IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DILLARD'S, INC. Defendant. COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff and for her cause of action against Defendant states and alleges the following:
NATURE OF THE CLAIM 1. This case is brought by Plaintiff Danielle Wooten against Defendant Dillard's Department Stores, Inc. ("Dillard's") . Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages to redress the deprivation of rights accorded to Plaintiff under the Civil rights Act of 1871, as amended, in 1991, 42 U.S.C. s 1981 ("s 198l"). The Plaintiff is African-American and a former employee of Dillard's who was the victim of racially discriminatory employment policies and practices. The Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant's purposefully discriminatory pattern and practice of employment with respect to African-American employees.
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 1 of 17

2. Plaintiff has had the terms and/or conditions of her employment affected in one or more of the following ways
a. Pursuant to an established pattern and practice of Defendant, Plaintrff and other Afr;;,ran-American employees were compensated less than similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees;
b. Pursuant to an established pattern and practice, Plaintiff and other African-American employees were denled promotional opportunities extended to simiiarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees;
c. Wrsuant to an established pattern and practice of discrimination in employment by Defendant, Plaintiff and other African-American employees were subjected to job requirements which were materially different from those Imposed on similarly situated or iess qualified Caucasian employees.
d. Pursuant to an established pattern and practice of discrimination against African-American employees and customers, Dillard's has subjected Plaintiff and other African-Americans to a racially hostile environment that includes, but is not limited to, being subjected to forced searches of their body and belongings.
e. Pursuant to an established pattern and practice of discrimination in employment by Defendant, Plaintiff and
2 Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 2 of 17

other African-American employees -were retaliated against for asserting tIleir e:v1I rights. Such retaliatory acts

were severe and included termination.

3. Defendant has had actual and/or constructive notice of the aforementioned, but has taken no constructive steps to eliminate said discriminatory policies, procedures, and

practices.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by Plaint iff

pursuant to 28 L7.S.C.s 1343(3) and 1343 (4), which confer

original jurisdiction upon this Court in a civil action to

recover damages or to secure su.irabie relief (I! under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights; (ii)

under the Declaratory Judgment Statute, 22 U.S.C. s 2201; and

(iii) under 42 U.S.C. s 1981. 5. ,The discriminatory practice alleged herein occurred i n

the state of Missouri, Jackson County, Kansas City, including

practices within the previous five years.

6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. c

1391 (b), inasmuch as Defendant has offices, conducts business

and can be found in the Western District of Missouri, and the

cadse of actions arose and occurred in substantial part in the

Western District of Missouri.

3
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 3 of 17

7. Plaintiff Danielle Wooten 1s a resident of the State of Kansas at 3523 Kimball, Kansas City, Kansas, 66104. Defendant employed Ms. Wooter; from i3ctober of 199'7, until August of 1999. Plaintiff has sought and tias denied promotions with Defendant, she has been pald less tnan similarly situated or less qualified Caucasians, and she has been subjected to different terms and conditions of employment than similarly situated Caucasian employees. When Plaintiff complained of this discrimination, she was retaliated against and terminated.
8. Defendant Dillard's is a for-profit Delaware corporation, which conducts business in the State of Missouri.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. PI.aintiff Danielie Wooten is an African-American who has been subjected to racial discrimination in pay and promotion, to a hostile work environment and to other discriminatory terms and conditions of her employment with Dillard's including termination. 10. Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination which subjected Plaintiff and other African-American employees to unlawful terms and conditions of employment that are different from similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees, including but not limited to, practices related to hiring, pay, promotional opportunities, pay raises, standards for evaluation, company goals for employees,
4
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 4 of 17

discipline, and termination, and a hostile work environment all ln vroiat~on of the acts of Congress providing for the protection of Civil Rights.
il. Defendant hired Plaint_ff in October of 1997 as a Sales Associate.
12. Dlllard"s routinely hired and promoted Caucasian candidates who were less qualified and who had less experience than Piaintiff and other African-American employees of Dillard's.
1.3. D lllard's managemen t personnel has had ac tual knowledge of discrimlnatlon dlrected against African-American employees and customers, including but not limited to the discriminatory acts and attitudes discussed herein.
14. From approximately 1987 through January of 1998, Richard Eaqan was the District Manager for Dillard's Oak Park store, Bannister Mail store and nine other Dillard's Stores in the Kansas City Region.
15. As District Manager, Mr. Eagan was Dillard's executive responsible for all Equal Empioyment Opportunity policies, practices, and issues for the eleven stores he supervised.
16. As District Manager, Mr. Eagan was the final decisionmaker on ali management level hiring, promotion and termination decisions at the il stores he supervised.
5 Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 5 of 17

