement; (2) Class Counsel are ordered to take such actions as are necessary to implement the procedures set forth in Exhibit B, and thereafter to implement said procedures in accord with the terms of Exhibit B, subject to further order of this Court which, by the joint stipulation of the parties, shall have continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter, implementation, operation, administration, and enforcement of Exhibits A and B; (3) Class Counsel and the Bunch/Levings Settlement Administrator (Rust Consultants, Inc.) are hereby ordered to establish, implement, administer, and account to this Court for the Supplemental ADR/Applicant Fund into which the proceeds to be paid pursuant to Exhibit A are to be deposited by the Settlement Administrator, and from which the Supplemental
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Docume4nt 188 Filed 07/15/02 Page 4 of 5

ADR/Applicant Fund is to be funded, implemented, and paid to Claimants, as set forth in Exhibit B (with up to $150,000 of the cost of administration being paid out of fund proceeds, and with any costs of administration above the cap of $150,000 being paid from the B/L SA Fund);
(4) Upon certification by the parties that the proceeds described in Exhibit A have been paid by RAC, this case shall remain stayed pending the settlement administration and approval process in Wilfong;
(5) The letter communication set forth in Exhibit C is to be sent within twenty (20)

days of the date of this Order, by First Class U.S. Mail, separately or as a part of other Courtapproved Notice(s), to the last known address (appearing in the Bunch/Levings Settlement Administrator's records and files) of each member of the Bunch/Levings Settlement Class who did not opt-out of the Bunch/Levings Class Action Settlement; and
(6) The Application for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses is approved, and

RAC is ordered to pay the sum of TWO MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE

THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($2,625,000.00), to the Trust Account of WHITE,

ALLINDER & GRAHAM, all within three (3) business days of the Effective Date of the Wilfong

Settlement (the later of (i) the date any and all appeals of the Final Order Approving the Wilfong

Settlement are denied, or (ii) the date on which any and all appeals of such Final Order are time

barred). Further, and in addition to the aforesaid $2,650,000, any monies remaining in the

Bunch/Levings Settlement Administration Fund on the Effective Date of the Wilfong Settlement

are to be released from said Bunch/Levings Settlement Administration Fund and paid as

attorneys’ fees and expense reimbursement to the Trust Account of WHITE, ALLINDER &

GRAHAM, within three (3) business days of such Effective Date.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: July 15, 2002

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Docume5nt 188 Filed 07/15/02 Page 5 of 5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET BUNCH, et al. Individually, and as Class Representatives Plaintiffs,
vs.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 00-0364-CV-W-3

)

)

)

)

)

____________________________________________________________________________

TRACY LEVINGS, Individually, and as Class Representatives Plaintiffs,
vs.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 00-0596-CV-W-3

)

)

)

)

)

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, SETTLEMENT,
CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND OF FORM, ADEQUACY, AND MANNER OF NOTICE
TO SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND TO SET HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

COME NOW Plaintiffs and Defendant, and jointly move this Court for its Order and

state as follows:

1. The Plaintiffs and Defendant have entered into a Stipulation and Settlement

Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) dated October 31, 2001.

2. Plaintiffs, Defendant, and their respective counsel believe that the Settlement which

is the subject of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable in light of the

1

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81 Filed 10/31/01 Page 1 of 9

risks of litigation, the stage of the proceedings, and the expense, likely duration and complexity
of the action.
3. The Settlement is the result of good faith and arms-length bargaining between the
Plaintiffs and Defendant and was not reached through collusion.
4. The Settlement Class concerning which the parties have continuously negotiated
is defined as follows:
All females who worked at, applied for work, and/or who attempted to apply but were affirmatively discouraged by the Defendant from applying for work at any Rent-A-Center (Thorn Americas), Rent-ACenter, Inc., or Renters Choice, Inc. store in the United States or any of its territories, at any time between April 19, 1998 and October 1, 2001 (the “Class Period”), except that the Class does not include any female employed as a Market Manager and/or Regional Director nor any female who previously entered into a written settlement agreement with Rent-A-Center, Rent-A-Center, Inc., or Renters Choice, Inc. which releases claims of gender discrimination.
5. Plaintiffs and the Defendant have stipulated to conditional certification of the
Settlement Class. For the purpose of approval of this Settlement only, Plaintiffs and Defendant
further stipulate and agree that the Members of the Class are so numerous as to make their joinder
impractical; that there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class as set forth
in the Pleadings and those questions predominate; that the interests of the representative parties
are typical of the interests of the Settlement Class; that the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class; and that Defendant allegedly acted or
refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class Members. Such stipulation shall not
be deemed not construed as an admission or used as evidence of any violation of law or any
wrongdoing by Rent-A-Center or the existence of a class satisfying the requirements of F.R.C.P.
23.
2
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81 Filed 10/31/01 Page 2 of 9

6. Conditional certification of the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement is in the best interests of the Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class Members and the Defendant. Adequate notice of the pendency of this action, the Settlement, the Class, the right of potential Settlement Class Members to exclude themselves, the right of Settlement Class Members to object to the Settlement, and the hearing on objections will be attempted by mail by the Settlement Administrator to each Settlement Class Member who can reasonably be located, and as described in subparagraph (8)(d) below.
7. The Notice, in the forms attached to the Settlement Agreement, adequately and clearly informs absent Settlement Class Members of the terms of the Settlement, their right to inspect documents on file at the Court, their right to object to the Settlement, their right to opt out of and be excluded from the Settlement, and the time and location of the hearing on final approval.
8. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Defendant request the Court’s Order, to wit: (a) Determining that all the requirements of Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied with respect to the conditional maintenance of this action as a Class Action solely for the purpose of considering and acting on the Settlement contemplated by the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement dated October 31, 2001 ("Settlement Agreement") and preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement which is attached hereto as Exhibit A;
(b) Certifying this action as a Class Action on behalf of the Settlement Class under said Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) solely for the purpose of considering and acting on the Settlement and defining the Settlement Class consistent with the definitions set forth in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement;
3
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81 Filed 10/31/01 Page 3 of 9

(c) Appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel shown on this Motion as Class Counsel, designating Plaintiffs Bunch, Levings, Christy Johnson, Ruby Smith, Stephanie Robinson, Angela Byrd, Claudetta Davis Burns, Kimberly Hall, Sheree Watson, April Anderson, Retta Stevenson, and Nicole Brown as Class Representatives, and appointing Rust Administrators, Inc. as Settlement Administrator empowered to provide for or assist in the issuance of Notice to Class members and otherwise administer the Settlement;
(d) Providing that reasonable efforts shall be undertaken to notify known Settlement Class Members of this Settlement by publication and/or that Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator mail by 1st Class U.S. Mail a copy of a Notice, in a form substantially similar to that shown as Exhibit C to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, said mailed Notice to be attempted to all female employees and former employees within the Class Period included in the Class Definition whom the Defendant can and does identify from its records, and said Notices to be mailed on or before November 12, 2001 in envelopes bearing the return address: "Clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, P.O. Box ___________ and stating "PLEASE FORWARD;"
(e) Requiring that Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator shall use best efforts to cause the summary Notices, in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, to be published in the USA Today on or before November 30, 2001, and further, requiring that, on or before December 20, 2001, Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator shall file with the Court an Affidavit that Notice has been effectuated;
4
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81 Filed 10/31/01 Page 4 of 9

(f) Finding that the mailing and publication of Notices as provided in subparagraphs (d) and (e), above, constitute the best notice practical under the circumstances to the Settlement Class and that such Notices comport with due process and are due and sufficient notice for all purposes to all persons entitled thereto;
(g) Requiring that Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator rent a post office box in the name of the Clerk of the District Court for the return of undeliverable Notices, opt-out forms, requests for review of duration of employment, and written objections and providing that Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator shall furnish to the Court and Counsel for Defendant copies of (i) in the case of Notices and any other communications to Settlement Class members, a prototype of the form of such Notice together with a list of names and addresses to whom such Notice or communication has been sent by mail, and (ii) in the case of opt-out notices, requests for review of duration of employment, and objections to the Settlement, copies of any such documents;
(h) Scheduling a hearing to determine the lawfulness, reasonableness, adequacy, and fairness of the Settlement, and whether the Settlement should be finally approved by this Court, and whether an Order and Judgment granting Final Judicial Approval should be entered thereon;
(i) Providing that any Member of the Settlement Class or any other person or entity with standing to object and who does object to the approval of the Settlement may appear at the aforesaid hearing and show cause why the Settlement should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate:
(j) Requiring that all objections to the Settlement which are to be heard at the
5
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81 Filed 10/31/01 Page 5 of 9

hearing on final approval of the Settlement and any papers or briefs submitted in support of said objections, will be considered only if said objectors make all of their objections in writing and either file them in person or mail them to the Clerk of the District Court at the Post Office Box address established for the receipt of such objections with a postmark no later than December 20, 2001 and that all objectors who wish to appear mail written notice of their intention to appear and copies of all papers, affidavits, or briefs in support of their objections to the same P.O. Box address on or before December 20, 2001;
(k) Authorizing Class Counsel to respond to inquiries from Settlement Class members at Class Counsel's discretion concerning the Settlement, and the status of the case; and,
(l) Granting a preliminary injunction in aid of the Court’s jurisdiction, which would enjoin all other efforts to certify a Class which would contain ten percent (10%) or more of the members of this Class and involves claims of gender discrimination against Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Defendant request that this Court enter an Order containing the provisions set forth above. Plaintiffs and Defendant attach a Proposed Order.
Respectfully Submitted,
WHITE, ALLINDER & GRAHAM, L.L.C.
/s/ Gene Graham Steven White Gene P. Graham, Jr. - 34950 Mary Beth Compton - 43005 14801 East 42nd Street Independence, MO 64055 Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Telecopier: (816) 373-9319
6
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81 Filed 10/31/01 Page 6 of 9

KLAMANN & HUBBARD, P.A.
/s/ Dirk L. Hubbard John M. Klamann, MO #29335 Dirk Hubbard, MO #37936 Courtney Hueser, MO # 7101 College Blvd. Suite 120 Overland Park, KS 66210 (913) 327-7600 Fax: (913) 327-7800 THE POPHAM FIRM, P.C. Dennis Egan, MO #27449 Bert S. Braud, MO #34325 323 West 8th Street, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64105 (816) 221-2288 Fax: (816) 221-3999
7
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81 Filed 10/31/01 Page 7 of 9

WINSTEAD SECHREST AND MINICK, P.C.
_____________________________________ Dan C. Dargene Lisa Winston Sorrell Shannon Cameron Carr 5400 Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 74270 STINSON, MAG, AND FRIZZELL, PC Bob L. Driscoll Sara E. Welch 1201 Walnut Street Suite 2800 P.O. Box 419251 Kansas City, Missouri 64141 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
8 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81 Filed 10/31/01 Page 8 of 9

Certificate of Service I hereby certify that the foregoing was filed electronically and notice of such filing was made electronically to defendant’s counsel pursuant to the Electronic Case Filing Rules of the Western District of Missouri this 31st day of October, 2001, to: Robert L. Driscoll Sarah E. Welch 1201 Walnut, Suite 2800 Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Fax: (816) 691-3495 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
and was mailed to:
Dan C. Dargene Lisa Winston Sorrell 5400 Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75270 Fax: (214) 745-5390 OF COUNSEL ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
/s/ Dirk Hubbard Attorney for Plaintiffs
9
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81 Filed 10/31/01 Page 9 of 9

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

MARGARET BUNCH, et al.

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) Case No. 00-0364-CV-W-3

)

RENT-A-CENTER, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

______________________________________________________________________________

TRACY LEVINGS, Plaintiff,
v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC.,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) Case No. 00-0596-CV-W-3 ) ) ) )

STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) is entered into this 31st day of October, 2001, by and between Plaintiffs Maggie Bunch, Tracy Levings, Christy Johnson, Ruby Smith, Stephanie Robinson, Angela Byrd, Claudetta Davis Burns, Kimberly Hall, Sheree Watson, April Anderson, Retta Stevenson, and Nicole Brown, in the above-captioned litigation, both individually and on behalf of the stipulated Settlement Class as defined herein, and Defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc.
WHEREAS, Maggie Bunch filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on April 19, 2000, styled Margaret Bunch v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Case No. 00-0364-CV-W-3, alleging gender discrimination;
1 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 1 of 31

WHEREAS, Tracy Levings filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June 15, 2000, styled Tracy Levings v. Rent-A-Center, Inc, Case No. 00-0596-CV-W-3 alleging gender discrimination;
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2000, the Levings Case (defined below) was transferred to the same District Court (defined below) assigned to the Bunch Case (defined below), and thereafter the Plaintiffs (defined below) have filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint and have requested leave to file their Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this Action (defined below);
WHEREAS, Christy Johnson, Ruby Smith, Stephanie Robinson, Angela Byrd, Claudetta Davis Burns, Kimberly Hall, Sheree Watson, April Anderson, Retta Stevenson, and Nicole Brown have sought leave to join this Action as additional Plaintiffs and putative Class Representatives in a Second Amended Class Action Complaint;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, through their counsel, have alleged in the Action that certain RAC (defined below) employment policies, practices and customs gave rise to gender discrimination in employment, including discrimination in hiring, pay, promotion, job assignments, treatment of pregnant employees, the terms and conditions of employment, sexual harassment, and the work environment, and constituted disparate treatment of the individual Plaintiffs and the Class as alleged in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, in violation of their Civil Rights under Title VII;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, through their counsel, have conducted an extensive investigation into the facts of this Action and have conducted substantial class action discovery in the Action;
2 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 2 of 31

WHEREAS, Defendant has denied each of Plaintiffs’ allegations in the Action and specifically denies the claims of discrimination made against it by Plaintiffs and the Class Members (defined below) they seek to represent;
WHEREAS, the parties have engaged in extensive arm's-length settlement negotiations;
WHEREAS, RAC and Plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Claims (defined below), that were alleged or could have been in the Action;
WHEREAS, the parties, solely for purposes of settlement, have agreed to stipulate, subject to court approval, to certification of a Settlement Class (defined below);
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and their counsel have concluded, after carefully considering the facts and applicable law, that it would be in the best interests of the Settlement Class to enter into this Settlement Agreement in order to secure substantial benefits to all Members of the Settlement Class and to avoid the uncertainties and costs of continued litigation;
WHEREAS, Defendant has concluded that it is in its best interests to enter into this Settlement Agreement to eliminate the expense, inconvenience, burden and uncertainties of continued litigation, and to avoid any further controversies related to the Action and the allegations therein;
WHEREAS, this Settlement Agreement is a result of arm’s-length negotiations between counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant, and counsel for Plaintiffs have concluded that this Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Plaintiffs and the members of the Settlement Class they represent; and,
WHEREAS, this Settlement Agreement shall not be deemed or construed as an admission or used as evidence of any violation of any law, rule or regulation or any liability or
3 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 3 of 31

wrongdoing by RAC or any RAC Affiliated Person (defined below), or the existence of a class satisfying the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 other than for purposes of this Settlement.
NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendant do hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
DEFINED TERMS The following terms shall have the following meanings when used herein:
1. Action. “Action” means the matter captioned Margaret Bunch v. Rent-ACenter, Inc., Case No. 00-0365-CV-W-3, pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the matter captioned Tracy Levings v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Case No. 00-0596CV-W-3, pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, and all Claims made by the joining Plaintiffs.
2. Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR. “Alternative Dispute Resolution” or “ADR” means the process hereinafter specified for Class Members who were employed by Defendant during the Class Period who elect to submit a claim for individual damages determination and ranking of proof rather than receipt of General Relief from the Employee Allocation Fund. “ADR” also shall refer to the process likewise specified herein for Class Members who were Applicants during the Class Period. The ADR process is set forth in the attached Exhibit B.
3. Alternative Dispute Resolution Fund or ADR Fund. “Alternative Dispute Resolution Fund” or “ADR Fund” means an account established and funded as directed by the District Court from the Settlement Amount for the payment of ADR awards to Class Members who elect Alternative Dispute Resolution and/or who are Applicants.
4 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 4 of 31

4. Applicants. “Applicants” means female members of the Class who were not employed by Defendant during the Class Period but who made application for employment by Defendant, or who attempted to apply for employment but were affirmatively discouraged by Defendant from making such application for employment, during the Class Period.
5. Bunch Case. The "Bunch Case" means the lawsuit styled Margaret Bunch v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Case No.00-0364-CV-W-3 alleging gender discrimination.
6. Claims. “Claims” means any and all claims or causes of action asserted or that could be asserted in this Action including, without limitation, all claims and causes of action of gender discrimination and retaliation, including, but not limited to, all claims for a pattern and practice of gender discrimination and/or claims for gender discrimination in hiring, pay, promotion, termination, and job assignments and/or claims for sexual harassment and hostile environment, pregnancy discrimination, whether based on allegations of disparate treatment or disparate impact and/or claims of retaliation for complaining and/or reporting alleged gender discrimination or harassment.
7. Class; Class Members; Settlement Class. “Class”, “Class Members” and/or “Settlement Class” means: All females who worked at, applied for work and/or attempted to apply but were affirmatively discouraged by Defendant from applying for work at any Rent-A-Center (Thorn Americas), Rent-A-Center, Inc., or Renters Choice, Inc. store in the United States, any of its territories, at any time between April 19, 1998 and October 1, 2001 (the “Class Period”), except that the Class does not include any female employed as a Market Manager and/or Regional Director nor any female who previously entered into a written settlement agreement with Rent-A-Center, Rent-ACenter, Inc., or Renters Choice, Inc. which releases claims of gender discrimination. The Class shall not include those persons who the District Court finds properly opted out of the Settlement Class.
5 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 5 of 31