17. upon information and belief, Mr. Eagan did not promote or hire an African-Amerrcan to a management pOSitiOn until 1997.
SEi" Mr. Eagan regularly used t.ne word "nigger" rn his capacity as Drilard's District Manager.
19. Mr. Eagan used the word "nigger" in the presence of Diilard's management personnel.
20. Mr. Eagan used the word "nigger'" in reference to Dillard's African-American employees.
21. Mr. Eagan used the word "nigger" in reference to Dillard's African-American customers.
22. Mr. Eagan used the term "jigaboo" in his capacity as Dillard's District Manager.
23. Mr. Eagan used the term "-jigaboo" in the presence of Dillard's management personnel.
24. Mr. Eagan used the termL "jigaboo" in reference to Dillard's African-American employees.
25. Mr. Eagan used the term "‘jigaboo" in reference to Dillard's African-American custcmers.
26. Dillard's Chairman for the Mid-West Region, Ken Moore, was aware of Richard Eagan's racist comments from as early as 1995.
27. Dillard's Chairman for the Mid-West Region, Ken Moore, did not reprimand Richard Eagan for using racist terminology.
6
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 6 of 17

28 , Dillard's Chairman for the Mid-West Region, Ken Moore, did not terminate Richard Eagan for using racist termrnoiogy.
29. Dillard's Chairman for the Mid-West Region, Ken Moore, did not suspend Rrchard Eagan for using racist terminology.
30. Dillard's Chairman for the Mid-West Region, Ken Moore, did not in any way punish Rizhard Eagan for using racist terminology.
31" Mr. Eagan espoused racist opinions about AfricanAmericans in the presence of Diliard's management personnel.
32. Dillard's executive, Ted Gastman, believes Richard Eagen's use of racist terminology indicates Mr. Eagan was biased in his hiring, promotion and termination decisions.
33. Dillard's security practices are created and dictated by Dillard's corporate office.
34. No written record ex ists of any reprimand, disc ipl ine, or demotion to Mr. Eagan as a result of the reported racial slurs used by Mr. Eagan in the presence of Dillard's management personnel.
35. Dillard's security practices include the specific labelrng of African-American customers with race codes.
36. Dillard's security practices include referencing "suspicious blacks" as "Code 3s."
37. Dillard's security practices utilize racial profiles.
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 7 of 17

38 Richard Eagan was respcnsible for implementing I.
Dillard's security practices at the Ii Dillard's stores he had
supervisory authority over from approximately 198'7 through 1998. 39. During the time per-lo d in :dhkch Richard Eagan served
as Distr ict Manger over the Dill ard's stores in the Kansas City, St. Joseph, Springfield, Columbia, and Jefferson City areas, no African-American ever served as Store Manager at those locations.
40. During the time period in which Richard Eagan served as District Manager over the Dillard's stores in the Kansas City, St. Joseph, Springfield, Columbia and Jefferson City areas, there were over 200 supervisory positions filled at those locations.
41. Dillard's management personnel has had actual knowledge of discrimination directed against African-American employees and customers4 including but not limited to the discriminatory acts and attitudes discussed herein.
42. Defendant's pattern and practice of racial discrimination have damaged Plaintiff and other African-American employees.
DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION 43. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 42 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein.
8
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 8 of 17

44. Defendant Dillard's malntalns a pattern and practice of compensating African-American employees less than Caucasian employees who hold the same or similar job positions, or who hold job positions that entail. similar or comparable responsibilities and duties.
45. As part of this discriminatory pattern and practice, D1llard's:
a _ designates lower salarres, raises and other forms of compensation for African-American employees than for similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees;
b. falls to maintain a salary or pay scale which is based on objective, job-related criteria;
C . Routinely violates its own policies and practices with respect to compensation.
46. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant's pattern and practice of compensating African-American employees less than similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees.
47. Dillard's conduct with regard to compensation constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against African-American employees such as Ms. Wooten.
48, Defendant Dillard's conduct with regard to compensation constitutes disparate treatment of African-American employees such as Plaintiff and Defendant's conduct with regard
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 9 of 17

to compensation has a disparate impact on African-American employees, Fnciclding MS a Wooten.
49. Defendant"s Dillard's conduct described herein constitutes a hostile environment particularly Defendant's management's use of racial epithets and a security policy that t_argets African-American shoppers and employees for unwarranted and unconstitutional stops and searches.
DISCRIMINATION IN PROMOTIONS 5G" Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 49 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 51. As part of Dillard"s practice of denying AfricanAmerican employees the opportunity for promotion, Dillard's has promotion practices, which are based on subjective rather than obje ctive, job related crrteria, and which are not uniformly applied to African-American and Caucasian employees. 52. There are inadequate written poiicles, procedures, and guidelines at Dillard's with respect to promotion of its employees. The system employed by Dillard's involves subjective determinations which thereby render the system arbitrary, and such subjective decision making is used as pretext for denying qualified African-American employees promotions to which they are qualified and entitled.
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 10 of 17

53. As part of Defendant's practice of denying AfricanAmer;can employees the opportunity for promotion, Dillard's discriminates against African-American employees by:
a. filing job openings r_hrough word-of-mouth recruitment which is subjective and unfairly restricts the promotion of qualified African-Americans;
23. generally failing to publicly post job openings for supervisory and managerial positions; and,
c>D failing to promote Afrl can-Americans to higher level managerial or s.upervisory jobs. Upon information and beiief, Diilard"s employs no African-American store managers at any store throughout the United States.
54. Plaintiff and other African-American employees have been refused promotional opportunities and damaged by Defendant's pattern and practice of discrimination in promotion.
55. Defendant's conduct with regard to promotions constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff and other African-Americans.
56. Defendant Diliard's conduct with regard to promotions constitutes disparate treatment of African-American employees such as Plaintiff and Defendant/s conduct with regard to promotions has a disparate impact on Plaintiff and other African-Americans,
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 11 of 17

5: o Dillard's pal-icies and practices which discriminatorily deny promotional opportunities have resulted il current and former Dillard"s employees being denied promotional opportunities, including but not limited to Plaintiff and many others.
TERMS AwE) CONDITIONS/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 58" Plainti-ff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1, through 57 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 59. Defendant"s Diilard's conduct described herein constitutes a hostile environment particularly Defendant's management's use of racial epithets and a security policy that targets African-American shoppers and employees for unwarranted and unconstitutional stops and searches. 60. Dillard's maintains a pervasive and vile atmosphere perpetuating discriminatory treatment of African-American employees and customers. Plaintiff and other African-American employees have been subjected to a hostile work environment which is illustrated by the above discriminatory actions involving Plaintiff and other African-American employees. 61. Defendant Dillard's conduct in creating and maintaing a hostile work environment constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff. 62. Dillard's conduct in creating and maintaining a hostile work environment constitutes disparate treatment of
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 12 of 17

African-American employees such as Plaintiff, and Defendant's conduct has a disparate impact on African-American employees, including Ms. Wooten.
6:3. Defendant"s conduct with regard to maintaining a hostile irJork environment constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff and other African-Americans.
64” Defendant's conduct with reqard to maintaining a hostile work environment has damayed Plaintiff and other African-Americans.
RETALIATION 65. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 64 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 66. Dillard's maintains a pattern of retaliation designed to intimidate African-American employees and deter them from objecting to Defendant's discriminatory policies and practices. Diilard's retaliates against African-Americans who assert their civil rights by diminishing their work responsibilities, iimiting access to work related information, by denving promotions, and/or by demoting or terminating the employee. 6r ,7. Defendant maintains a pattern of retaliation to intimidate its African-American employees and deter them from asserting legal claims based on Diilard's policies and Constitutionally guaranteed rights, includinq those relating to
1% Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 13 of 17