8. Class Counsel. “Class Counsel” means Steve White, Gene Graham, Mary
Beth Compton, and the Law Firm of White, Allinder and Graham, LLC, Hidden Creek Building,
14801 E. 42nd Street, Independence, Missouri 64055; John M. Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard, Courtney
Hueser, and the Law Firm of Klamann & Hubbard, P.A., 7101 College Boulevard, Suite 120,
Overland Park, Kansas 66210; and Dennis E. Egan, Bert S. Braud and The Popham Law Firm, 1000
Commerce Trust Building, 922 Walnut, Kansas City, Missouri, 64106.
9. Class Representatives. “Class Representatives” means Plaintiffs Margaret
Bunch, Tracy Levings, Christy Johnson, Ruby Smith, Stephanie Robinson, Angela Byrd, Claudetta
Davis Burns, Kimberly Hall, Sheree Watson, April Anderson, Retta Stevenson, and Nicole Brown.
10. Complaint. “Complaint” means the original First Amended Class Action
Complaint filed in this Action, the proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint and any
amendments and/or supplements thereto.
11. Compromised Claims. “Compromised Claims” means
(a) with respect to the Class Representatives as against RAC and RAC Affiliated Persons, any and all actions, causes of action, claims, costs, damages, demands, expenses, indebtedness, liabilities, obligations, suits and the like, whether now known or unknown, disclosed or undisclosed, whether in law or in equity, which arise out of any act, omission, or transaction that shall have happened, occurred, or arisen prior to and including the date of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, whether or not such claim was or could have been included in the Complaint, including, but not limited to, claims of gender and age discrimination; or any other form of unlawful discrimination. Furthermore, Class Representatives will be required to sign a Release which includes the following language:
"IN CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542, A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED THIS SETTLEMENT WITH
6 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 6 of 31

THIS DEBTOR. ________________________, HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVES AND RELINQUISHES ALL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 1542 AND ANY SUCCESSOR FEDERAL OR STATE LAW PROTECTIONS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE."
and relinquishes all rights thereunder; and
(b) with respect to the Settlement Class as against RAC and RAC Affiliated Persons, any and all liabilities, actions, indebtedness, obligations, claims, causes of action, suits, damages, demands, costs and expenses, whether now known or unknown, which arise out of the occurrences described, alleged or referred to in the Complaint, including but not limited to any claims or causes of action arising from any of the factual predicates asserted in the Complaint or which should have been brought and are precluded from being asserted hereafter by operation of law (res judicata). Furthermore, members of the Settlement Class will be required to sign a Release which includes the following language:
"IN CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542, A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED THIS SETTLEMENT WITH THIS DEBTOR. ________________________, HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVES AND RELINQUISHES ALL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 1542 AND ANY SUCCESSOR FEDERAL OR STATE LAW PROTECTIONS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE."
(c) with respect to Defendant as against Plaintiffs and Class Counsel and their respective heirs, executors, legal assigns, and administrators, any and all actions, causes of action, claims, costs, damages, demands, expenses, indebtedness, liabilities, obligations, suits and the like, whether now known or unknown, disclosed or undisclosed, whether in law or in equity.
12. Counsel for Defendant. “Counsel for Defendant” means Dan C. Dargene and
the law firm of Winstead Sechrest & Minick P.C., 5400 Renaissance Tower, 1201 Elm Street,
Dallas, Texas 75270, and Robert L. Driscoll, Sarah E. Welch, and the law firm of Stinson, Mag, and
Fizzell, P.C., 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2800, P.O. Box 419251, Kansas City, Missouri 64141.
7 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 7 of 31

13. Defendant. “Defendant” means Rent-A-Center, Inc. 14. District Court. "District Court" means the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. 15. Effective Date of the Settlement. The “Effective Date of the Settlement” means the date of entry of the Order and Judgment of Final Approval unconditionally approving the Settlement, and affirmance of that Judgment after exhaustion of all possible appeals, or, if there is no appeal, the expiration of all applicable time periods for any appeal from that Judgment. 16. Employee Allocation Fund. The “Employee Allocation Fund” means an account established and funded as directed by the District Court from the Settlement Amount for the payment of General Relief to Class Members who were employees of RAC during the Class Period and who do not elect ADR, as approved by the District Court. 17. General Relief . “General Relief” means Net Settlement Allocations to Employee Class Members, as defined in paragraph 19, below, and as approved by the District Court. 18. Levings Case. The "Levings Case" means the lawsuit styled Tracy Levings v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Case No.00-0598-CV-W-3, alleging gender discrimination. 19. Net Settlement Allocations to Employee Class Members. “Net Settlement Allocations to Employee Class Members” means allocations of monies from the Employee Allocation Fund made to individual Class Members who are employees or former employees of RAC during the Class Period eligible to receive distributions from such Fund in accord with the District Court-approved plan of allocation. Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that the plan of allocation for the Employee Allocation Fund which includes General Relief to be proposed for approval by the District Court is shown on Exhibit A.
8 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 8 of 31

20. Notice. “Notice” means the form of notice to the Class of this Settlement, substantially in the form shown on Exhibit C and/or the form of summary notice for publication, substantially in the form shown on Exhibit D.
21. Opt-Out Period. “Opt-Out Period” means that period of time during which Class Members and/or potential Class Members may opt out of the Settlement. The Opt-Out Period shall commence and end on the dates approved by the District Court.
22. Order and Judgment of Final Approval. “Order and Judgment of Final Approval” means an Order by the District Court giving final approval to this Settlement and entering final judgment therefor. Plaintiffs and Defendant have agreed to propose such an Order and Judgment of Final Approval by the District Court in the form of Exhibit E.
23. Order of Preliminary Approval. “Order of Preliminary Approval” means an Order by the District Court preliminarily approving this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and the form, adequacy and manner of Notice, conditionally certifying a Settlement Class and setting a hearing for final approval of the Settlement and certain applications for attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs and Defendant have agreed to propose such an Order of Preliminary Approval to the District Court in the form of Exhibit F.
24. Plaintiffs. “Plaintiffs” means Margaret Bunch, Tracy Levings, Christy Johnson, Ruby Smith, Stephanie Robinson, Angela Byrd, Claudetta Davis Burns, Kimberly Hall, Sheree Watson, April Anderson, Retta Stevenson, and Nicole Brown.
25. RAC. "RAC" means Rent-A-Center, Inc., Renters Choice, and Rent-A-Center (Thorn Americas); their affiliates and their respective predecessors.
26. RAC Affiliated Persons. "RAC Affiliated Persons" means RAC and all their respective past, present, and future officers, directors, shareholders, employees, representatives,
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen9t 81-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 9 of 31

agents, insurers, affiliates, and attorneys, and their respective heirs, executors, legal assigns, and administrators. 27. Settlement. “Settlement” means the terms and conditions set forth in this
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits hereto. 28. Settlement Accounts. “Settlement Accounts” means collectively all accounts
established as the District Court may direct for deposit of the Settlement Amount. 29. Settlement Administration Fund. “Settlement Administration Fund” means
an account to be established and used to pay and/or reimburse post-Settlement administration costs and expenses. Defendant agrees to deposit the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) into said Settlement Administration Fund within 2 business days after entry of the Order of Preliminary Approval. This Settlement Administration Fund will be drawn on by the Settlement Administrator to pay for its services and reimburse its expenses at regular billing intervals and/or as expenses of this Settlement are incurred. The Settlement Administration Fund monies are not to be used to make distributions to Class Members nor to pay any costs, fees or expenses incurred by Class Counsel, RAC and/or its counsel in the Settlement administration process. Any monies remaining in the Settlement Administration Fund shall be added to the attorneys' fees cap discussed below. To the extent the costs of Settlement Administration exceed $500,000.00, such excess shall not be the responsibility of Rent-A-Center.
30. Settlement Administrator. “Settlement Administrator” means Rust Consulting, Inc. and/or such other person(s) or entity(ies) whom the District Court may approve to perform Settlement administration tasks as needed to effectuate the Settlement, the distribution of proceeds, accountings, and other functions as hereinafter described and assigned to the Settlement Administrator.
31. Settlement Amount. “Settlement Amount” means TWELVE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($12,250,000.00) payable by RAC within 2
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen1t081-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 10 of 31

business days after the Effective Date of the Settlement. Upon receipt by the Settlement Administrator, the Settlement Amount shall be distributed into two funds as follows:

$8,000,000

Employee Allocation Fund

$4,250,000

ADR Fund

32. Verified List. “Verified List” means a list of the employee Class Members’
names, last known addresses, phone numbers and inclusive dates of employment within the Class
Period to be provided by Defendant to Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator. The
Verified List shall be derived from the information contained within Defendant's computer
databases. Said Verified List and the information contained therein and derived therefrom shall be
used solely for purposes related to this Settlement.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SETTLEMENT
33. Subject to the payment of all monetaryobligations and District Court approval
as provided herein, all Compromised Claims against RAC and any RAC Affiliated Person shall be
settled, compromised and dismissed on the merits, and with prejudice, on the following terms and
conditions:
34. Settlement Class. Solely for purposes of this Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement and subject to District Court approval, Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that this Action
may be maintained as a Class Action on behalf of a Settlement Class consisting of the following:
All females who worked at, applied for work and/or who attempted to apply but were affirmatively discouraged by RAC from applying for work at any Rent-A-Center (Thorn Americas), Rent-A-Center, Inc., or Renters Choice, Inc. store in the United States or any of its territories, at any time between April 19, 1998 and October 1, 2001 (the “Class Period”), except that the Class does not include any female employed as a Market Manager and/or Regional Director nor any female who previously entered into a written settlement agreement with Rent-A-Center (Thorn Americas), Rent-A-Center,
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen1t181-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 11 of 31

Inc., or Renters Choice, Inc. which releases claims of gender discrimination.
35. Certification of Settlement Class. Plaintiffs and Defendant stipulate and agree, solely for purposes of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, that the Class Representatives are adequate representatives of the Settlement Class pursuant to Rules 23(a)(4), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”). Plaintiffs and Defendant further stipulate and agree, solely for purposes of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, that the claims of each Representative Plaintiff are common and typical of the claims of the Settlement Class they represent, all pursuant to FRCP Rules 23(a)(2), 23(a)(3), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs and Defendant further stipulate and agree, solely for purposes of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, that Class Counsel adequately represent the Settlement Class, are competent to serve as Class Counsel in all respects, and should be designated by the Court as Class Counsel, all pursuant to FRCP Rules 23(a)(4), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs and Defendant further stipulate and agree, solely for purposes of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, that the Class Members are so numerous as to make joinder impractical and that numerosity is established pursuant to FRCP Rules 23(a)(1), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs and Defendant further stipulate and agree, solely for purposes of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) are met by this Settlement Class. Solely for the purposes of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, with respect to the relief to be provided to the Settlement Class, including the distributions described herein and the injunctive relief, Plaintiffs and RAC further stipulate and agree that the Settlement Class should be certified pursuant to FRCP Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs and RAC further agree that the stipulations and agreements contained herein shall not be deemed nor construed as an admission or used as evidence
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen1t281-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 12 of 31

of the appropriateness of any other class of employees or applicants in this Action or in any other proceeding.
36. Opt-Outs. All persons eligible to be Class Members will have the right to opt out of the Settlement Class. The period of time during which potential Class Members may opt out (“Opt-Out Period”) shall commence and shall end on dates to be approved by the District Court. The parties agree to recommend to the District Court an Opt-Out Period of 45 days after the first mailed Notice to potential Class Members. By executing this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, each Plaintiff hereby waives her right to opt out or object to the Settlement. Class counsel further agree that no individual client of theirs eligible to be a Class Member shall opt out. In the event this occurs, Defendant shall have the right to nullify and withdraw from this Settlement.
37. Within 7 days after the last date to opt out of the Class or to file written objections to the Settlement, the Settlement Administrator shall provide to Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendant a list of all persons electing to opt-out and all persons who have filed with the Settlement Administrator copies of their written objections to the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator also shall provide to Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendant, upon request, copies of all opt-out requests and written objections received by it. A list of all persons eligible to be Class Members and who have properly and timely opted-out of the Class shall be filed by the Settlement Administrator with the District Court prior to the hearing for final approval of the Settlement.
38. If more than 92 persons eligible to be Class Members opt-out of the Class, then Defendant shall have the right, but not an obligation, to withdraw from this Settlement. Defendant shall make this election within seven (7) days of the date the Settlement Administrator provides Defendant's Counsel the list of persons who have opted out, as discussed in paragraph 21, above. In the event Defendant withdraws from this Settlement, Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, Motion for Leave to Join Additional Plaintiffs, Second Motion for Leave to Join Additional
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen1t381-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 13 of 31

Plaintiffs, and Motion to Consolidate shall be before the District Court for consideration, and Defendant shall have twenty (20) days to respond to said Motions.
39. In full and complete settlement and satisfaction of all Compromised Claims, Defendant shall pay a Settlement Amount of $12,250,000, to fund settlement payments to Class Members. Defendant also agrees to separately pay Class Counsel’s attorneys fees and to reimburse Class Counsel's litigation expenses as discussed in paragraph 46, below. Defendant also agrees to pay all expenses relating to administration of this Settlement, subject to the provisions of this paragraph and paragraph 29, above. Defendant shall forward the $12,250,000 Settlement Amount to the Settlement Administrator by wire transfer within 2 business days after the Effective Date of the Settlement. Defendant will also deposit a separate amount of $500,000 to initiate funding of Notice and the other costs of Settlement administration, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 29, above. Defendant shall deposit the $500,000 Settlement Administration Fund discussed in paragraph 29 by wire transfer to the District Court-appointed Settlement Administrator.
40. Upon the payment by Defendant of the Settlement Amount, and as a condition precedent to Class Members and Class Representatives receiving monetary relief allocated therefrom, all Class Members shall execute and deliver to the Settlement Administrator a General Release in the form shown as Exhibit G; and all Class Representatives shall execute and deliver to the Settlement Administrator a Release in the form shown as Exhibit H. The Bunch Case and the Levings case shall be dismissed with prejudice promptly upon completion of all of the terms of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and all terms and conditions set by the District Court.
41. If the Settlement is not finally approved by the District Court, or if the Effective Date of the Settlement does not occur, or if this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement is terminated in accordance with its terms or becomes null and void for any reason, then Defendant's obligation to pay shall be extinguished and any remaining unspent Settlement Administration Fund
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen1t481-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 14 of 31

amounts shall be refunded to Defendant. All sums expended (and obligations incurred) from the Settlement Administration Fund for payment of expenses associated with Notice and/or Settlement administration up to the time the Settlement Agreement is terminated or becomes null and void are not refundable to Defendant.
42. Upon its receipt pursuant to this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Amount shall be deposited into the Settlement Accounts and thereafter shall be divided and paid as set forth in this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and/or as Ordered by the District Court.
43. The payment of Class Members’ claims shall be made out of the Employee Allocation Fund and the ADR Fund established after receipt of the Settlement Amount, subject to District Court approval, in accordance with a plan of allocation. Plaintiffs and Defendant stipulate and agree that the employee matrix allocation plan shall be proposed to the District Court as shown on Exhibit A and that the ADR process for employees, ex-employees, and applicants shall be proposed to the District Court as shown on Exhibit B. Defendant will not object to or hereafter participate in the allocation or distribution of the Settlement Amount, except that Defendant shall cooperate with Class Counsel, the Settlement Administrator, all claim reviewers, the arbitrator, and the District Court in all Settlement administration and ADR matters. Defendant agrees to fully cooperate in all Settlement administration activities, including without limitation the ADR Process, and Defendant will endeavor to provide such documents and information as the Settlement Administrator and/or Class Counsel reasonably may request in aid of such Settlement administration.
44. The Settlement Administrator may invest some or all Settlement proceeds in short term United States Government securities and overnight repurchase agreements of United States Government securities. These securities may be held until sold at the direction of the Settlement Administrator to cover anticipated needs, on a weekly basis, for the payment of
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen1t581-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 15 of 31

settlements to Plaintiffs and Class Members and/or the Settlement Administrator. Where feasible,
such funds shall be swept into overnight repurchase agreements, to cover anticipated needs for
payments into the next week. Upon the sale of the securities and repurchase agreements as provided
herein, funds derived from those sales (including principal and interest) shall be placed in an account
or accounts held and administered under the direction of the Settlement Administrator. Any interest
earned on bank deposits and/or in Settlement Accounts may be used to defray the costs of
administration, if necessary. All risks associated with such investments will be borne by the
Settlement Administrator and the Class.
45. Programmatic and Injunctive Relief. In order to address the ongoing issues
and concerns raised in the Action regarding workplace equity for female applicants and employees
at Defendant and, in addition to the monetary relief provided for herein, Defendant, beginning on
or before the Effective Date of the Settlement, will implement the following actions to be described
in detail in a Consent Decree to be entered by the District Court:
(a) Adoption and Reaffirmation of Policy Statement Against Discrimination.
Defendant will adopt, regularly reaffirm and circulate a comprehensive and effective corporate commitment and Policy Statement against discrimination, harassment and retaliation against women on the basis of gender. Messrs. Mark Speese and Mitchell Fadel will personally send a message to all of Defendant's employees stating unequivocally that women are welcome in Defendant's workforce and renouncing any misimpressions to the contrary. Among other things this will also provide for:
* Defendant will periodically include an unambiguous written commitment to gender equity and equal employment opportunity for women employed with Defendant in its newsletters, employee manuals and handbooks, and training materials.
* Defendant will express in writings prominently displayed in posters placed in each of Defendant's locations, in its Co-Worker Guidelines and Employee Handbooks, and in all other training manuals which relate to employment practices:
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen1t681-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 16 of 31

(i) its unequivocal commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity for women,
(ii) its commitment to strong and effective anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, and anti-retaliation policies and procedures, and
(iii) its commitment to a work environment free of sexual and gender hostility.
* Defendant will similarly set forth in writing a nationwide policy concerning gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation against females. Defendant will post in accord with the requirements of law and in every store facility its commitment to this policy.
* Defendant will assign specific managerial responsibility for understanding and effectively enforcing the commitment and Defendant’s policies, procedures, and programs relating to workplace equity.
(b) The 75 Pound Weight-Lifting Requirement. Defendant will not specify a numeric weight-lifting requirement nor require any applicant for employment to pass a lifting test.
* Specifically, Defendant will eliminate the stated 75-pound weightlifting requirement for employment at Defendant.
* Defendant will delete any and all references to such requirement from its job descriptions and other materials describing work requirements at Defendant.
* Defendant will disclose to all of its employees that it considers that an essential function of all in-store jobs includes repetitive heavy lifting, and that Defendant considers such requirement a business necessity. Defendant will have available in the stores a general inventory of items which may require lifting along with each such item’s estimated weight. This information will be made available to all applicants and store employees.
* Each store employee and new hire for a store position will be trained on how to lift safely and advised of the equipment available to assist lifting. A video will be available for inclusion with other training materials which demonstrates how to lift safely and how to use lifting aids and which demonstrates in an equitable light the ability of women to perform lifting activities.
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen1t781-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 17 of 31

* All of Defendant's managerial employees will be explicitly informed that discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation against females will not be tolerated with regard for any job requirement, including without limitation, lifting activities.
* Defendant will take affirmative steps to assure that no weight-lifting tests are administered as a condition to the hiring or continued employment of any female with Defendant.
(c) Management Tests. Defendant will not use the APT test and agrees to monitor the results of all written employment tests currently in use.
* Specifically, Defendant will eliminate its use of the APT Management Test.
* Defendant will eliminate its use of existing APT Management Test results relating to any female employed with Defendant in any employment action.
* The results of any and all APT tests will not be used by Defendant to make employment or promotion decisions.
* A record of APT test results shall be retained, however, as required by law and may be used as needed in adversarial or claims matters.
* The employment testing currently being used by Defendant is administered by Competency Management Incorporated ("CMI").
* All employment-related testing henceforth used by Defendant will be designed, validated, administered, and used in full compliance with applicable law.
(d) Training. Defendant will provide comprehensive workplace equity education to all employees, including managerial employees. Among other things this will provide:
* Clear confirmation and explanation of employees’ rights and responsibilities regarding workplace equity at Defendant;
* Clear confirmation and explanation of managers’ responsibilities regarding workplace equity with Defendant as well as their accountability as managers for ensuring the promotion and maintenance of a non-discriminatory workplace for all employees with Defendant; and
* Comprehensive explanation of the definition, with examples, of gender-based harassment, discrimination, and retaliation and
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen1t881-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 18 of 31

Defendant’s policies, procedures, and programs to eliminate it.
* Specifically, Defendant will provide training to all of its employees to teach them how they may adequately perform their job responsibilities regardless of their gender.
* Defendant will also provide training about and in furtherance of Defendant’s commitment to its nationwide policy concerning discrimination, harassment and retaliation and a discrimination-, harassment-, and retaliation-free workplace for women.
* Defendant will also provide training to all Defendant's employees on how Defendant's employees may pursue their rights under the policies of the company (including a full and simple explanation of all complaint procedures) and how Defendant's employees are expected to execute their responsibilities for gender equity.
* Understandable, non-legalistic definitions of prohibited conduct will be developed and included in the training to all of Defendant's employees.
* Clear explanations of the range of consequences for violations of Defendant’s equal employment opportunity policies will be included in the training.
* All employees will be encouraged as a part of their training to report any violation of the company’s policies on gender equity.
* All employees will receive training on complaint procedures, on how complaints will be handled, and on the multiple avenues employees may use to make a discrimination or harassment complaint within the company. Videotapes, CD-ROMS, and/or Internet resources will be designed, prepared and utilized in the training to be provided on these subjects.
* All gender employment practices training will include nonintimidating opportunities for trainees to ask questions about any aspect(s) of the training. This training will be provided as a part of new-hire orientation and on a periodic annual “refresher” basis.
* Defendant will train all of Defendant's management personnel on what discrimination, harassment, and retaliation are and on how to recognize the same. All such personnel will also receive training on how to execute their responsibilities concerning gender equity in the workplace and on their accountability for such responsibilities. Videotapes, CD-ROMs, and/or Internet resources will be designed, prepared and utilized as a part of the training on these subjects.
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen1t981-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 19 of 31

* Defendant will retain the services of an outside consultant to assist it in the development of its training programs so that the above objectives are met and so that gender equity and the retention of females in its workplaces are enhanced.
(e) Discrimination and Harassment Complaint and Reporting Procedures. Defendant will modify its current policies and procedures for reporting, investigating, evaluating, and documenting claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Among other things, these will provide for:
* Multiple avenues for making a complaint, including adequate, neutral Co-Worker Relations personnel and a telephone complaint system;
* Impartial, accurate, prompt, thorough, and efficient fact-finding by trained and competent Co-Worker Relations personnel,
* Claims procedures will be designed and implemented by Defendant to aid enforcement of Defendant’s employment policies in all of Defendant's workplaces. At a minimum, those procedures will provide for accurate, prompt, thorough, and efficient fact-finding by qualified personnel, evaluation and assessment of the results of the fact-finding, consistent imposition of effective and appropriate discipline, and adequate record-keeping.
* Records of complaints will be periodically reviewed by Defendant and/or its consultants to assure that the complaint process is operating properly.
* Individual incidents of gender discrimination and/or harassment will be timely followed up to assure appropriate resolution and prevent retaliation.
* All persons involved in administering and executing the formal complaint process will receive adequate training necessary to fully and fairly fulfil their responsibilities.
(f) Record-Keeping. Defendant will maintain applicant records that comply with EEOC regulations and all applicable local, state, and federal law.
* Defendant agrees to use an Applicant tracking system which tracks and records the gender of all of Defendant's job applicants, to the extent required by law.
(g) Hiring, Retention, and Promotion of Women. Defendant will modify its current internal application process such that openings in a market are posted and employees in that market are given an equal opportunity to apply for open positions.
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen2t081-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 20 of 31

* Defendant will retain the services of a suitable outside consultant to assist in the review and revision of hiring and recruiting materials to promote gender equity in its workplaces.
* Defendant will review its hiring and promotion practices to ensure that gender discrimination is not occurring.
* Defendant will ensure non-discriminatory promotion policies, processes, and guidelines are followed in all Defendant's locations. The promotion processes will include: (a) written, non-discriminatory job descriptions and objective criteria for each store system position; (b) posting of job openings within a market; (c) establishment and company-wide dissemination of promotion application procedures for each store system position within a market; (d) express guidelines and readily available guidance for equitable promotion decision-making, and (e) annual reviews of promotion practices as required by law to determine if disparities exist which are adverse to women.
(h) Termination of Female Employees. Defendant will not terminate female employees because of their gender.
* Any woman who feels that she has been terminated illegally because of her gender will be provided a prompt opportunity to contact Defendant’s Co-worker relations or similar position responsible for co-worker relations.
* The Co-worker relations will consider and handle all complaints of illegal gender discrimination in termination in accord with the complaint process outlined above.
(i) Miscellaneous Provisions of Programmatic Relief. * Defendant will make every reasonable effort to ensure that its medical leave of absence policies are applied consistently, including with respect to pregnancy.
* No duties, including housekeeping, will be designated or implemented specifically for female employees. Defendant will promulgate a memo underscoring that these duties are not to be assigned by gender.
* With respect to all the programmatic relief discussed above, Defendant may include appropriate language or conduct within a broader context which prohibits all forms of illegal discrimination.
Further, Defendant will complete the implementation of all new policies, procedures, and programs
pursuant to this paragraph no later than 180 days from the Effective Date of the Settlement and will
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen2t181-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 21 of 31

thereafter maintain and enforce it policies, procedures, and programs for gender equity in good faith and in keeping with the spirit of the Settlement.
46. Defendant agrees to pay, in addition to the Settlement Amount (defined in paragraph 31 above) and the costs of Settlement administration (discussed in paragraph 29 above), all of Class Counsel attorneys’ fees and litigation expense reimbursements as ordered by the District Court. The amount to be sought and paid, as Ordered by the District Court, is intended to cover attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses through the completion of Settlement administration and final dismissal of this Action, including the completion of the ADR process. The amount is intended to cover all of Class Counsel’s attorney and paralegal time expended to date and the substantial amount of time anticipated to be spent in the future in this matter. Within twenty (20) days of the Effective Date of the Settlement, or at such other time as the District Court may so order, Class Counsel shall submit an Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Costs (“Fee Application”) to the District Court. Defendant shall have the right to object to such Fee Application. Defendant will pay said sums awarded to Class Counsel two (2) days after the District Court’s Order Awarding Class Counsel’s Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and any appeals thereof are exhausted and becomes final, subject to an agreed upon cap of $2,625,000. Such cap shall be increased by $500,000 less the actual amount of Settlement administration costs.
47. This Stipulation and Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which together shall be deemed to be one instrument.
48. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and for Order Extinguishing Claims Against the Defendant.
(a) Plaintiffs and Defendant shall promptly file this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with the District Court.
(b) By joint motion, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit I, Plaintiffs and Defendant shall promptly move the District Court to enter an Order of
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen2t281-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 22 of 31

Preliminary Approval conditionally certifying a Settlement Class under subparagraphs (a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the sole purpose of considering and acting on this Settlement. (c) The Plaintiffs and Defendant shall use their best efforts to obtain the entry of such Order of Preliminary Approval, and shall, if necessary in that regard, present additional evidence to the District Court in support of the motion. (d) If the District Court thereafter enters an Order of Preliminary Approval, the parties shall proceed in accordance with the terms thereof and with the terms of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. 49. Notice of the Settlement. Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that Notice shall be provided to potential members of the Class and that they shall move the District Court for approval of Notice to the potential members of the Class in the forms annexed hereto as Exhibits C and D. Subject to the District Court’s approval, the Notice as set forth in Exhibit C shall be mailed by the Settlement Administrator to the last-known address of the potential employee Class Members, where feasible, as provided by Defendant from its records and files on the Verified List. Defendant will provide to Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator a Verified List of the names and last known addresses and telephone numbers of the potential employee members of the Class, together with a Verified List of their inclusive dates of employment and their employment positions during the Class Period, to Class Counsel within ten (10) days after entry of the Order of Preliminary Approval. The Settlement Administrator will perform one skip tracing search for all of those people whose mailed Notices are returned undelivered to potential Class Members without a forwarding address. Based on the results of the skip trace and other reasonable efforts taken at its discretion, the Settlement Administrator will mail a Notice to each new address that is discovered. Subject to the approval of the District Court, published Notice also shall occur, in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit D. Such Published Notice will be made by publication in the USA Today newspaper. The Settlement Administrator will use best efforts to cause such Notice to be published on a date to be established by the District Court. The Settlement Administrator will use best efforts to cause the published
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen2t381-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 23 of 31

Notice to constitute at least 1/4 of a page in such newspaper. The cost of all mailed Notices to
potential employee Class Members, all skip tracings, and all published Notices shall be paid as a part
of the costs of Settlement administration, and in accord with paragraphs 29 and 39 herein.
50. Disputes Relating To Membership In the Settlement Class Or Allocations To Any
Class Member. If, following Notice to the potential members of the Class, any dispute arises
concerning the membership in the Settlement Class or any allocation of the Settlement amount to
any one or more members of the Class, then the Settlement Administrator, Plaintiffs, Class Counsel,
and Defendant shall cooperate with one another and use their best efforts to resolve all such disputes
using information from the records and files of the Defendant and appropriate information, if any,
supplied by the potential Class Member. Any and all such disputes shall be resolved, where
possible, prior to the hearing for final approval of the Settlement, or, if the parties are unable to
resolve any said dispute, then it shall be resolved by the District Court.
51 Conduct of Hearing for Final Approval of the Settlement.
(a) By joint motion, Plaintiffs and Defendant shall move the District Court for entry of its proposed Order and Judgment of Final Approval of the Settlement substantially in the form as Exhibit E.
(b) The parties may present evidence and argument to the District Court prior to and/or at the hearing concerning the entry of the Order and Judgment of Final Approval. In order to assist in the presentation of such evidence, Defendant agrees to utilize good faith efforts to provide such documentation and information as Class Counsel reasonably may request.
(c) If the District Court refuses to certify the proposed Class, or to enter an Order of Preliminary Approval, or to enter an Order and Judgment of Final Approval, or if the Effective Date of the Settlement fails to occur on or before November 1, 2003, then Defendant shall have the right to declare this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement be null and void, except that all monies expended (and/or obligations incurred) for Notice and/or Settlement administration prior to the date the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement becomes null and void shall not be refunded to Defendant. All remaining sums shall be returned to Defendant as soon as possible thereafter.
(d) If the District Court certifies the Class and approves this Stipulation and
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen2t481-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 24 of 31

Settlement Agreement, and an Order and Judgment of Final Approval is entered, then within thirty (30) days of resolving all claims made pursuant to the ADR process. Class Counsel shall return to Defendant, without retaining any copies, all documents produced by Defendant to Plaintiffs in this litigation.
52. Retention of Settlement Administrator. In connection with the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereunder, Plaintiffs and Defendant stipulate and agree that Rust
Consulting, Inc. may, subject to the District Court’s Order, be retained as the “Settlement
Administrator” for the Settlement Class and may be authorized to do the following:
(a) Establish and maintain a post office box for Settlement administration;
(b) Send Notice, receive and record opt-out information, calculate allocations in accord with District Court-approved formulae, make distributions of allocations, account for allocations and distributions, and otherwise conduct the administration of this Settlement; and
(c) Receive databases and the Verified List and establish a database or databases as may be necessary to perform its assigned duties and undertakings. The Verified List and databases, if any, provided by Defendant, shall be used by the Settlement Administrator solely for purposes of this Settlement and for no other purpose.
53. Effect of Failure of Settlement to Become Final. If the Effective Date of the
Settlement does not occur for any reason, or if it fails to occur by November 1, 2003, then Defendant
shall have the right to declare:
(a) this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and the Exhibits thereto, and all documents executed or prepared, acts done, and Orders entered pursuant to it be null, void, and of no force or effect whatsoever and shall not be offered or received in evidence or construed as an admission by RAC, any of the RAC Affiliated Persons, or any other person or entity of the validity of any of the Compromised Claims or any wrongdoing of any kind or as a waiver, abandonment, or release of any claim, position, or defense, and all negotiations, proceedings, statements and releases made in connection herewith shall be without prejudice to any party, person, or entity;
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen2t581-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 25 of 31

(b) Any unexpended amounts paid by Defendant in connection with the Settlement shall be repaid to Defendant, except that all sums expended or committed to obligations incurred for the Settlement’s administration, such as but not limited to expenses associated with Notice and/or other Settlement administration up to the time this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement becomes null and void, are not refundable to Defendant;
(c) Upon the occurrence of any event which could void this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, the party seeking to void the Settlement shall, within seven (7) business days of such event, give written notice to the District Court and all counsel citing the specific event and that party’s intent to terminate the Settlement unless the matter is satisfactorily resolved. Failure to give such notice shall constitute a waiver of the right to void this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement; and
(d) Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Leave to Join Additional Plaintiffs, Second Motion for Leave to Join Additional Plaintiffs and Motion to Consolidate shall be before the District Court for consideration, and Defendant will have twenty (20) days to respond to each.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
54. Good Faith. Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, Defendant and Counsel for Defendant
agree that they will promptly undertake to implement the terms of this Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement in good faith, and to use good faith in resolving any disputes that may arise in
implementing the terms of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. Although the Notices and
other documents shown in the Exhibits hereto are contemplated to be used substantially in the form
attached, the parties hereto may otherwise mutually agree on such changes and/or amendments
thereto as they may deem appropriate to consummate the Settlement in keeping with the intent of
this Settlement. The entry of any Order by the District Court in a form which varies from those
proposed Orders shown as Exhibits to this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement shall not be cause
to declare this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement null and void so long as such Order does not
materially conflict with the spirit and intent of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement or the
material terms hereof.
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen2t681-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 26 of 31

55. All of the Exhibits to this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
56. Entire Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, contracts, promises, representations, and statements, if any, among the parties hereto, or their representatives, excluding any agreements with respect to recoverable costs and attorneys' fees, are merged into this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class, and Defendant. This Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, including the Exhibits hereto, constitutes the entire understanding between the parties and no waiver or modification of the material terms hereof shall be valid unless made in writing signed by the party to be charged and approved by the District Court, and then only to the extent therein set forth.
57. Nothing herein is intended to or shall be construed to have created any standing, causes of action, grievances, claims or any other rights in or for any person other than as between the Class Representatives, Class Members, Class Counsel, the Settlement Administrator, and Defendant in accordance with this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.
58. Binding Effect. This Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, and the acts done in furtherance thereof, shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
59. Denial of Liability in the Action. This Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and any proceedings taken hereunder shall not in any event be construed nor be deemed to be a concession or admission by or on the part of RAC, any of the RAC Affiliated Persons, or any other person or entity of any liability or wrongdoing or evidence of the truth of any allegation made against RAC, any of the RAC Affiliated Persons, or any other person or entity in any court or legal proceeding.
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen2t781-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 27 of 31

60. Warranty of Authority to Execute This Agreement. Defendant warrants and agrees that the person(s) executing this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement on its behalf and whose signature(s) appear below or on any counterpart hereto as a representative of Defendant is/are fully authorized to execute this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement on Defendant's behalf and to bind Defendant to each and every term and condition of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. Further, each of the parties warrants and agrees that he/she/it enters into the Settlement of his/her/its own volition without coercion.
61. Taxes. Settlement payments to Applicants and former Employee Class Members shall not be subject to withholding, but Defendant will issue each such Applicant or Employee Class Member a Form 1099 for the year in which such payment is made. With respect to current Employee Class Members, thirty percent (30%) of Settlement payments shall be subject to required deductions and withholding and a Form 1099 will be issued by Defendant for the remaining seventy percent (70%) of such payments for the year in which they are made.
62. Execution of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. This Stipulation and Settlement Agreement shall not become binding or effective unless and until all of the Class Representatives, all Class Counsel, Defendant and Counsel for Defendant have each executed the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, or a counterpart thereof.
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen2t881-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 28 of 31

RENT-A-CENTER, INC.