pay I promotion, delegation of assignments and dutres,
performance reviews and discipline, rncladlng termination. 68 o Plaintiff and other African-Americans have been
damaged by Defendant's pattern and practice of retaliation against African-American employees.
69 . . Defendant Diiiard? retaliatory conduct constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against AfricanAmerican employees such as Ms. Wocten.
CONSTRWCTIVE DISCHARGE 79” Pialntiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 'L through 69 of the Complaint, by reference, as rf fully set forth hereln. 71_ Dillard's utilizes a discriminatory practice of evaluating individuals whom Dillard's desires to remove from employment wherein Dillard's and its agents provide overly critical and unfair evaluations resulting in disparate and harsh disciplinary actions for thinqs for which similarly situated and/or less qualified Caucasians are not disciplined. 72. Dillard's maintains a common pattern and practice of terminating and/or constructively discharging African-American employees by creating a hostile and offensive working environment so intolerable that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would not withstand such an environment. 13. Plaintiff and other African-American employees have been damaged by Defendant's pattern and practice of
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 14 of 17

discrimination in terms and conditrons, includinq Dillard's creation and perpetuation of a racially hostile working environment.
7 4 . Dillard's conduct with regard to constructive d rscharqe constitutes intentiona 1 discrimination, with malice, ayainst Plaintiff.
15. Defendant's conduct const;t.utes disparate treatment of African-American employees, including Plaintiff, and Defendant's conduct ha a disparate impact on African-American employees, rncludlnq Plaintiff.
76. Paraqraphs 1 through '75 describe a pattern and practice of racial discrimination utilized by Defendant Dillard's that constitutes a violation of Plaintiff's Civil Rights and has damaged Ms. Wooten.
77. Dillard's conduct constitutes Intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintrff.
PRAYER FOR RFAIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfuliy requests that this Court grant t h e f o l l o w i n g r e l i e f : 1, Enter a judgment pursuant to jury verdict(s) that the
acts and practices of Defendant complained of herein are violations of the laws of the United States and of Missouri and grant appropriate equitable relief.
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 15 of 17

2. Pursuant to jury verdict:s) award Plaintiff lost wages, -Lncluding ali lost fringe benefits and back pay, including, without limitation, compensation differential and any iosc benefits that would have otherwise been accorded Plaintiff absent the illegal discr imination complained of here in.
?.,. Award Plaintiff, pursuant to jury verdict(s), compensatory and pun:tive damages,
4. Award Plaintiff the costs .of this action, including the fees and costs of experts, together with reasonable attorneys" fees.
Jr . Grant an order restraining Dillard's from any retaliation against Plaintiff or other AfricanAmerican employees for participation in any form in this Lltlgation.
6. Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper.
16 Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 16 of 17

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues of fact and damages in this action.
THE POPHAM FIRM, PmC,

By:

Bert S. Braud, MO 34325 1000 Commerce Trust Bldg. 922 Wa:nut St. Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 221-2288 Fax: (8163 221-3999

SANDERS, SIMPSON, FLETCHER & SMITH, L.C. Michael R. Fletcher, MO 47495 1125 Grand Blvd., Suite i400 Kansas City, MO 64106 itilb) 471-6444 FAX: (816) 47i-6664

KUMANN & HUBBARD, P.A. John Klamann! MO 29335 Dlrk L. Hubbard, MO 37396 7101 College Blvd. Su;te 130 Overland Park, KS 66210

and

SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, Stephen R. Bough, MO 46239 455i W. 107th St. Suite 355 Overland Park, KS 66207

Chrtd.

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/99 Page 17 of 17

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

DANIELLE WOOTEN,

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v.

)

)

DILLARD’S INC. d/b/a DILLARD’S

)

DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,

)

)

Defendant. )

Case No. 99-0990-CV-W-3-1

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION COMES NOW Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current, former and prospective African-American employees of Defendant Dillard’s Department Stores (“Dillard’s”), and states and alleges the following causes of action against Dillard’s:
NATURE OF THE CLAIM 1. Plaintiff Danielle Wooten brings this class action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former African-American employees of Dillard’s for racial discrimination in employment with Dillard’s and for the pay, promotional and other employment opportunities denied African-American persons by Dillard’s. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief and monetary damages to redress the deprivation of rights accorded to Plaintiff and others similarly situated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000 et seq., and under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981"). Plaintiff is African-American and is a current employee of Dillard’s. Plaintiff Wooten and all putative class members are qualified employees who have been damaged as a result of a purposefully discriminatory employment policy and/or pattern and practice of racial discrimination on the part of Dillard’s. 2. During the course of Plaintiff’s and other class members’ employment, Dillard’s has maintained and continues to maintain unconstitutional and discriminatory policies, practices, and customs of racial discrimination, including, but not limited to, promotional and pay practices.

Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 1 of 22

3. Dillard’s pattern and practice of racial discrimination has affected and is affecting the employment terms and conditions of Plaintiff Wooten and others similarly situated.
4. Plaintiff and class members have had the terms and/or conditions of their employment affected in one or more of the following ways:
a. Pursuant to an established pattern and practice of Defendant, Plaintiff and other African-American employees were compensated less than similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees.
b. Pursuant to an established pattern and practice, Plaintiff and other African-American employees were denied promotional opportunities extended to similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees.
c. Pursuant to an established pattern and practice of discrimination in employment by Defendant, Plaintiff and other African-American employees were subjected to job requirements which were materially different from those imposed on similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees.
d. Pursuant to an established pattern and practice of discrimination against African-American employees and customers, Dillard’s has failed to hire Plaintiff and other African-Americans based solely upon their race.
e. Pursuant to an established pattern and practice of discrimination in employment by Defendant, Plaintiff and other African-American employees were retaliated against for asserting their civil rights. Such retaliatory acts were severe and included termination. 5. Defendant has had actual and/or constructive notice of the aforementioned, but has taken no constructive steps to eliminate said discriminatory policies, procedures and practices.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and 1343(4), which confer original jurisdiction upon this Court in a civil action to recover
- 2 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 2 of 22

damages or to secure equitable relief (i) under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights; (ii) under the Declaratory Judgment Statute, 22 U.S.C. § 2201; (iii) under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (iv) under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; and (v) under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2002 et seq.
7. The discriminatory practices alleged herein occurred nationwide, including, at a minimum, the Kansas City Region and at Dillard’s Bannister Mall in the City of Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri.
8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), inasmuch as the defendant has stores, conducts business and can be found in the State of Missouri, and the cause of action has arisen and occurred in substantial part in the State of Missouri.
PARTIES 9. Plaintiff Danielle Wooten is and at all times herein was a resident of the State of Kansas at 3523 Kimball, Kansas City, Kansas, 66104. Plaintiff Danielle Wooten is African-American. 10. Defendant Dillard’s is a Delaware corporation, in good standing and which is authorized to and does conduct business in the State of Missouri. Defendant owns and operates retail stores across the United States. Dillard’s is engaged in interstate commerce and employs thousands of employees.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 11. Plaintiff sues on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 12. Plaintiff Danielle Wooten brings this case on behalf of all African-American persons who were denied employment, denied equal pay, were denied equal promotions and subjected to a racially hostile work environment. The subclasses in which Plaintiff Danielle Wooten will serve as class representative are as follows:
a. Employee Subclass: All African-Americans employed by Defendant Dillard’s at St. Joseph, Springfield, Jefferson City, Columbia, Independence
- 3 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 3 of 22

Center, Oak Park (north and south), Bannister, Mission, Indian Springs, Metro North, Ward Parkway and Mall of the Great Plains from October 13, 1994, to present (the “Class Period”).
b. Applicant Subclass: All African-Americans who attempted to obtain employment with Defendant Dillard’s at St. Joseph, Springfield, Jefferson City, Columbia, Independence Center, Oak Park (north and south), Bannister, Mission, Indian Springs, Metro North, Ward Parkway and Mall of the Great Plains from October 13, 1994, to present (the “Class Period”). 13. The African-Americans in the Class identified above are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief there are at least 1,000 members of the Class. 14. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. 15. The claims of the Representative Plaintiff Danielle Wooten are typical of the claims of the Class. 16. Representative Plaintiff Wooten will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 17. Dillard’s has acted and 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. 18. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy described herein. 19. There are questions of law and fact common to this Class which predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. The questions of law and fact common to this Class include, but are not limited to, the following:
- 4 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 4 of 22