Dated:___________________________ By:_______________________________________ Mark Speese, Chairman of the Board

Dated:___________________________ By:_______________________________________ Mitchell Fadel, President
WINSTEAD SECHREST AND MINICK P.C. 5400 Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75270

Dated:___________________________

By:_______________________________________ Dan C. Dargene Lisa Winston Sorrell Shannon Cameron Carr

STINSON, MAG AND FIZZELL, P.C. 1201 Walnut Street Suite 2800 P.O. Box 419251 Kansas City, Missouri 64141

Dated:___________________________

By:_______________________________________ Robert L. Driscoll Sara E. Welch

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen2t981-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 29 of 31

Dated:___________________________ __________________________________________ Margaret Bunch
Dated:___________________________ __________________________________________ Tracy Levings
Dated:___________________________ __________________________________________ Christy Johnson
Dated:___________________________ __________________________________________ Ruby Smith
Dated:___________________________ __________________________________________ Stephanie Robinson
Dated:___________________________ __________________________________________ Angela Byrd
Dated:___________________________ __________________________________________ Claudetta Davis Burns
Dated:___________________________ __________________________________________ Kimberly Hall
Dated:___________________________ __________________________________________ Sheree Watson
Dated:___________________________ __________________________________________ April Anderson
Dated:___________________________ __________________________________________ Retta Stevenson
Dated:___________________________ __________________________________________ Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen3t081-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 30 of 31

Nicole Brown
WHITE, ALLINDER & GRAHAM, LLC Hidden Creek Building 14801 E. 42nd Street Independence, Missouri 64055

Dated:___________________________

By:_______________________________________ Steven White Gene Graham Mary Beth Compton

KLAMANN & HUBBARD, P.A. 7101 College Boulevard Suite 120 Overland Park, Kansas 66210

Dated:___________________________

By:_______________________________________ John M. Klamann Dirk L. Hubbard Courtney Hueser

THE POPHAM LAW FIRM 1000 Commerce Trust Building 922 Walnut Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dated:___________________________

By:_______________________________________ Dennis E. Egan Bert S. Braud

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Documen3t181-1 Filed 10/31/01 Page 31 of 31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET BUNCH, et al. Individually, and as Class Representatives Plaintiffs,
vs.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 00-0364-CV-W-3

)

)

)

)

)

____________________________________________________________________________

TRACY LEVINGS, Individually, and as Class Representatives Plaintiffs,
vs.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 00-0596-CV-W-3

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT, AND FORM, ADEQUACY AND MANNER OF NOTICE, CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING A SETTLEMENT CLASS, DIRECTING
NOTICE TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AND SETTING A HEARING ON THE SETTLEMENT AND CERTAIN APPLICATIONS
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, AWARDS, AND COSTS

The Plaintiffs and Defendant have entered into Stipulation and Settlement Agreement

(“Settlement Agreement”) dated October 31, 2001. The Court has reviewed and considered the

terms of the Settlement Agreement and presentation by counsel of the reasons underlying the

Settlement contemplated thereby, and the appropriateness of conditional certification of the

Settlement Class. The Court determines, preliminarily, without prejudice to the rights of Settlement

1 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-2 Filed 10/31/01 Page 1 of 8

Class Members to object to the Settlement, the following: that all the requirements of Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied with respect to the conditional maintenance of this action as a Class Action solely for the purpose of considering and acting on the Settlement; that the terms of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement are fair, adequate and reasonable and that they have been negotiated at arms’ length and without collusion; that certification of a Settlement Class, conditioned upon final approval of the Settlement Agreement, is appropriate; that the form, content and method of the Notices by mail and the Summary Notice by publication will adequately inform absent Settlement Class Members of their rights; and, that such Notices constitute the best practicable notice under the circumstances and comport with due process.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Class Certification. This action is certified as a Class Action on behalf of the Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, under subparagraphs (a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure solely for the purpose of considering and acting on the proposed Settlement. For Settlement purposes, this action shall be maintained as a Class Action on behalf of the following Class of Plaintiffs:
All females who worked at, applied for work, and/or who attempted to apply but were affirmatively discouraged by the Defendant from applying for work at any Rent-A-Center, Rent-A-Center, Inc., or Renters Choice, Inc. store in the United States or any of its territories, at any time between April 19, 1998 and October 1, 2001 (the “Class Period”), except that the Class does not include any female employed as a Market Manager and/or Regional Director nor any female who previously entered into a written settlement agreement with Rent-ACenter, Rent-A-Center, Inc., or Renters Choice, Inc. which releases claims of gender discrimination.
2
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-2 Filed 10/31/01 Page 2 of 8

2. Class Representatives. The Court approves for settlement purposes the following
individuals as Class Representatives in this case: Margaret Bunch, Tracy Levings, Christy Johnson,
Ruby Smith, Stephanie Robinson, Angela Byrd, Claudetta Davis Burns, Kimberly Hall, Sheree
Watson, April Anderson, Retta Stevenson, and Nicole Brown.
3. Class Counsel. The Court has approved the following attorneys and Law Firms as
Counsel to represent the Class in this action:
WHITE, ALLINDER & GRAHAM, L.L.C. Steven White Gene Graham Mary Beth Compton Hidden Creek Building 14801 E. 42nd Street Independence, Missouri 64055
KLAMANN & HUBBARD, P.A. John M. Klamann Dirk L. Hubbard Courtney Hueser 7101 College Blvd., Suite 120 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 327-7600 Telecopier: (913) 327-7800
THE POPHAM LAW FIRM, P.C. Dennis Egan Bert S. Braud 323 W. 8th Street Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 221-2288 Telecopier: (816) 221-3999
4. Proposed Settlement. The Proposed Settlement between the Plaintiff Class and the
3
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-2 Filed 10/31/01 Page 3 of 8

Defendant appears, upon preliminary review, to be within the range of reasonableness and
accordingly shall be submitted to the Class Members for their consideration and for a hearing under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
5. Hearing. A hearing shall be held on _______, 2001, at __:00 __.m. to determine
the lawfulness, reasonableness, adequacy and fairness of the Settlement, whether the Settlement
should be finally approved, whether an Order and Judgment granting Final Judicial Approval should
be entered thereon, whether Class Members should be bound by the Release set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, and whether Class Members should be subject to a permanent injunction
barring Class Members from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, participating in (as
class members or otherwise), or receiving any monetary benefits from, any lawsuit, administrative
or regulatory proceeding in any jurisdiction based on, or relating to, the Claims as defined in the
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. At that time or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Court
will also consider and rule upon all objections, if any, to the proposed Settlement, any pending
disputes as to settlement allocations, and any pending Applications for award of Attorneys fees and
for reimbursement of costs, and any objections thereto, all subject to the following:
(a) Objections by Class Members (persons who do not timely exclude themselves from the Class) to the proposed Settlement and any disputes as to employment duration for allocation purposes will be considered only if submitted in writing and mailed to the Clerk of the District Court at P. O. Box __________ postmarked on or before December 20, 2001.
(b) At the hearing, Class Members (persons who do not timely opt out and exclude themselves from the Class) may be heard orally in support of or in opposition to the proposed Settlement and/or any Application for Attorneys Fees and/or reimbursement of expenses, or disputes as to employment duration, provided such persons mail to the Clerk of the District Court at P.O. Box _______ postmarked on or before December 20, 2001, a written notification of the desire to appear personally, indicating briefly the nature of the objection or the nature of the matter
4
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-2 Filed 10/31/01 Page 4 of 8

on which they otherwise wish to be heard; (c) Class Counsel and counsel for the Defendant shall file or otherwise provide to the
Court copies of all written objections, summaries of opt-out notices, and other material pertinent to the subject-matter of the hearing on final approval of the Settlement in a timely fashion so as to enable the Court to give due consideration to such matters and the arguments pertaining thereto before and/or at the time of the hearing. Counsel for the Class and for the Defendant should be prepared at the hearing to respond to objections, if any, filed by Class Members and to provide other information, as appropriate, bearing on whether or not the proposed Settlement, Applications, and distribution of settlement proceeds should be approved. 6. Notice. The mailing and publication of Notice as provided herein constitute the best Notice practical under the circumstances to the Settlement Class; and such Notices comport with due process and are due and sufficient notice for all purposes to all persons entitled thereto. 7. Settlement Administration and Notice. Consistent with the Parties’ Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, the Court hereby appoints Rust Consulting, Inc. as Settlement Administrator for the purpose of carrying out the mandates of this Order and the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement applicable to the Settlement Administrator. Class Counsel and Defendant shall work to provide necessary assistance to the Settlement Administrator who in turn shall no later than November 12, 2001, use reasonable efforts to cause to be mailed in the name of the Clerk by first class mail, postage prepaid, to certain identifiable Class Members a Notice in substantially the same form as Exhibit C to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. This Notice will be mailed to Class Members who can be identified through an examination of Defendant’s records consisting of the database and/or Verified List of employees heretofore provided to Class Counsel by Defendant pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. The Notices shall be mailed in envelopes bearing the return address: “Clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District, P.O. Box ___________" and stating "PLEASE FORWARD." In addition, on or before November 30,
5
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-2 Filed 10/31/01 Page 5 of 8

2001, the Settlement Administrator and/or Class Counsel shall use best efforts to cause to be published a summary Notice in substantially the same form as Exhibit D to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. That summary Notice is to be published in the USA Today newspaper. On or before December 20, 2001, Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator shall file with the Court an Affidavit that such Notice described herein has been effectuated.
Further, Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrator shall rent a post office box in the name of the Clerk of the District Court for the return of undeliverable notices, for the receipt of optout forms and written requests for review of employment duration, and for the receipt of written objections to the Settlement; and for other communications from the Class; and Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator shall mail to Counsel for Defendant exemplar copies of all Notices sent by the Settlement Administrator, all written objections, all written requests for review of employment duration, and all completed and returned opt-out forms.
8. Exclusion. That period of time commencing with the date of this Order and ending on December 20, 2001 shall be the “Opt-Out Period.” All Class Members wishing to opt out of the Settlement Class must do so in writing as ordered within the “Opt-Out Period.” Class Members may exclude themselves from the Class by mailing the “Request for Exclusion from Class Action Settlement” form appended to the Mailed Notice or some other appropriate written indication that they request exclusion from the Class to the Clerk of the District Court, P.O. Box __________________, postmarked on or before December 20, 2001. Class Counsel shall retain Rust Consulting, Inc. as Settlement Administrator who will arrange for the post office box and who will receive and tabulate requests for exclusion, which tabulation will be presented to defense counsel prior to the hearing on final approval of the Settlement.
6
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-2 Filed 10/31/01 Page 6 of 8

9. List of Class Members. Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator will file with the Clerk and provide to counsel for RAC by January 5, 2002, an Affidavit identifying the persons to whom Notice has been mailed and who have not timely requested exclusion. Class Counsel is authorized to respond to inquiries from Settlement Class members concerning the Settlement and the status of the case.
10. Preliminary Injunction. All Class Members who have not been excluded from the Class are hereby enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting, maintaining, intervening in, participating in (as class members or otherwise) or receiving any benefits from any lawsuit, administrative or regulatory proceeding or order in any jurisdiction based on or relating to the claims and causes of action, or the facts and circumstances relating thereto, in this Action and/or the Released Claims; and all persons are hereby barred and enjoined from organizing Class Members, soliciting the participation of Class Members, or pursuing certification of a separate class which includes a substantial percentage of the Class Members as a purported class action lawsuit (including by seeking to amend a pending complaint to include class allegations or seeking class certification in a pending action) based on or relating to the claims and causes of action, or the facts and circumstances relating thereto, in this Action and/or the Released Claims. The Court finds that issuance of this preliminary injunction is necessary and appropriate in the aid of the Court’s jurisdiction over this Action.
11. Payment of Funds to Settlement Administrator. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Defendant is Ordered to pay $500,000 - Settlement Administration Costs Fund - to the Settlement Administrator within two days of the Entry of this Order.
7
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-2 Filed 10/31/01 Page 7 of 8

The Settlement Administrator is instructed to retain these Funds (with appropriate investments pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement) until further Order of this Court, except that the Settlement Administrator may expend monies from the Settlement Administration Costs Fund to pay for the costs of Settlement Administration.
12. Termination of Settlement. This Order shall become null and void, and shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Parties, all of whom shall be restored to their respective positions existing immediately before this Court entered this Order, if (i) the proposed Settlement is not finally approved by the Court, or does not become final, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; or (ii) the proposed Settlement is terminated in accordance with the Settlement Agreement or does not become effective as required by the terms of the Settlement Agreement for any other reason. In such event, the proposed Settlement and the Settlement Agreement shall become null and void and be of no further force and effect, and neither the Settlement Agreement nor this Order, shall be used or referred to for any purpose whatsoever.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________

____________________________________ HONORABLE ORTRIE D. SMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-2 Filed 10/31/01 Page 8 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET BUNCH, et al. Individually, and as Class Representatives Plaintiffs,
vs.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 00-0364-CV-W-3

)

)

)

)

)

____________________________________________________________________________

TRACY LEVINGS, Individually, and as Class Representatives Plaintiffs,
vs.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 00-0596-CV-W-3

)

)

)

)

)

NOTICE REGARDING EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT

Exhibits to Exhibit “A” attached to the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval is in paper

form only and is being maintained in the case file in the Clerk’s office.

Date: October 31, 2001

1 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-3 Filed 10/31/01 Page 1 of 3

KLAMANN & HUBBARD, P.A.
/s/ Dirk Hubbard John M. Klamann, MO #29335 Dirk Hubbard, MO #37936 Courtney Hueser, MO # 7101 College Blvd. Suite 120 Overland Park, KS 66210 (913) 327-7600 Fax: (913) 327-7800
THE POPHAM FIRM, P.C. Dennis Egan, MO #27449 Bert S. Braud, MO #34325 323 West 8th Street, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64105 (816) 221-2288 Fax: (816) 221-3999
WHITE, ALLINDER & GRAHAM, L.L.C. Gene P. Graham, Jr. - 34950 Mary Beth Clune - 43005 14801 East 42nd Street Independence, MO 64055 Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Telecopier: (816) 373-9319
THE POPHAM FIRM, P.C. Dennis Egan - 27449 Bert S. Braud - 34325 323 W. 8th Street, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 221-2288 Telecopier: (816) 221-3999
SANDERS, SIMPSON, FLETCHER, & SMITH, P.C. Michael R. Fletcher, - 47495 1125 Grand Ave., Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 471-6444 Telecopier: (816) 471-6664
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND ALL OTHER CLASS MEMBERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
2 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-3 Filed 10/31/01 Page 2 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing was filed electronically and notice of such filing was made electronically to defendant’s counsel pursuant to the Electronic Case Filing Rules of the Western District of Missouri this 31st day of October, 2001:
Robert L. Driscoll Thomas P. Schult Teresa L. Clark Jay P. Yancey 1201 Walnut, Suite 2600 P.O. Box 419251 Kansas City, Missouri 64141-6251
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

The person(s) listed below could not be notified electronically. A copy of the foregoing was duly mailed, postage prepaid on this same date to:

Dan C. Dargene John D. Smart Steven A. Siegel WINSTEAD, SECHREST & MINICK, P.C. 5400 Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75270-2199

/s/ Dirk Hubbard Attorney for Plaintiffs

3 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 81-3 Filed 10/31/01 Page 3 of 3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET BUNCH, et al. Individually, and as Class Representatives Plaintiffs,
vs.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., Defendant,
vs.
CLAUDINE WILFONG, et al.,
Intervenors.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 00-0364-CV-W-ODS

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER AFFIRMING ARBITRATOR’S RULING

As part of the settlement in this case, class members were provided with three options: (1) accept a sum certain based on the length of their employment with Defendant, (2) submit their claims to an alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) process, or (3) opt out of the class, leaving them free to pursue their own claims. Those pursuing ADR were also provided the right to appeal the arbitrator’s ruling to this Court if they were dissatisfied with the arbitrator’s conclusions. The deadline for filing objections has passed, and the Court has received four appeals.1 After reviewing the claimants’ submissions and the arbitrator’s file (including a spreadsheet reflecting all of the awards), the Court affirms the arbitrator’s ruling with respect to all four claimants.
Initially, it must be pointed out that under the terms of the settlement the maximum recovery permitted for one pursuing ADR was $50,000. This is significant because two of the claimants – Patti Almanza and Denise Couplin – received this amount. While it

1The appeals filed by Denise Couplin and Earnestine Harris have been filed. The appeals submitted by Patti Almanza and Susan Freeman were sent directly to Chambers and were not filed. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the latter two appeals.

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 200 Filed 12/05/03 Page 1 of 2

might be true that they would have had a greater recovery if they filed their own lawsuit,

the did not do that. Instead of opting out of the class they took advantage of the

mechanism provided in the settlement. The Court lacks the authority to alter the

settlement to provide them with more money.

The other two claimants – Earnestine Harris and Susan Freeman – were awarded

$45,000 and $40,000 respectively. The Court’s review reveals no basis for second-

guessing the arbitrator’s decision, particularly in light of the nature of these two claims

and the amounts awarded to other claimants. The Court concludes the awards are fair

and reasonable.

The Clerk of Court shall mail copies of this Order to:

Patti Almanza P.O. Box 205 Ellerbe, NC 28338

Earnestine Harris

Susan Freeman

1457 San Altos Place 1910 Poinsettia Ave.

Lemon Grove, CA 91945 Tampa, FL 33612

Denise Couplin 2129 E. Bobo Newsome Highway Hartsville, SC 29550

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: December 5, 2003

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 200 Filed 12/05/03 Page 2 of 2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET BUNCH, et al. Individually, and as Class Representatives Plaintiffs,
vs.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., Defendant,
vs.
CLAUDINE WILFONG, et al.,
Intervenors.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 00-0364-CV-W-ODS

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER CLARIFYING AND AMENDING ORDER AFFIRMING ARBITRATOR’S RULING

On December 5, 2003, the Court issued its Order Affirming Arbitrator’s Ruling. In affirming the appeals filed by Earnestine Harris and Susan Freeman, the Court stated the arbitrator awarded them $45,000 and $40,000 respectively. The Court obtained these figures from a worksheet prepared by the arbitrator that was included in each claimant’s file. Unbeknownst to the Court, the worksheet did not reflect the arbitrator’s final award; certain categories were granted a “premium” based on the quality of proof of actual damage. The premiums were not included on the worsksheet but were reflected in the transmittal letters sent to the claimants. Unfortunately, the letters were not included in the claimants’ files when they were submitted to the Court.
In reality, Ms. Harris was awarded $47,000 and Ms. Freeman was awarded $45,000. In issuing its prior order, the Court was not indicating that these awards should have been reduced to the amounts stated therein, and the Court adheres to its view that the arbitrator’s rulings were fair and reasonable. However, in reviewing the letters the Court has been alerted to a mathematical error. The calculation described in the

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 201 Filed 12/12/03 Page 1 of 2

narrative explains that Ms. Harris was to receive an award of $50,000, but the mathematical computation indicates she was to receive only $47,000. The narrative portion is correct, and the Court will remedy the error by instructing that Ms. Harris receive $50,000.
The Clerk of Court shall mail copies of this Order to:

Earnestine Harris 1457 San Altos Place Lemon Grove, CA 91945
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Susan Freeman 1910 Poinsettia Ave. Tampa, FL 33612

DATE: December 12, 2003

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 201 Filed 12/12/03 Page 2 of 2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET BUNCH, et al. Individually, and as Class Representatives Plaintiffs,
vs.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., Defendant,
vs.
CLAUDINE WILFONG, et al.,
Intervenors.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 00-0364-CV-W-ODS

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement and in light of the Court’s orders issued in December 2003 regarding the arbitrator’s rulings, this case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: February 25, 2004

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 202 Filed 02/25/04 Page 1 of 1

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET BUNCH, Plaintiff,
vs. RENT-A-CENTER, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 00-0364-CV-W-3-ECF

)

)

)

)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION

Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or In the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration (Doc. #25). Defendant seeks to enforce an arbitration agreement included as part of Plaintiff’s employment application. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted and this case is hereby stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.
This case arises out of Plaintiff’s employment relationship with Defendant. Plaintiff alleges she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender while working as a rental specialist for Defendant. On July 28, 1998, Plaintiff completed an application for employment with Thorn Americas, Inc. (“Thorn”). The employment application included an arbitration clause permitting either Plaintiff or Defendant to compel arbitration of employment disputes, claims or controversies. She was hired by Thorn on August 17, 1998. The same month, Thorn was purchased by Renter’s Choice. After the consolidation, the surviving corporation was named Rent-A-Center (the current named Defendant). On December 23, 2000, Plaintiff was fired and she later filed a lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Defendant has filed this motion, seeking to enforce the agreement to arbitrate contained in the employment application.

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 65 Filed 07/18/01 Page 1 of 7

A. DISCUSSION

The Supreme Court has recently held that claims of employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are subject to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 121 S. Ct. 1302, 1313 (2001); see also Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U. S. 20, 25 (1991). The FAA governs the enforcement of most employer-employee mandatory arbitration agreements and provides that a written arbitration agreement “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. Courts have observed that there is a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements and that when arbitrating statutory claims, such as those pursuant to Title VII, a “party does not forgo the substantive rights afforded by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial forum.” Gilmer, 200 U.S. at 25; see Lyster v. Ryan’s Family Steak Houses, Inc., 239 F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir. 2001)(stating that any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues, including the construction of the contract language itself, should be resolved in favor of arbitration).
In order for the arbitration provisions to be enforced pursuant to the FAA, there must be a valid contractual agreement between the employer and employee showing the parties’ intent to settle controversies through arbitration. State contract law governs whether an arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable. Lyster, 239 F.3d at 946.

I

Enforceability Under Missouri Contract Law

Plaintiff has advanced several arguments contending that the arbitration agreement is not enforceable under Missouri contract law. First, Plaintiff argues that the parties did not enter into a valid agreement to arbitrate because 1) the clause does not constitute a separate and binding contract and 2) the arbitration clause was vague. The arbitration
2

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 65 Filed 07/18/01 Page 2 of 7

clause appears on the second page of the employment application at the end of a section

entitled “AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZATIONS FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS &

DRIVER’S LICENSE CHECKS.” The clause reads as follows:

ARBITRATION. (A) AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE UPON REQUEST. IN THE EVENT

THE PARTIES HAVE A DISPUTE, CLAIM OR CONTROVERSY ARISING FROM OR

RELATION TO THIS APPLICATION OR ANY ISSUE SURROUNDING SUBSEQUENT

EMPLOYMENT AND EITHER PARTY ASSERTS A CLAIM OR COUNTERCLAIM

AGAINST THE OTHER, THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE CLAIM OR COUNTERCLAIM

IS ASSERTED HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE THAT THE ENTIRE DISPUTE BETWEEN

THE PARTIES, INCLUDING ANY DISPUTE OVER THE ENFORCEMENT AND

APPLICABILITY OF THIS ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND THE VALIDITY OF THIS

AGREEMENT, BE RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION BY AND UNDER THE CODE

OF PROCEDURE OF THE NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM IN EFFECT AT THE TIME

THE CLAIM OR COUNTERCLAIM IS FILED OR BY SUCH OTHER ARBITRATOR AS THE

PARTIES MAY AGREE TO IN WRITING. THIS AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE SHALL

APPLY TO ALL DISPUTES ARISING UNDER CASE LAW, STATUTORY LAW AND ALL

OTHER LAWS. JUDGEMENT UPON ANY AWARD MAY BE ENTERED IN ANY COURT

HAVING JURISDICTION. (B) NO RIGHT TO TRIAL BY COURT OR JURY. THE PARTIES

UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THEY HAVE WAIVED ANY RIGHT TO A TRIAL

BEFORE A COURT OR JURY IF ARBITRATION IS REQUIRED.

I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE APPLICATION.

DATE____________________

SIGNATURE_______________________

An arbitration contract requires the traditional contract elements of offer, acceptance, and consideration. Patterson v. Tenet Healthcare, Inc., 113 F.3d 832, 833 (8th Cir. 1997). Relying on Patterson, Plaintiff argues the arbitration clause in her agreement is not separate and distinct from the rest of the employment application and thus the clause should not be enforced. In Patterson, the arbitration clause was featured as part of an employee handbook. Under Missouri law, employee handbooks are generally not considered contracts because an employer’s unilateral act of publishing a handbook does not constitute a contractual offer to the employee. Johnson v. McDonnell Douglas, 745 S.W.2d. 661, 662 (Mo. 1985). However, the court in Patterson determined that the arbitration clause was still enforceable, partly because it was separate and distinct from the other provisions of the handbook.
In this case, the arbitration clause was included as part of the employment application - not an employee handbook. Plaintiff has provided no cases which hold that an employee application, like an employee handbook, does not constitute a contract or

3

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 65 Filed 07/18/01 Page 3 of 7

that the arbitration clause must be separate and distinct from other provisions in the application. To the contrary, the application contains representations from the prospective employee to the employer specifically designed to induce the formation of an employment relationship, and thus is part of the contractual relationship between the employee and employer. Even though Plaintiff’s employment was terminable at will and she was not what is traditionally termed a “contract” employee, an at-will employee and employer can still enter into a contractual agreements. Skinner v. Maritz, Inc., 2001 WL 641556, *17 (8th Cir. 2001)(“[The at-will doctrine] cannot be taken to mean that at-will employees are bereft of any and all contractual rights, e.g., the right to treat the employer's failure to pay for work done by the employee prior to termination of the employment relationship as a breach of contract.”). For example, employment applications typically include various agreements, not only related to arbitration but also for credit checks, background checks, etc. Furthermore, courts have enforced the use of arbitration clauses in employee applications. See Circuit City, 121 S. Ct. at 1306. While it may be necessary for an arbitration clause to be separate and distinct from an employee handbook, the same requirement does not necessarily extend to employment applications.
Nevertheless, even if it were necessary for the arbitration clause to be separate and distinct from the employment application, Plaintiff’s arbitration agreement would still meet this requirement. First, the clause is featured in a separate paragraph and set off by the heading “ARBITRATION” which appears in bold and capital letters. Although Plaintiff has characterized the size of the print as “very small”, it actually is either the same size or larger than other print on the application. The arbitration clause is also the only section of the application that includes underlined text.
In Patterson, the Eight Circuit listed additional factors that, if present, weigh in favor of enforcement arbitration clauses appearing in otherwise unenforceable employee handbooks, namely: (1) the existence of “a marked transition in language and tone from the paragraph preceding the arbitration clause to the arbitration clause itself,” and (2) the “use of “contractual terms such as ‘I understand,’ ‘I agree,’ I ‘agree to abide by and accept,’ ‘condition of employment,’ ‘final decision,’ and ‘ultimate resolution.’” Patterson, 113 F.3d at
4
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 65 Filed 07/18/01 Page 4 of 7

835. In this case, the tone and language of the arbitration clause resemble that of a contractual arrangement. Also, the arbitration clause includes typical “contract” terms such as “agreement to arbitrate,” and “the parties understand and agree.” Finally, the arbitration clause was not buried in the application. To the contrary, the clause was at the very end of the application directly above the signature line.
Plaintiff also argues that the arbitration clause was vague and the language did not explicitly refer to any applicability of the provision upon termination of the employment relationship. The clause refers to arbitration of a “dispute, claim or controversy arising from or relating to the application or any issue surrounding subsequent employment.” The phrase “any issue surrounding subsequent employment” includes Plaintiff’s claim of discrimination during her term of employment. Many “issue[s] surrounding subsequent employment” may not arise until the time of termination, and a narrow reading of the arbitration clause to preclude enforcement of them after termination would potentially leave many claims outside of the ambit of arbitration. Such a narrow reading does not give full effect to the arbitration clause and is not consistent with the clause as a whole or the apparent intentions of the parties. The arbitration clause is sufficiently specific in describing its effect and is enforceable.
Finally, Plaintiff cites other language contained in the application and argues that it prevents enforcement of her agreement to arbitrate. Plaintiff relies on language appearing three paragraphs prior to the arbitration clause which reads: “I RECOGNIZE AND AGREE THAT THIS APPLICATION IS NOT AN OFFER OR A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT BY THORN.” Plaintiff argues that by virtue of this statement, Defendant has admitted that the employment application, and the arbitration clause included therein, does not constitute a contract under Missouri law. Plaintiff, however, fails to mention the language immediately following the statement which, when read in conjunction, clarifies the statement. The following sentence reads: “I FURTHER RECOGNIZE AND AGREE THAT IF I AM EMPLOYED BY THORN, IT MAY TERMINATE MY EMPLOYMENT WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE AND/OR CAUSE AT ANY TIME, AND AT ITS WILL.” When read in context, the statement “THIS APPLICATION IS NOT AN OFFER OR CONTRACT OF
5
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 65 Filed 07/18/01 Page 5 of 7

EMPLOYMENT” seems to refer directly to the Plaintiff’s at-will status, in other words, the conditions under which her employment can be terminated, and nothing more. If anything else, the statement may simply refer to the fact that the act of filling out and returning the application does not guarantee employment. Nonetheless, the language contains no terms which would defeat the later agreement to arbitrate. This statement, appearing three paragraphs before the arbitration clause, cannot logically be read to defeat the arbitration clause. See Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 63 (1995) (“a document should be read to give effect to all its provisions and to render them consistent with each other”).
The intention of the parties is paramount, and the Court will not order arbitration if it is in contravention of the parties’ intentions. Nevertheless, there is no reason to find that the parties did not agree to arbitration of this case. Given that “any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration,” the Court holds that the arbitration clause included in Plaintiff’s employment application is enforceable under Missouri contract law. Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983).
II Rent-A-Center’s Standing to Enforce Arbitration Agreement
Plaintiff also argues that Rent-a-Center, the successor to Thorn, does not have standing to enforce the arbitration agreement. In August, 1998, Renter’s Choice purchased Thorn Americas and named the newly formed entity Rent-A-Center. Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, all liabilities, obligations and all assets and property of both Thorn and Renters Choice were allocated and/or assumed by the surviving entity, Rent-A-Center. Defendant’s Exhibit D: Agreement and Plan of Merger.
First, Plaintiff contends that Rent-A-Center was not a party to the arbitration agreement and thus it cannot force Plaintiff to arbitrate. Rent-A-Center is Thorn’s successor in interest and, as it assumed all of Thorn’s liabilities, obligations, assets and property, is in privity with the arbitration agreement. Under Missouri law, one who is a
6
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 65 Filed 07/18/01 Page 6 of 7

party to a contract or in privity with it can enforce the contractual obligation. County Asphalt Paving Co. v. 1861 Group, LTD., 851 S.W.2d 577, 582 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993); Raytown Consol. Sch. Dist. Number 2 v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 907 S.W.2d 189 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). Therefore, the fact that Rent-A-Center was not an original party to the agreement does not preclude it from compelling arbitration. Second, Plaintiff states that, because Rent-A-Center has abandoned all of the policy and procedures of the former Thorn entity, including use of an arbitration clause in employment applications, Plaintiff’s arbitration clause is no longer enforceable. This argument is untenable. Simply because an entity has made the unilateral decision that it no longer desires to continue to administer a particular policy does not strip it of the contractual right to enforce a valid contract related to the policy.

C. CONCLUSION

Based on the above discussion, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and retaliation are arbitrable. Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is granted. This case is hereby stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 18, 2001

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 65 Filed 07/18/01 Page 7 of 7

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET BUNCH, Plaintiff,
v. RENT-A-CENTER
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) Case No. 00-364-CV-W-3 ) ) ) )

TRACY LEVINGS, Plaintiff,
v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC.
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) Case No. 00-0596-CV-W-3 )
) ) )

G(P2R}ROGAMERRNROLEJDTAISTOCMIENEINOIOIRNTTNGNNITTA(NSATLTRMGIHE)DOYOMDEEINATSEERWIPTNPNOAIAPYATLTNYRIF.RINOFOO(TO3GONNV}RTRTAGMAHAHLNCEOPBEDEOTLSWRWIFAT(OI5TILIASNN)LIFFITFMTNOTIIOICPOOFNANAUTFGNTTGLISODRIAP'OPNATMLMNLNIAOTOOASIOOTNNITFNFITIOLEOATICINRFINFNFLFTDVFFATSOESPSOS' NR'RSME(RUO1TOEAE)ETTTXNJM,ELI(CEDO4CEOEC}NMTATSTMIPIEVTSOOOPNOENPTNRTOIAITOONAIRGTOVTNGSDEEAROFESFRLEPOR,AVEOPA,RCEMONF(ENBESDE)TNE(HTCE,)
On October 31, 2001 the parties in the above-captioned case entered into a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement seeking to conditionally certify a class and settle class-wide gender discrimination claims against Rent-A-Center. Concurrently, a similar gender discrimination case, entitled Wilfong, eta/. and EEOC v. Rent-A-Center ("the Wilfong Case") is being litigated in the Southern District of Illinois. Shortly after the parties filed their joint motion for preliminary approval of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in this case, the plaintiffs in the Wilfong case filed a series of motions in opposition to the proposed settlement.
ECF

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 109 Filed 11/29/01 Page 1 of 7

A. Motions filed by the Wilfong Plaintiffs
Pending are the following motions filed by the proposed class representatives in the Wilfong Case ("the Wilfong Plaintiffs"): (1) Motion to Oppose Preliminary Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Settlement, Conditional Certification of Settlement Class and Any Action on Such Proposed Settlement (Doc. #84 ); (2) Motion to Stay or Abstain, Motion to Reject on its Face the Joint Motions for Certification of Class and Approval of Settlement, Alternative Motion for Discovery and Hearing on Class Certification (Doc. #88) and the Corresponding Motion for Excess Pages (Doc. # 90); (3) Motion to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Litigating the Proposed Settlement (Doc. #89); (4) Motion for Reconsideration of Court's November 13, 2001 Order (Doc. # 93); (5) Motion to Change/Transfer Venue (Doc. # 94); and (6) Motion to Lift Protective Order (Doc. # 102).
Before addressing the merits of the Wilfong Plaintiffs' pending motions, the Court must first determine whether they should be allowed to intervene. The Court has reviewed the Wilfong Plaintiffs' Motion to Intervene and Rent-A-Center's opposition to their intervention. The Motion is predicated on Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), which provides that "anyone shall be permitted to intervene ... when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicants ability to protect that interest." Here, the Wilfong Plaintiffs' are parties in a concurrent lawsuit in the Southern District of Illinois. As part of the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs and Defendant seek to enjoin all other efforts to certify a class that involves claims of gender discrimination against Rent-A-Center. This directly affects to the rights and interests of the Wilfong Plaintiffs. The Wilfong Plaintiffs also contend that they should be allowed to intervene to raise issues in opposition to the settlement agreement and class certification. However, these issues do not immediately affect the interest of the Wilfong Plaintiffs' and are more appropriately be addressed in a later
2
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 109 Filed 11/29/01 Page 2 of 7

hearing for final approval of class certification and the settlement agreement during which the Wilfong Plaintiffs, as class members, will be permitted argue in opposition to the settlement. Thus, the Wilfong Plaintiffs will be allowed to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the preliminary injunction but they will not be allowed to intervene for the purpose of opposing class certification and the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Motion to Intervene (Doc.# 89) is GRANTED IN PART, ·and Rent-ACenter's Motion to Strike the Wilfong Plaintiffs' Motions (Doc. # 99) on the basis that the Wilfong Plaintiffs' are not a party to the case and have not been granted leave to intervene, is DENIED.
The Wilfong Plaintiffs' have requested that the Court reconsider its Order dated November 13, 2001. This order allowed the joinder of additional plaintiffs and vacated the Court's July, 2001 order that referred the Plaintiffs' to arbitration. As stated above, the Wilfong Plaintiffs' have been permitted to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing proposed preliminary approval of the class and settlement agreement. Thus, the propriety of the Court's November 13, 2001 order is beyond the scope of the Wilfong Plaintiffs' limited intervention. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Motion for Reconsideration as well as the motions in opposition to the joint motion for approval of the settlement agreement. Although the Wilfong Plaintiffs' and the EEOC have objected to the joinder of the additional plaintiffs because, for example, they have not exhausted their administrative remedies, the Wilfong Plaintiffs' and the EEOC have no standing to raise such defenses. Defendant Rent-a-Center has raised no defenses in opposition to the joinder, and, in fact, has consented to the joinder, so the Court will not prevent the addition of plaintiffs. See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines. Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 398 (1982) ("the filing of a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court, but a requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling."). The Court will not vacate or alter its order of November 13, 2001. The Wilfong Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.# 93) is DENIED.
The Wilfong Plaintiffs have filed two motions opposing the proposed settlement and requesting a hearing before preliminary approval and certification of the class.
3
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 109 Filed 11/29/01 Page 3 of 7