a. whether federal and state civil rights laws were violated by Dillard's nationwide policies and practices as alleged herein; b. whether Dillard’s maintained the racially discriminatory policies and practices alleged herein; c. whether Dillard’s racially discriminatory policies and practices amounted to purposeful discrimination; d. whether Dillard’s racially discriminatory policies and practices result in disparate impact and/or disparate treatment of African-Americans; e. whether Dillard’s subjected the Class of African-Americans to unlawful terms and conditions of employment that were different than those for similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees throughout their employment, including but not limited to hiring, rate of pay, and promotional opportunities; f. whether the race of African-American employees was a motivating factor in Dillard’s nationwide/class-wide decision to employ African-American employees at lower rates of pay than similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees; g. whether race was a motivating factor in Dillard’s common, nationwide policy of denying African-Americans promotions and opportunities for advancement where such opportunities were made available by Dillard’s to similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees; h. whether race was a motivating factor in defendant's nationwide decision to deny African-American employment applications for positions which were subsequently offered to similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian applicants; i. whether Dillard’s actions were intentional, willful, wanton, and/or in reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff Wooten and members of the class; j. whether, and in what amount, Dillard’s should be assessed punitive damages to punish Dillard’s and deter others from engaging in similar conduct in
- 5 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 5 of 22

the future; and/or k. whether defendant's discriminatory conduct violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 20. Since at least October 13, 1994, Dillard’s has engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination which subjects African-Americans to unlawful terms and conditions of employment that were different from similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees, including but not limited to, practices related to hiring, rate of pay, promotional opportunities, and other employment terms and conditions, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. 21. Dillard’s maintains a pattern and practice of compensating African-American employees less than Caucasian employees who hold the same or similar job positions, or who hold job positions that entail similar or comparable responsibilities and duties. 22. Dillard’s maintains a pattern and practice of denying promotional opportunities to African-American employees when similarly situated or less experienced Caucasian employees are provided such opportunities for promotion. 23. Dillard’s maintains a pattern of racial discrimination in the terms and conditions of its employment practices by preventing African-American employees from obtaining the experience and opportunities necessary to become qualified for promotion and by relegating African-American employees to positions of less visibility and prestige. 24. Since at least October 13, 1994, Dillard’s has engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination with respect to hiring thereby seeking to limit or deny African-Americans employment with Dillard’s. 25. Dillard’s maintains a pervasive and vile atmosphere perpetuating discriminatory treatment of African-American employees. Plaintiff Wooten and other class members have been subjected to a hostile work environment which is illustrated by statements made by or heard and tolerated by senior management personnel when dealing with or discussing African-Americans as well as by senior management’s conduct toward African-American persons.
- 6 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 6 of 22

ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING CLASS REPRESENTATIVE WOOTEN
26. Class Representative Danielle Wooten is an African-American who has been subjected to racial discrimination in pay and promotion, to a hostile work environment and to other discriminatory terms and conditions of her employment with Dillard’s including termination.
27. Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination which subjected Plaintiff and other African-American employees to unlawful terms and conditions of employment that are different from similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees, including but not limited to, practices related to hiring, pay, promotional opportunities, pay raises, standards for evaluation, company goals for employees, discipline, and termination, and a hostile work environment all in violation of the acts of Congress providing for the protection of Civil Rights.
28. Defendant hired Plaintiff in October of 1997 as a Sales Associates. 29. Dillard’s routinely hired and promoted Caucasian candidates who were less qualified and who had less experience than Plaintiff and other African-American employees of Dillard’s. 30. Dillard’s management personnel has had actual knowledge of discrimination directed against African-American employees and customers, including but not limited to the discriminatory acts and attitudes discussed herein. 31. From approximately 1987 through January of 1998, Richard Eagan was the District Manager for Dillard’s Oak Park store, Bannister Mall store and nine other Dillard’s Stores in the Kansas City region. 32. As District Manager, Mr. Eagan was Dillard’s executive responsible for all Equal Employment Opportunity policies, practices, and issues for the eleven stores he supervised. 33. As District Manager, Mr. Eagan was the final decision-maker on all management level hiring, promotion and termination decisions at the eleven stores he supervised.
- 7 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 7 of 22