The Court will first address the Wilfong Plaintiffs' opposition to the parties' joint request for a preliminary injunction. The Court believes that such an injunction is excessive to protect the Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court will not enjoin members of the settlement class from filing, commencing, prosecuting, maintaining, intervening or participating in any lawsuit, administrative or regulatory proceeding based on or relating to the claims of the instant matter.
The Wilfong Plaintiffs' remaining arguments in opposition to the preliminary approval, however, are beyond the scope of their limited intervention. Be that as it may, the Court will still address some of the issues raised. The Wilfong Plaintiffs' primary argument is that the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification requirements have not been met. Specifically, they contend that Plaintiffs Bunch and Levings cannot fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class because they were referred to arbitration in July, 2001. However, on November 13, 2001, the Court vacated its July order referring Bunch and Levings to arbitration. Also, the Court has allowed the joinder of additional Plaintiffs with various claims that seem to satisfy the typicality requirements of Rule 23. The Court believes, preliminarily, that the certification requirements of Rule 23 have been met.
The Wilfong Plaintiffs' also argue that there are other "fatal flaws" that should prevent preliminary approval of the settlement. These arguments , however, raise issues of arms length bargaining, fairness of the settlement, and the general substance of the settlement agreement. The issues are better addressed at a final approval hearing to determine the lawfulness, reasonableness, adequacy and fairness of the settlement. Finally, the Wilfong Plaintiffs' request a preliminary "pre-notification" hearing. Such a hearing is usually held to "determine whether the proposed settlement is 'within the range of possible approval'... [and] to ascertain whether there is any reason to notify the class members of the proposed settlement." Armstrong v. Board of Sch. Directory, 616 F.2d 305, 314 (1980). In this case, the Wilfong Plaintiffs' have raised no viable arguments which suggest that notification should not be sent out to the class members. The arguments they have advanced could be adequately addressed at a later fairness hearing. Their request for a "pre-notification" hearing is denied. The
4
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 109 Filed 11/29/01 Page 4 of 7

Wilfong's Plaintiffs' Motion to Oppose Preliminary Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Settlement, Conditional Certification of Settlement Class and Any Action on Such Proposed Settlement (Doc. #84) and Motion to Stay or Abstain, Motion to Reject on its Face the Joint Motions for Certification of Class and Approval of Settlement, Alternative Motion for Discovery and Hearing on Class Certification (Doc. #88) are DENIED. The Motion for Excess Pages (Doc.# 90) is GRANTED.
The Wilfong Plaintiffs' have filed a motion to transfer this case to the Southern District of Illinois. The Court does not find compelling the argument that the case should be transferred because the Wilfong Case has progressed further than the instant matter. Nor does the Court believe that the interests of justice justify transfer of the case. Therefore, the Wilfong Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. # 94) is DENIED.
Finally, pending is the Wilfong Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Protective Order. In December, 2000, the Court entered an Agreed Protective Order covering employment records and Rent-A-Center's proprietary business practices, trade secrets and business procedures. The Wilfong Plaintiffs' seek to lift the protective order to evaluate the discovery Plaintiffs and Rent-A-Center believe justify settlement of the claims discovery that the Wilfong Plaintiffs contend is inadequate. The Court believes that the documents subject to the protective order are, by their nature, confidential and are not defined broadly enough to encompass "all discovery produced." Furthermore, at this time, the Court fails to see how disclosure of this information will assist the Wilfong Plaintiffs' in determining the adequacy of discovery or uncovering any conflict of interest or impropriety among the parties or attorneys. Accordingly, the Motion to Lift Protective Order (Doc.# 102) is DENIED.
B. Opposition filed by the EEOC
5
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 109 Filed 11/29/01 Page 5 of 7

Also pending is an opposition to the proposed settlement filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC, while an intervener in the Wilfong Case, has not filed a motion to intervene in this matter. Therefore, the Court will not entertain its opposition to the proposed settlement at this time. However, even if the EEOC's opposition is considered, the Court finds most of the arguments advanced therein unpersuasive. The Court has already addressed several of the EEOC's arguments above, namely, the exhaustion of administrative remedies, the typicality of the class representative's claims, and the class representatives' ability to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The EEOC's other arguments, such as the inadequacy of the injunctive and monetary relief, are related to the substance and fairness of the settlement agreement and most appropriately addressed in the final approval hearing to determine the lawfulness, reasonableness, adequacy and fairness of the settlement. However, as discussed above, the Court does find compelling the EEOC's and Wilfong Plaintiffs' argument in opposition to the parties' joint request for a preliminary injunction and will not grant an injunction as part of the preliminary approval of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.
C. Conclusion
Based on the above, the Wilfong Plaintiffs' (1) Motion to Oppose Preliminary Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, (2) Motion to Stay or Abstain and Motion to Reject on its Face the Joint Motion for Certification of Class and Approval of Settlement, (3) Motion to Transfer Venue, (4) Motion for Reconsideration and (5) Motion to Lift Protective Order are denied. The Wilfong Plaintiffs' Motion for Excess Pages is granted and their Motion to Intervene is granted in part. Finally, Rent-A-Center's Motion to Strike the Wilfong Plaintiffs' Motions is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 109 Filed 11/29/01 Page 6 of 7

. .
DATE: November 29, 2001

Is/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 109 Filed 11/29/01 Page 7 of 7

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET BUNCH, et al.

)

Individually, and as

)

Class Representatives

)

Plaintiffs,

)

Case No. 00-0364-CV-W-3

)

vs.

)

)

RENT-A-CENTER, INC.,

)

Defendant,

)

)

vs.

)

)

CLAUDINE WILFONG, et al.,

)

)

Intervenors.

)

ORDER GRANTING EEOC’S MOTION TO INTERVENE, GRANTING OBJECTORS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE, DENYING THE WILFONG CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ MOTION TO INTERVENE, DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND DENYING
MOTION TO UNSEAL DISCOVERY AND LIFT PROTECTIVE ORDER
Pending are various motions related to the proposed class-action settlement from the Plaintiffs/Class Representatives, the Wilfong Class Representatives, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and a group of objectors to the settlement. The Court rules as follows.

EEOC’s Motion to Intervene

The EEOC seeks to intervene in this lawsuit (Doc. # 119). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2), “when a party to an action relies on a ground of claim or defense upon any statute or executive order administered by a federal or state governmental officer or agency. . . the officer or agency upon timely application may be permitted to intervene in the action. This lawsuit has been brought under Title VII and the EEOC is the agency

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 163 Filed 02/28/02 Page 1 of 4

charged to administer this statute. Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(a) states, “[u]pon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Commission. . . to intervene in such civil action upon certification that the case is of general public importance.” This case was certified as a case of general importance by the Chairwoman of the EEOC on January 17, 2002. The EEOC’s motion to intervene was filed on January 18, 2002. The Court, concluding that the EEOC’s motion was filed in a timely manner, hereby GRANTS the EEOC’s Motion for Intervention.
Objectors’ Motion to Intervene
Class Members Diane Anderson, Shelly Funston, Denise Hooten, Theresa Kenyon, Amy Synder, Melody Taylor, Jacqueline Turner, Pamela Williams and LaShanda Wright (“the Objectors”) have filed a motion to intervene in the instant matter (Doc. # 125). The Objectors have not opted out, thus they are unnamed members of the class for purposes of this settlement and are entitled to object to the settlement at the upcoming hearing. However, the Objectors, as unnamed class members, must intervene in this lawsuit if they seek to challenge the adequacy of the settlement on appeal. Croyden Assocs. v. Alleco, Inc., 969 F.2d 675, 680 (8th Cir. 1992).
The Objectors seek to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) and 24(b). An applicant is entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) when the following conditions are met: (1) the applicant claims an interest in the property or transaction which is the subject of the action, and (2) the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair of impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest. Permissive intervention is permitted under Rule 24(b) when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.
In this case, the Objectors will be permitted in intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). As class members, they clearly have an interest in the settlement of this matter and the result of the settlement could impair their ability to protect that interest. The class members should be allowed to intervene to contest the reasonableness and legality
2
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 163 Filed 02/28/02 Page 2 of 4

of the settlement agreement and preserve their right to approve the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Objectors’ Motion to Intervene is GRANTED.
Wilfong Class Representatives’ Motion to Intervene
The Wilfong Class Representatives seek to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) and 24 (b) (Doc. # 123). The Wilfong Class Representatives have opted out of the proposed settlement in this case. By opting out, the Wilfong Class Representatives have preserved their right to prosecute their claims against Rent-A-Center independently. Therefore, the Wilfong Class Representatives have every legal remedy available to them and can pursue any procedural rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in their case currently pending in the Southern District of Illinois.
The Wilfong Class Representatives argue that they should be permitted to intervene because the disposition of this matter will impair the rights of the class members in the Wilfong case and they, as the Wilfong class representatives, have an obligation represent the interests of the Wilfong class members. The Court is not persuaded by this argument and notes that the EEOC has been permitted to intervene in this matter. Presumably, the EEOC, who has expertise in evaluating the adequacy of employment discrimination settlements, will not only assist the Court in determining the fairness of the proposed settlement but represent the interests of all of the class members, including the unnamed Wilfong class members.
Because the Wifong Class Representatives have opted out, they have no standing to object to the class settlement and will not be permitted to intervene. The Wilfong Class Representatives’ Motion to Intervene is DENIED.
Wilfong Class Representatives’ Motions to Unseal Discovery and Produce Documents
Because the Wilfong Class Representatives will not be permitted to intervene or object at the settlement hearing, their pending Motions to Unseal Discovery (Doc. # 124)
3
Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 163 Filed 02/28/02 Page 3 of 4

and to Produce Documents (Doc. # 126) are DENIED.

Motion to Reconsider Grant of Motion to file Brief of Interests of Amici Curiae

Also pending is the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider the Court’s Order Granting Motion to File Brief of Interests of Amici Curiae on behalf of the NOW Foundation and Impact Fund (Doc. # 135). Upon consideration by the Court, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: February 28, 2002

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Document 163 Filed 02/28/02 Page 4 of 4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION

MARGARET BUNCH, TRACY LEVINGS, STEPHANIE ROBINSON, RUBY P. SMITH, CHRISTY JOHNSON, CLAUDETTA DAVIS BARNES, ANGELA BYRD, KIMBERLY HALL, RETTA STEVENSON, SHEREE WATSON, APRIL ANDERSON, and, NICOLE BROWN,
On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 00-364-CV-W-ODS

)

)

)

)

ORDER APPROVING AMENDMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL ADR/APPLICANT FUND

Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. have filed their Joint Status Report with a request that the Court approve an Amendment to the Supplemental ADR/Applicant Fund Agreement previously approved by this Court. This Court finds that the Amendment to the Supplemental ADR/Applicant Fund Agreement is intended to aid in the fulfillment of those representations and promises made to the Court on March 5, 2002, and the Court approves Class Counsel's entry into said Amendment to Agreement. This Court further finds that the Supplemental ADR/Applicant Settlement Process is fair and reasonable, and that the Amendment of said Supplemental ADR/Applicant Settlement Process is in furtherance of the promises made to this Court on March 5, 2002. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves the Amendment to the Fund as set forth in the Joint Status Report. All other requirements and terms of the Court’s Order of July 15, 2002 shall remain in full force and effect. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: December 13, 2002

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 4:00-cv-00364-ODS Docume1nt 192 Filed 12/13/02 Page 1 of 1

 
 CLOSED, EAPADMIN, LEAD, PHV
U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:00−cv−00364−ODS

Bunch et al v. Rent−A−Center, Inc. Assigned to: District Judge Ortrie D. Smith Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Movant

Date Filed: 04/19/2000 Date Terminated: 02/25/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Wilfong Plaintiffs Class representatives in Wilfong et al. v. Rent−A−Center, Inc., Cause 00−680−DRH (SD Ill)

represented by Jerome J. Schlichter Schlichter, Bogard &Denton 100 South 4th Street Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63102 (314) 621−6115 Fax: (314)621−7151 Email: jschlichter@uselaws.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jon A. Ray 3030 Grand Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63118 (314) 773−3566 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles W. German Rouse Hendricks German May PC 1010 Walnut Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816)471−7700 Fax: (816)471−2221 Email: charleyg@rhgm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Anne Olwell Sedey Sedey &Ray, PC 3030 S. Grand Blvd. Ste. 200 St. Louis, MO 63118 (314) 773−3566 Fax: (314) 773−3615 Email: msedey@sedeyraylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Margaret Bunch

represented by Courtney A. Hasselberg Seyferth Blumenthal &Harris LLC 300 Wyandotte Street Ste. 430 Kansas City, MO 64105 (816) 756−0700 Fax: (816) 756−3700 Email: courtney@sbhlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dirk L. Hubbard Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 1 of 18

Klamann &Hubbard, PA 929 Walnut St. Ste. 800 Kansas City, MO 64106 816−421−2626 Fax: 816−421−8686 Email: dhubbard@kh−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gene P. Graham , Jr. White, Allinder, Graham, Buckley &Carr, LLC 19049 East Valley View Parkway Suite C Independence, MO 64055 (816) 373−9080 Fax: (816) 363−9319 Email: ggraham@wagblaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Klamann Klamann &Hubbard, PA 929 Walnut St. Ste. 800 Kansas City, MO 64106 816−421−2626 Fax: 816−421−8686 Email: jklamann@kh−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Beth Compton 609 West 69th Terrace Kansas City, MO 64113 (816) 822−2025 Email: marybethandmark@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Rent−A−Center, Inc.
Case: 4:00-cv-364

represented by Dan C Dargene Winstead Sechrest &Minick PC 5400 Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75270−2199 214−745−5314 Fax: (214)745−5390 Email: ddargene@winstead.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Cameron Carr Winstead Sechrest&Minick, PC 1201 Elm Street Suite 5400 Dallas, TX 75270−2199 (214)745−5890 Fax: (214)745−5390 Email: sccarr@winstead.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Franklin E. Wright Winstead Sechrest &Minick PC As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 2 of 18

Suite 5400 1201 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75270−2199 214−745−5890 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Winston Sorrell Winstead, Sechrest &Minick, PC−Dallas 1201 Elm Street Suite 5400 Dallas, TX 75270−2199 (214) 745−5307 Fax: (214) 745−5390 Email: lwsorrell@winstead.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert L. Driscoll Stinson Morrison Hecker, LLP 1201 Walnut Street Suite 2900 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 842−8600 Fax: (816)691−3495 Email: rdriscoll@stinson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara Elizabeth Welch Stinson Morrison Hecker, LLP−Walnut 1201 Walnut Street Suite 2900 Kansas City, MO 64106−6251 (816)842−8600 Fax: (816)691−3495 Email: swelch@stinson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott C. Hecht Stinson Morrison Hecker, LLP−Walnut 1201 Walnut Street Suite 2900 Kansas City, MO 64106−6251 (816) 842−8600 Fax: (816) 691−3495 Email: shecht@stinson.com TERMINATED: 09/24/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

interested party
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Andrea G. Baran US Equal Employment Opportunity Comm 400 State Ave. Suite 905 Kansas City, KS 66101 (913)551−5848 Fax: (913)551−6957 Email: andrea.baran@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:00-cv-364

Donna Harper SEDEY HARPER PC 3030 Grand Ave. Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63118 (314) 773−3566
As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 3 of 18

interested party Impact Fund
interested party National Organization for Women Foundation

Fax: (314) 773−3615 Email: dharper@sedeyharper.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer G. Bacon Polsinelli Shughart PC 120 West 12th Street Twelve Wyandotte Plaza Kansas City, MO 64105−1929 (816) 421−3355 Fax: (816) 374−0509 Email: jbacon@polsinelli.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Anne Olwell Sedey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer G. Bacon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

04/19/2000

1 COMPLAINT against Rent−A−Center, Inc.. filed by Mary B. Clune, Gene P Graham Jr of White, Allinder &Graham, LLC on behalf of Margaret Bunch. Receipt #176211. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Cavallo, Dorothy) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/15/2002 (Honeycutt, Cassaundra). (Entered: 04/21/2000)

04/19/2000 06/12/2000 06/12/2000 06/20/2000 06/20/2000

2 Notice of EAPADMIN.(Cavallo, Dorothy) (Entered: 04/21/2000)
3 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Rent−A−Center, Inc.. filed by Mary B. Clune of White, Allinder &Graham, LLC on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Clune, Mary) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
4 MEMORANDUM Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment (related document(s) 3 ) filed by Mary B. Clune on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Clune, Mary) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
5 MOTION by Scott C. Hecht AND ORDER for Franklin E. Wright to appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of defendants. Receipt # 177329. Amount of fee: $25.00.(Brogan, Shannon) (Entered: 06/21/2000)
6 MOTION by Scott C Hecht AND ORDER for Lisa Winston Sorrell to appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of defendants. Receipt #177329. Amount of Fee: $25.00.(Brogan, Shannon) (Entered: 06/21/2000)

06/30/2000

7 Consent MOTION for extension of time to answer amended complaint and suggestions in support thereof on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc..(Hecht, Scott) (Entered: 06/30/2000)

07/05/2000 07/20/2000 07/24/2000

8 ORDER by Judge Ortrie D. Smith granting dfts' motion for extension of time to answer amended complaint (Related Doc # 7 ) to 7/20/2000(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 07/06/2000)
9 ANSWER to amended complaint (Related Doc # 3 ) (related document(s) 3 ) filed by Scott C. Hecht of Stinson, Mag &Fizzell, P.C. on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc..(Hecht, Scott) (Entered: 07/20/2000)
10 RULE 16 NOTICE issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Proposed scheduling order due by 9/29/2000, rule 26 conference due by 9/19/2000,.(Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 07/24/2000)

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 4 of 18

10/05/2000 10/13/2000 10/13/2000
10/30/2000 11/20/2000 11/21/2000 12/01/2000 12/04/2000 12/04/2000
12/04/2000 12/05/2000 12/06/2000 12/18/2000
12/18/2000 12/29/2000 01/02/2001 01/02/2001

11 Joint PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER and Discovery Plan filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc..(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
12 RULES OF TRIAL issued by Judge Ortrie Smith.(Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
13 SCHEDULING ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Discovery due by 3/15/2001, pre−trial conference set for 10/18/2001 at 11:30 AM at Chambers, with jury trial to be held on 11/19/2001 at 08:00 AM at Courtroom 8C, Kansas City (ODS).(Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
14 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of substituted counsel filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch of Stinson, Mag &Fizzell, P.C. on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc..(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 10/30/2000)
15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Mary B. Clune of White, Allinder &Graham, LLC on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Clune, Mary) (Entered: 11/20/2000)
16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Initial Disclosures filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch of Stinson, Mag &Fizzell, P.C. on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc..(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 11/21/2000)
17 MOTION for extension of time on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Clune, Mary) (Entered: 12/01/2000)
18 Joint MOTION for protective order on behalf of all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Agreed Protective Order)(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 12/04/2000)
19 MOTION for leave to file First Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Clune, Mary) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/6/2000 (Navarro, Steve). Modified on 12/6/2000 to add pleading (Navarro, Steve). (Entered: 12/04/2000)
20 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Plaintiff motion for extension of time until December 4, 2000 to file her motion to join parties and amend pleadings.(Related Doc # 17 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
21 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Agreed Protective Order. (Related Doc # 18 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/6/2000 (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 12/05/2000)
Remark:This file will not contain a Document #22. This document was inadvertantly filed before motion was ruled by Judge Ortrie Smith.(Kee, Georgia) Modified on 12/6/2000 (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 12/06/2000)
22 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint, Plaintiff is directed to file her amended complaint within five business days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is directed to file her brief regarding class certification within 45 days from the date of this Order. (Related Doc # 19 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
23 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Rent−A−Center, Inc.. filed by Gene P Graham Jr of White, Allinder &Graham, LLC on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Mary B. Compton of White, Allinder &Graham, LLC on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Compton, Mary) (Entered: 12/29/2000)
25 MOTION to dismiss case Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or, in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc..(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 01/02/2001)
26 SUGGESTION IN SUPPORT OF Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or, in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration (related document(s) 25 ) filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Welch, Sara) Modified on

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 5 of 18

1/3/2001 to correct event code (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 01/02/2001)

01/02/2001

27 MOTION to change/transfer venue Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc..(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 01/02/2001)

01/02/2001

28 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) (related document(s) 27 ) filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Welch, Sara) Modified on 1/3/2001 to correct event code (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 01/02/2001)

01/11/2001

29 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie D. Smith amending certain deadlines as to the Scheduling and Trial Order dated October 13, 2000.(McIlvain, Kelly) (Entered: 01/11/2001)

01/16/2001

30 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER filed by Courtney Hueser of Klamann &Hubbard, PA on behalf of Margaret Bunch. Reply Suggestions due by 1/29/2001. (Related motion(s) 27 ) (Hueser, Courtney) Modified on 1/17/2001 to correct event code (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 01/16/2001)

01/16/2001

31 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION filed by Courtney Hueser of Klamann &Hubbard, PA on behalf of Margaret Bunch. Reply Suggestions due by 1/29/2001. (Related motion(s) 25 ) (Hueser, Courtney) Modified on 1/17/2001 to correct event code (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 01/16/2001)

01/23/2001

32 NOTICE OF FILING Second Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents to Defendant filed by Gene P Graham Jr on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Graham, Gene) (Entered: 01/23/2001)

01/26/2001

33 MOTION for extension of time in Which to File Reply Suggestions in Support of Its Motion to Dismss or, in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration, and Its Motion to Change/Transfer Venue on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc..(Welch, Sara) Modified on 5/21/2001 to terminate pending motion per Pending motion list(Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 01/26/2001)

02/05/2001

34 REPLY SUGGESTIONS in Support of Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch of Stinson, Mag &Fizzell, P.C. on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Related motion(s) 27 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/05/2001)

02/05/2001

35 REPLY SUGGESTIONS in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch of Stinson, Mag &Fizzell, P.C. on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Related motion(s) 25 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/05/2001)

02/05/2001

36 MOTION for order to Bifurcate Discovery on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc..(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/05/2001)

02/05/2001

37 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate Discovery (related document(s) 36 ) Filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch of Stinson, Mag &Fizzell, P.C. on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc..(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/05/2001)

02/13/2001

38 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order regarding discovery conference.(Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 02/14/2001)

02/14/2001

39 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate Discovery filed by Courtney Hueser of Klamann &Hubbard, PA on behalf of all plaintiffs. Reply Suggestions due by 2/26/2001. (Attachments: # 1 Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment) (Related motion(s) 36 ) (Hueser, Courtney) (Entered: 02/14/2001)

02/21/2001

40 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery to Plaintiff Margaret Bunch filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch of Stinson, Mag &Fizzell, P.C. on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc..(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/21/2001)

03/14/2001

41 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order regarding discovery disputes.(Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 03/15/2001)

03/23/2001

42 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Associated Personnel Technicians, Inc. on April 5, 2001 (DUECES TECUM PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA) filed by Courtney Hueser

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 6 of 18

of Klamann &Hubbard, PA on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Hueser, Courtney) (Entered: 03/23/2001)

03/31/2001

43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Responses to First Request for Admissions, First Interrogatories, First Request for Production of Documents filed by Gene P Graham Jr of White, Allinder &Graham, LLC on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Graham, Gene) (Entered: 03/31/2001)

04/02/2001

44 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Tim Mayer filed by Gene P Graham Jr of White, Allinder &Graham, LLC on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Graham, Gene) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

04/02/2001 04/06/2001 04/20/2001 04/20/2001

45 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Randy Taylor filed by Gene P Graham Jr of White, Allinder &Graham, LLC on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Graham, Gene) (Entered: 04/02/2001)
46 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Michael Walters on April 10, 2001 filed by Courtney Hueser of Klamann &Hubbard, PA on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Hueser, Courtney) (Entered: 04/06/2001)
47 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Sherry Shaumbach filed by Gene P Graham Jr of White, Allinder &Graham, LLC on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Graham, Gene) (Entered: 04/20/2001)
48 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie D. Smith regarding April 9, 2001 discovery conference and amending scheduling and trial order. (McIlvain, Kelly) (Entered: 04/20/2001)

04/24/2001

49 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Denying motion to bifurcate discovery. (Related Doc # 36 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 04/24/2001)

04/26/2001

50 NOTICE OF FILING of Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc..(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 04/26/2001)

04/30/2001 04/30/2001 05/01/2001 05/08/2001

51 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Randy Taylor filed by Gene P Graham Jr of White, Allinder &Graham, LLC on behalf of Margaret Bunch.(Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 04/30/2001)
52 MOTION for reconsideration AND SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION (related document(s) 48 ) on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Affidavit of Robert Davis# 2 Exhibit B: Affidvait of Martin B. Roustio# 3 Exhibit C: Affidavit of Marc Tuckey)(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 04/30/2001)
53 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie D. Smith, that the parties are to file briefs within 20 days from the date of this order in regard to the subject specified in the order.(McIlvain, Kelly) (Entered: 05/01/2001)
54 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Defendant shall provide the database refered to in this Court's Order of February 13, 2001, with redaction of names, by June 15, 2001.(Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 05/08/2001)

05/09/2001

55 AMENDED ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Defendant shall provide the database referred to in this Court's Order of February 13, 2001, without redaction of names, by June 15, 2001.(Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 05/09/2001)

05/11/2001

56 RESPONSE TO MOTION for Reconsideration (Related document(s) 52 filed by Courtney Hueser on behalf of Margaret Bunch. Reply Suggestions due by 5/23/2001. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hueser, Courtney) Modified on 5/14/2001 to add related document nubmer (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 05/11/2001)

05/15/2001 05/15/2001 05/18/2001

57 MOTION AND ORDER for Pro Hac Vice was filed for Shannon C. Carr (Beard, Melanie) (Entered: 05/17/2001)
58 MOTION AND ORDER for Pro Hac Vice was filed for Dan C. Dargene. (Beard, Melanie) (Entered: 05/17/2001)
59 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Harry Weisbrod filed by Gene P Graham Jr on behalf of Margaret Bunch. (Graham, Gene) (Entered: 05/18/2001)

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 7 of 18

05/21/2001
05/21/2001 05/23/2001
06/08/2001 06/15/2001 07/18/2001 08/03/2001 08/07/2001 08/13/2001 08/16/2001
08/20/2001 08/31/2001
09/05/2001

60 Supplemental SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION filed by Courtney Hueser on behalf of Margaret Bunch. Reply Suggestions due by 6/4/2001. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment)(Related document(s) 25 ) (Hueser, Courtney) (Entered: 05/21/2001)
61 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Briefing in Support of its Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay and Compel Arbitration filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5)(Related document(s) 25 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 05/21/2001)
62 REPLY SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents# 2 Exhibit 2: 2 Letters to Judge Smith re discovery)(Related document(s) 52 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
63 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. (1) Granting Defendants request to respond to Plaintiff's argument, Defendant has until June 15, 2001 to respond to Plaintiff's new arguments, and (2) suspending the scheduling and trial order. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 06/08/2001)
64 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Suggestions in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit)(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 06/15/2001)
65 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion to dismiss case, or in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. (Related Doc # 25 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
66 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Entry of Appearance filed by Robert L. Driscoll on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Driscoll, Robert) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
67 MOTION to join Additional Plaintiff's and Suggestions in Support filed by Courtney Hueser on behalf of Margaret Bunch. suggestions in opposition due by 8/20/2001. (Hueser, Courtney) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
68 MOTION for reconsideration of the Court's Grant of Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Courtney Hueser on behalf of Margaret Bunch. suggestions in opposition due by 8/27/2001. (Related document(s) 65 ) (Hueser, Courtney) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
69 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Join Additional Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider the Court's Grant of Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 8/28/2001. (Related document(s) 67 , 68 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
70 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion for extension of time to file Defendant's opposition to Motion to Join Additional Plaintiffs on or before 09/03/2001 and opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider on or before September 10, 2001.(Related Doc # 69 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
71 MOTION for extension of time in Which to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Join Additional Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider the Court's Grant of Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 9/12/2001. (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
72 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Defendant's motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 71 ) (1) Defendant shall respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Join Additional Plaintiffs on or before September 18, 2001. (2) Defendant shall respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider the Court's Grant of Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration on or before September 24, 2001. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 09/05/2001)

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 8 of 18

09/14/2001 09/18/2001 09/18/2001 10/02/2001 10/03/2001
10/15/2001
10/19/2001 10/24/2001 10/31/2001 11/01/2001 11/02/2001 11/05/2001 11/05/2001 11/05/2001
11/05/2001

73 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Denying motion to change venue (Related Doc # 27 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
74 MOTION to consolidate cases filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of Margaret Bunch. suggestions in opposition due by 10/1/2001. (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 09/18/2001)
75 Second MOTION to join Additional Plaintiffs adn Suggestions in Support filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of Margaret Bunch. suggestions in opposition due by 10/1/2001. (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 09/18/2001)
76 MOTION for extension of time in Which to Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Leave to Join Additional Plaintifs and Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 10/15/2001. (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
77 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Defendant's unopposed Motion for Extention of Time (Related Doc # 74 ), (Related Doc # 75 ) Defendant shall file its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Join Additional Plaintiffs and Motion to Consolidate on or before October 15, 2001. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
78 MOTION for extension of time IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO JOIN ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 10/29/2001. (Related document(s) 74 , 75 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
79 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Defendant's motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 78 ) Defendant shall file its Opposition to Plalintiffs' Motion to Join Additional Plaintiffs on or before 10/29/2001. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
80 MOTION for leave to file Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Courtney Hueser on behalf of Margaret Bunch. suggestions in opposition due by 11/5/2001. (Attachments: # 1)(Hueser, Courtney) (Entered: 10/24/2001)
81 Joint MOTION for order filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of Margaret Bunch. suggestions in opposition due by 11/12/2001. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Proposed Order)(Hubbard, Dirk) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2001 (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 10/31/2001)
Remark: Doc 82, Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment, deleted as separate entry and attached to Doc. #81. Modified on 11/1/2001 (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
Remark − Notice of Exhibit Attachment received in paper form in the Clerk's Office (Related documents(s) 81 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
82 RESPONSE TO MOTION Defendant's Notice of Conditional Non−Objection to Plaintiffs' Pending Motions filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 11/19/2001. (Related document(s) 80 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
83 NOTICE OF FILING Intent to Object filed by Andrea G. Baran on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s) 81 ) (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
84 MOTION for order Oppose Preliminary Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Settlement, Conditional Certification of Settlement Class and Any Action on Such Proposed Settlement and Suggestions in Support Thereof filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 11/19/2001. (Related document(s) 81 ) (German, Charles) Wrong document filed, replaced with correct document on 11/6/2001 (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 11/05/2001)
85 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (German, Charles) (Entered: 11/05/2001)

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 9 of 18

11/08/2001 11/08/2001 11/09/2001
11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/09/2001
11/09/2001
11/13/2001
11/13/2001 11/14/2001 11/14/2001 11/14/2001

86 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Joinder of Plaintiffs filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. Reply Suggestions due by 11/20/2001. (Related document(s) 75 ) (Jones, Robin) Refiled using the correct event on 11/9/2001 (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 11/09/2001)
87 NOTICE OF FILING Suggestions in Support of Opposition to Joinder of Plaintiffs filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 86 ) (Jones, Robin) Refiled using correct event on 11/9/2001 (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 11/09/2001)
88 MOTION to stay OR ABSTAIN, MOTION TO REJECT ON ITS FACE THE JOINT MOTIONS FOR CERTIFICATION OF CLASS AND APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND HEARING ON CLASS CERTIFICATION, AND NOTICE AND SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 11/21/2001. (German, Charles) (Entered: 11/09/2001)
89 MOTION to intervene and suggestions in support thereof filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 11/21/2001. (German, Charles) (Entered: 11/09/2001)
90 MOTION for excess pages and suggestions in support in excess of 15 pages filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 11/21/2001. (German, Charles) (Entered: 11/09/2001)
91 NOTICE OF FILING Objections and Request for Hearing on Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement filed by Andrea G. Baran on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment)(Related document(s) 81 ) (Baran, Andrea) Modified on 11/13/2001 to reflect documents received in Clerk's Office (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 11/09/2001)
92 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion to join (Related Doc # 67 ), granting motion for reconsideration (Related Doc # 68 ), granting motion to join (Related Doc # 75 ), granting motion for leave to file (Related Doc # 80 ) The cases Bunch v. Rent−A−Center, 00−0364−CV−W−3−ECF and Levings v. Rent−A−Center, 00−0596−CV−W−3−ECF are hereby consolidated. Future documents filed in case # 00−0364−CV−W−3−ECF, staying cases and granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Will−Fees, Eva) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2001 (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 11/13/2001)
93 MOTION for reconsideration OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO JOIN ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 11/26/2001. (Related document(s) 92 ) (German, Charles) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
THE CASES BUNCH V. RENT−A−CENTER, 00−0364−CV−W−3−ECF AND LEVINGS V. RENT−A−CENTER, 00−596−CV−W−3−ECF ARE CONSOLIDATED. FUTURE DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE FILED IN CASE 00−364−CV−W−3−ECF. (Jones, Robin) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
94 MOTION to change/transfer venue (INTERVENORS') filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 11/26/2001. (German, Charles) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
95 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF INTERVENORS' MOTION TO TRANSFER filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (German, Charles) Modified on 11/16/2001 to add Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment and reflect that exhibits received in the Clerk's Office (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 11/14/2001)
96 MOTION AND ORDER for Pro Hac Vice granting appearance of Attorney Jerome J. Schlichter for Wilfong Plaintiffs, Jon A. Ray for Wilfong Plaintiffs Fee paid; receipt number 193925. (Beard, Melanie) (Entered: 11/15/2001)

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 10 of 18

11/15/2001 11/15/2001 11/16/2001 11/16/2001 11/16/2001 11/16/2001 11/19/2001 11/19/2001 11/20/2001 11/28/2001 11/28/2001 11/28/2001 11/28/2001

97 MOTION for excess pages for Suggestions in Support of Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement filed by John M Klamann on behalf of Margaret Bunch. suggestions in opposition due by 11/27/2001. (Klamann, John) (Entered: 11/15/2001)
98 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by John M Klamann on behalf of Margaret Bunch. (Attachments: # 1 Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment)(Klamann, John) Modified on 11/16/2001 to reflect exhibits received in Clerk's Office (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 11/15/2001)
Document #99(Motion and Order for Pro Hac Vice) was deleted by the Clerk's Office due to filing error. REMARK (Related documents(s) 96 ) (Beard, Melanie) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
99 MOTION to strike Proposed Intervenors' (Wilfong Plaintiffs') Motions and Suggestions in Support of Wilfong Plaintiffs' Motions (Doc 84, 88, 93, 94 and 95 filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 11/28/2001. (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
100 MOTION to strike EEOC's Objections and Request for Hearing on Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Stipulation and Settlement and to Set Hearing on Proposed Settlement Doc 91 and Supporting Suggestions filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 11/28/2001. (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
101 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION To Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 11/28/2001. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B)(Related document(s) 89 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
102 MOTION to lift stay Agreed Protective Order filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 12/3/2001. (German, Charles) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
103 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Motion to Lift Protective Order filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (German, Charles) Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment added on 11/20/2001 (Jones, Robin). Modified on 11/20/2001 to reflect Exhibits received in Clerk's Office (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 11/19/2001)
The document originally filed as Document #104, Notice of Filing Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment, was deleted. The document was attached Document #103. (Jones, Robin) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
104 NOTICE OF FILING Supplemental Objections to Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement filed by Andrea G. Baran on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
105 REPLY SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 89 ) (German, Charles) Modified on 11/29/2001 to reflect exhibits being received in Clerk's Office (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 11/28/2001)
106 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PROPOSED INTERVENORS' (WILFONG PLAINTIFFS') MOTION AND SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF WILFONG PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. Reply Suggestions due by 12/10/2001. (Related document(s) 99 ) (German, Charles) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
107 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Defendant's Motion to Strike EEOC's Objections and Request for Hearing on Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement filed by Andrea G. Baran on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Reply Suggestions due by 12/10/2001. (Related document(s) 100 ) (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 11/28/2001)

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 11 of 18

11/29/2001

109 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Denying motion for order (Related Doc # 84 ), denying motion to stay (Related Doc # 88 ), granting in part, denying in part motion to intervene (Related Doc # 89 ), granting motion for excess pages (Related Doc # 90 ), denying motion for reconsideration (Related Doc # 93 ), denying motion to change/transfer venue (Related Doc # 94 ), denying motion to strike (Related Doc # 99 ), denying motion to lift stay (Related Doc # 102 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 11/29/2001)

11/29/2001

108 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order preliminarily approving Stipulation of Settlement, Settlement, and Form, Adequacy and Manner of Notice, conditionally certifying a Settlement Class, directing notice to the settlement class and setting a hearing on the settlement and certain applications for attorney's fees, awards and costs. With hearing to be held on 3/6/2002 at 09:00 AM at Courtroom 8C, Kansas City (ODS) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 11/29/2001)

11/30/2001

110 NOTICE OF APPEAL to circuit court filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. Receipt number 194266. (Related document(s) 109 ) (Brogan, Shannon) (Entered: 11/30/2001)

11/30/2001

Delivered to USCA electronic notification of NOA and order on appeal and docket entries,and an NOA Supp. Notice to counsel/parties by e−mail/regular mail. (Related documents(s) 110 ) (Brogan, Shannon) (Entered: 11/30/2001)

11/30/2001

111 MOTION to stay pending appeal of order denying, in part, Intervention filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 12/12/2001. (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

11/30/2001

112 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of motion to stay pending appeal of Order denying, in part, Intervention filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

12/03/2001

113 Order issued by Judge Smith denying motion to stay. (Related Doc # 111 ) (LeBlanc, Therese) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

12/03/2001

114 MOTION for order EXPEDITED REVIEW OF INTERVENORS' MOTION TO STAY filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 12/17/2001. (Related document(s) 111 ) (German, Charles) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

12/03/2001

115 NOTICE OF FILING EIGHTH CIRCUIT DOCUMENTS filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E)(Related document(s) 109 ) (German, Charles) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

12/03/2001

116 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(German, Charles) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

12/04/2001

Appeal number info from USCA 01−3748. Consolidated with 01−3744. No schedule at this time. (Related documents(s) 110 ) (Brogan, Shannon) (Entered: 12/04/2001)

12/04/2001

Remark: Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment to doc. #115 &#116 received in Clerk's Office (Related documents(s) 115 , 116 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 12/05/2001)

12/11/2001

117 JUDGMENT AND ORDER from USCA: Writ of mandamus denied; emergency stay denied; mandamus proceeding dimissed; costs assessed to petitioners. Mandate issued 12/06/2001. (Related document(s)[]) (Brogan, Shannon) (Entered: 12/11/2001)

01/18/2002

118 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Finding as moot motion to strike (Related Doc # 100 ), finding as moot motion for order (Related Doc # 114 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/18/2002

119 MOTION to intervene filed by Andrea G. Baran on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. suggestions in opposition due by 2/6/2002. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Certificate of Importance)(Baran, Andrea) Modified on 1/22/2002 to edit filing date due to inability to use ECF system per the AO (Kendall, Shelly). (Entered: 01/22/2002)

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 12 of 18

01/18/2002
01/25/2002 01/25/2002 01/25/2002
01/25/2002 01/25/2002 01/25/2002 01/25/2002
01/25/2002
01/25/2002 01/25/2002 01/28/2002 01/28/2002 01/29/2002

120 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Motion to Intervene filed by Andrea G. Baran on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − EEOC v. Waffle House)(Baran, Andrea) Modified on 1/22/2002 to edit filing date due to inability to use ECF system per the AO (Kendall, Shelly). (Entered: 01/22/2002)
121 MOTION for leave to file BRIEF AND STATEMENT OF INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ON BEHALF OF JOINT AMICI filed by Jennifer G. Bacon on behalf of Impact Fund, National Organization for Women Foundation. suggestions in opposition due by 2/11/2002. (Bacon, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
122 NOTICE OF FILING BRIEF OF JOINT AMICI CURIAE filed by Jennifer G. Bacon on behalf of Impact Fund, National Organization for Women Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment of Exhibits 1−5)(Related document(s) 121 ) (Bacon, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
123 MOTION to intervene and Suggestions in Support Thereof Wilfong Class Representatives filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 2/11/2002. (Related document(s) 109 ) (German, Charles) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2002 (Larson, Susan). (Entered: 01/25/2002)
124 MOTION to unseal document Discovery filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 2/11/2002. (Related document(s) 109 ) (German, Charles) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
125 MOTION to intervene and Suggestions in Support Thereof by Objectors filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 2/11/2002. (Related document(s) 109 ) (German, Charles) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
126 MOTION to produce documents reflecting communication between plaintiffs' counsel and defendant's counsel regarding proposed settlement filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 2/11/2002. (Related document(s) 109 ) (German, Charles) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
127 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of motion of Wilfong Class Representatives to produce documents reflecting communication between plaintiffs' counsel and defendant's counsel regarding proposed settlement and to unseal discovery filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (German, Charles) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
128 SUPPLEMENT Memorandum Describing Evidence of Sex Discrimination at Rent−A−Center Filed in Support of Objections filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 109 ) (German, Charles) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2002 (Larson, Susan). (Entered: 01/25/2002)
129 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION Objections of Wilfong Class Representatives and Objectors filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. Reply Suggestions due by 2/11/2002. (Related document(s) 125 ) (German, Charles) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
130 OBJECTIONS to Proposed Settlement Agreement filed by Donna Harper on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Harper, Donna) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
Remark:(1 hard copy) of Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment received in paper by the court (Related documents(s) 128 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 01/28/2002)
Remark: Notice regarding exhibit attachment (Exhibits 1−5) received in paper by court (Related documents(s) 128 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
131 MOTION for leave to file Request for Leave to Add Objector filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 2/13/2002. (Related document(s) 123 ) (German, Charles) (Entered: 01/29/2002)

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 13 of 18

02/01/2002 02/04/2002
02/04/2002
02/05/2002
02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/07/2002 02/08/2002 02/11/2002
02/14/2002 02/14/2002 02/14/2002
02/15/2002 02/15/2002

132 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion for leave to file amicus (Related Doc # 121 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
133 MOTION for extension of time in which to respond to motions and objections filed by Wilfong plaintiffs and objectors (Doc. ## 123, 124, 125, 126, 128 and 129) and objections filed by EEOC (Doc. # 130) filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 2/19/2002. (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
134 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to the EEOC's Motion to Intervene and Suggestions in Support Thereof filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 2/19/2002. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 119 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
135 MOTION for reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Motion to File Brief and Statement of Interests of Amici Curiae on Behalf of Joint Amici Now Foundation and the Impact Fund filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of Margaret Bunch. suggestions in opposition due by 2/20/2002. (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
136 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to EEOC Motion to Intervene filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of Margaret Bunch. Reply Suggestions due by 2/21/2002. (Related document(s) 119 ) (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
137 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Wilfong Plaintiffs' Motion to Intervene filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of Margaret Bunch. Reply Suggestions due by 2/21/2002. (Related document(s) 123 ) (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
138 MOTION for extension of time in Which to File Suggestions in Response to Objectors' Motion to Intervene filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of Margaret Bunch. suggestions in opposition due by 2/22/2002. (Hubbard, Dirk) Modified on 9/9/2002 to terminated pending motion (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 02/07/2002)
139 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 133 ) Rent−A−Center shall file its responses/opposition on or before February 15, 2002. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
140 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Wilfong Plaintiffs' Motion to Unseal Discovery; and, Suggestions in Opposition to Wilfong Plaintiffs' Motion to Produce Documents Reflecting Communication Between Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendant's Counsel Regarding Proposed Settlement filed by Courtney Hueser on behalf of Margaret Bunch. Reply Suggestions due by 2/26/2002. (Related document(s) 124 , 126 ) (Hueser, Courtney) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
141 JUDGMENT AND ORDER from USCA: petition for permission to take an interlocutory appeal has been considered by the court and is denied. (Brogan, Shannon) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
142 Supplemental SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT Exhibit Filed in Support of Objections to Settlement filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment)(German, Charles) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
143 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES' MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE COURT'S ORDER GRANTING AMICI LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AND STATEMENT OF INTEREST filed by Jennifer G. Bacon on behalf of Impact Fund, National Organization for Women Foundation. Reply Suggestions due by 3/1/2002. (Related document(s) 135 ) (Bacon, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
Remark: Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment received in paper by court (Related documents(s) 130 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
144 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF OBJECTORS DIANE ANDERSON, SHELLY FUNSTON, DENISE HOOTEN, THERESA KENYON, AMY SYNDER, MELODY TAYLOR, JACQUELINE TURNER, PAMELA WILLIAMS AND LASHANDA WRIGHT FOR INTERVENTION AND SUGGESTIONS IN

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 14 of 18

02/15/2002
02/15/2002
02/15/2002 02/15/2002
02/15/2002
02/15/2002
02/19/2002 02/19/2002 02/19/2002 02/19/2002 02/21/2002 02/21/2002 02/25/2002

SUPPORT THEREOF filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 3/4/2002. (Related document(s) 125 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
145 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO THE WILFONG CLASS REPRESENTATIVES' MOTION TO UNSEAL DISCOVERY AND SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 3/4/2002. (Related document(s) 124 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
146 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO THE WILFONG CLASS REPRESENTATIVES' MOTION TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS REFLECTING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL REGARDING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 3/4/2002. (Related document(s) 126 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
147 MOTION to strike (1) OBJECTORS' EXHIBITS TO OBJECTIONS AND (2) SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 3/4/2002. (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
148 NOTICE OF FILING of Defendant's Response to Proposed Intervenor, EEOC's Objections to Proposed Settlement Agreement Notice and Class Certification filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment)(Related document(s) 130 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
149 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO WILFONG CLASS REPRESENTATIVES' MOTION FOR INTERVENTION filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. Reply Suggestions due by 3/4/2002. (Attachments: # 1 Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment)(Related document(s) 123 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
150 NOTICE OF FILING OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO OBJECTIONS BY OBJECTORS TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment)(Related document(s) 129 ) (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
Remark: Notice regarding exhibit attachment (Exhibits A through F) received in paper by court (Related documents(s) 150 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
Remark:Notice regarding exhibit attachment (Exhibits A through E) received in paper by court (Related documents(s) 148 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
Remark: Notice regarding exhibit attachment (Exhibits 1 through 6) received in paper by court (Related documents(s) 149 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
151 REPLY SUGGESTIONS in Support of EEOC's Motion to Intervene filed by Andrea G. Baran on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s) 119 ) (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
152 MOTION to withdraw/substitute attorney filed by Scott C. Hecht on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 3/8/2002. (Hecht, Scott) (Entered: 02/21/2002)
153 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Objectors' Motion to Intervene filed by Courtney Hueser on behalf of Margaret Bunch. Reply Suggestions due by 3/8/2002. (Related document(s) 125 ) (Hueser, Courtney) (Entered: 02/21/2002)
154 NOTICE OF FILING Wilfong Class Representatives' Reply to Plaintiffs' Suggestions in Opposition to Motions to Unseal Discovery and Produce Documents Reflecting Communication Between Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendant's Counsel Regarding Proposed Settlement filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (German, Charles) (Entered: 02/25/2002)

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 15 of 18

02/25/2002 02/25/2002
02/27/2002
02/27/2002 02/27/2002 02/27/2002 02/27/2002
02/28/2002 02/28/2002
03/01/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/05/2002 03/05/2002

155 NOTICE OF FILING Wilfong Class Representatives' Reply to Defendant's Suggestions in Opposition to Motion to Unseal Discovery filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (German, Charles) (Entered: 02/25/2002)
156 NOTICE OF FILING WILFONG CLASS REPRESENTATIVES' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS REFLECTING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL REGARDING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (German, Charles) (Entered: 02/25/2002)
157 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY SUGGESTIONS to Bunch Parties' Opposition to Intervention in excess of tne pages filed by Mary Anne Olwell Sedey on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 123 , 125 ) (Sedey, Mary Anne) Modified on 2/28/2002 to correct event (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 02/27/2002)
158 REPLY SUGGESTIONS filed by Mary Anne Olwell Sedey on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 123 , 125 ) (Sedey, Mary Anne) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
159 MOTION to strike second affidavit of Dr. David Peterson filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 3/14/2002. (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
160 Order denying motion to strike (Related Doc # 147 ) (LeBlanc, Therese) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
161 NOTICE OF FILING Reply Suggestions in Support of EEOC's Objections to Proposed Settlement Agreement filed by Andrea G. Baran on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s) 130 ) (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
162 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. SETTLEMENT HEARING RULES. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
163 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion to intervene (Related Doc # 119 ), denying motion to intervene (Related Doc # 123 ), denying motion to unseal document (Related Doc # 124 ), granting motion to intervene (Related Doc # 125 ), denying motion to produce (Related Doc # 126 ), denying motion for reconsideration (Related Doc # 135 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
164 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Barry Goldstein on March 5, 2002 filed by Gene P Graham Jr on behalf of Margaret Bunch. (Graham, Gene) (Entered: 03/01/2002)
165 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Amended Settlement Hearing Rules. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
166 MOTION to quash subpoena filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. suggestions in opposition due by 3/19/2002. (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
167 ORDER to show cause why motion to quash should not be granted issued by Judge Smith; response due by 5:00 p.m. on March 4, 2002. (Wolfe, Steve) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
168 NOTICE OF FILING OF OBJECTOR'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 166 ) (German, Charles) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
169 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Defendant's motion to quash (Related Doc # 166 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
170 NOTICE OF FILING of Defendant's Fairness Hearing Brief in Support of Final Approval of Settlement filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 notice regarding exhibit attachment)(Welch, Sara) (Entered: 03/05/2002)

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 16 of 18

03/05/2002

Remark: Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment (Exhibits A through K) received in paper by court (Related documents(s) 170 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 03/06/2002)

03/06/2002

171 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order canceling settlement hearing and staying case. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report on or before April 5, 2002 and every thirty days thereafter until otherwise ordered. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 03/06/2002)

03/26/2002

172 Joint AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION of Class Counsel in Support of Final Certification of Settlement Class and Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement filed by John M Klamann on behalf of Margaret Bunch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Klamann, John) (Entered: 03/26/2002)

03/26/2002

173 MEMORANDUM −− Class Representatives' Brief in Support of Final Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Certification of Settlement Class, and Entry of Consent Decree filed by John M Klamann on behalf of Margaret Bunch. (Attachments: # 1 Notice Regarding Exhibit)(Klamann, John) (Entered: 03/26/2002)

03/26/2002

174 MEMORANDUM −− Class Representatives' Brief in Response to Objections filed by John M Klamann on behalf of Margaret Bunch. (Attachments: # 1 Notice Regarding Exhibit)(Klamann, John) (Entered: 03/26/2002)

03/27/2002

Remark: (1 hard copy) Notice regarding exhibit attachments( Exhibits, Vol. 1 &2) received in paper by court (Related documents(s) 173 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 03/27/2002)

03/27/2002

Remark: (1 hard copy) Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment received in paper by court (Related documents(s) 174 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 03/27/2002)

03/28/2002

175 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order clarifying the Order dated March 6, 2002. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 03/28/2002)

04/05/2002

176 Joint STATUS REPORT filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (German, Charles) (Entered: 04/05/2002)

04/08/2002

177 STATUS REPORT and Reservation of Right to File Response if Stay is Lifted in the Future filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (German, Charles) (Entered: 04/08/2002)

04/09/2002

178 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT filed by Donna Harper on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Harper, Donna) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

04/11/2002

179 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT filed by Mary Anne Olwell Sedey on behalf of Impact Fund. (Related document(s) 176 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

04/12/2002

180 MOTION for attorney fees and Suggestions in Support filed by Gene P Graham Jr on behalf of Margaret Bunch. suggestions in opposition due by 4/29/2002. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Graham, Gene) Modified on 2/13/2003 to terminate motion deadlines (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 04/12/2002)

04/12/2002

181 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of motion for interim approval of attorneys' fees and expenses filed by Gene P Graham Jr on behalf of Margaret Bunch. (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 04/15/2002)

04/16/2002

Remark: (1 hard copy) Notice regarding exhibit attachment received in paper by court (Related documents(s) 180 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 04/16/2002)

04/16/2002

182 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT of Joint Status Report filed by Dan C Dargene on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Related document(s) 176 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 04/17/2002)

04/24/2002

183 STATUS REPORT NOTICE filed by Charles W. German on behalf of Wilfong Plaintiffs. (German, Charles) (Entered: 04/24/2002)

05/06/2002

184 Joint STATUS REPORT filed by Sara Elizabeth Welch on behalf of all defendants. (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 05/06/2002)

07/02/2002

185 Minute Entry Dated: 7/2/2002 MINUTE ENTRY (Larson, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2002)

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 17 of 18

07/11/2002
07/11/2002 07/12/2002 07/15/2002
09/24/2002
12/10/2002 12/11/2002 12/13/2002 03/31/2003
08/06/2003 08/20/2003
08/22/2003 11/13/2003 11/24/2003 11/24/2003 12/05/2003 12/12/2003 02/25/2004

186 Joint STATUS REPORT filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of Margaret Bunch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Hubbard, Dirk) Amended Exhibit A added on 7/12/2002 (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 07/11/2002)
Remark: Amended Exhibit A was added to document #186 on 7/11/02. (Jones, Robin) (Entered: 07/12/2002)
187 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT filed by Robert L. Driscoll on behalf of Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Driscoll, Robert) (Entered: 07/12/2002)
188 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order approving supplemental ADR/Applicant Fund, approving communication with class members, and approving attorneys' fees of class counsel. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 07/15/2002)
189 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Denying motion for leave to add objector without prejudice (Related Doc # 131 ), granting motion to withdraw attorney (Related Doc # 152 ), denying motion to strike without prejudice. (Related Doc # 159 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
190 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by Margaret Bunch. (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
191 NOTICE of endorsement by Rent−A−Center, Inc. re 190 Status Report (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
192 ORDER approving admendment of Supplemental ADR/Applicant Fund. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/13/2002. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
193 MANDATE of US COURT OF APPEALS as to 110 Notice of Appeal filed by Wilfong Plaintiffs: Joint motion for dismissal is granted. Issued: 03/12/2003. (Brogan, Shannon) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
194 ORDER DECLARING INTENT TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/6/2003. (McIlvain, Kelly) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
195 RESPONSE to order re 194 Order Status Report filed by Bert S Braud on behalf of Plaintiff Margaret Bunch. (Related document(s) 194 ) (Braud, Bert) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
196 STATUS REPORT by Rent−A−Center, Inc.. (Welch, Sara) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
197 STATUS REPORT by Margaret Bunch. (Braud, Bert) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
198 OBJECTIONS to Settlement filed by Denise Couplin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Henson, Tanya) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
199 OBJECTIONS to Settlement filed by Earnestine H. Harris. (Henson, Tanya) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
200 ORDER affirming Arbitrator's ruling. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/05/2003. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
201 ORDER clarifying and amending Order affirming Arbitrator's ruling. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/12/2003. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
202 ORDER OF DISMISSAL pursuant to parties' settlement agreement. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 02/26/2004)

Case: 4:00-cv-364 As of: 07/24/2009 01:26 PM CDT 18 of 18