34. Upon information and belief, Mr. Eagan did not promote or hire an AfricanAmerican to a management position until 1997.
35. Mr. Eagan regularly used the word “nigger” in his capacity as Dillard’s District Manager.
36. Mr. Eagan used the word “nigger” in the presence of Dillard’s management personnel.
37. Mr. Eagan used the word “nigger” in reference to Dillard’s African-American employees.
38. Mr. Eagan used the word “nigger” in reference to Dillard’s African-American customers.
39. Mr. Eagan used the word “jigaboo” in his capacity as Dillard’s District Manager. 40. Mr. Eagan used the word “jigaboo” in the presence of Dillard’s management personnel. 41. Mr. Eagan used the word “jigaboo” in reference to Dillard’s African-American employees. 41. Mr. Eagan used the word “jigaboo” in reference to Dillard’s African-American customers. 42. Dillard’s Chairman for the Midwest Region, Ken Moore, was aware of Richard Eagan’s racist comments from as early as 1995. 43. Dillard’s Chairman for the Midwest Region, Ken Moore, did not reprimand Richard Eagan for his using racist terminology. 44. Dillard’s Chairman for the Midwest Region, Ken Moore, did not terminate Richard Eagan for using racist terminology. 45. Dillard’s Chairman for the Midwest Region, Ken Moore, did not suspend Richard Eagan for using racist terminology.
- 8 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 8 of 22

46. Dillard’s Chairman for the Midwest Region, Ken Moore, did not in any way punish Richard Eagan for using racist terminology.
47. Mr. Eagan espoused racist opinions about African-Americans in the presence of Dillard’s management personnel.
48. Dillard’s executive, Ted Gastman, believes Richard Eagan’s use of racist terminology indicates Mr. Eagan was biased in his hiring, promotion and termination decisions.
49. Dillard’s security practices are created and dictated by Dillard’s corporate office. 50. No written record exists of any reprimand, discipline, or demotion to Mr. Eagan as a result of the reported racial slurs used by Mr. Eagan in the presence of Dillard’s management personnel. 51. Dillard’s security practices include the specific labeling of African-American customers with race codes. 52. Dillard’s security practices include referencing “suspicious blacks” as “Code 3s.” 53. Dillard’s security practices utilize racial profiles. 54. Richard Eagan was responsible for implementing Dillard’s security practices at the eleven Dillard’s stores he had supervisory authority over from approximately 1987 through 1998. 55. During the time period in which Richard Eagan served as District Manager over the Dillard’s stores in the Kansas City, St. Joseph, Springfield, Columbia, and Jefferson City areas, no African-American ever served as Store Manager at those locations. 56. During the time period in which Richard Eagan served as District Manager over the Dillard’s stores in the Kansas City area, St. Joseph, Springfield, Columbia, and Jefferson City areas, there were over 200 supervisory positions filled at those locations. 57. Dillard’s management personnel has had actual knowledge of discrimination directed against African-American employees and customers, including but not limited to the discriminatory acts and attitudes discussed herein.
- 9 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 9 of 22

58. Since at least October 13, 1994, Dillard’s has engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination which subjects African-Americans to unlawful terms and conditions of employment that were different from similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees, including but not limited to, practices related to hiring and promotional opportunities as well as job assignments and duties, all in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
59. As part of its common pattern and practice, Dillard’s discriminates against qualified African-American employees by denying those employees the opportunity for promotion and by refusing to promote qualified African-American employees, including Plaintiff Danielle Wooten.
60. As part of Dillard’s practice of denying African-American employees the opportunity for promotion, Dillard’s has promotion practices which are based on subjective rather than objective, job-related criteria, and which are not uniformly applied to African-American and Caucasian employees. With regard to promotion of employees, Dillard’s incorporates a pattern and practice which utilizes numerous subjective rather than objective factors resulting in discrimination against African-Americans.
61. There are inadequate written policies, procedures, or guidelines at Dillard’s with respect to promotion of its employees. The system employed by Dillard’s involves subjective determinations which thereby render the system arbitrary, and such arbitrariness is used as pretext for denying qualified African-American employees, including Plaintiff Danielle Wooten, promotions to which they are qualified and entitled.
62. As part of Dillard’s practice of denying African-American employees the opportunity for promotion, Dillard’s also discriminates against African-Americans by:
a. filling supervisory and managerial level job openings through word-ofmouth recruitment which is subjective and unfairly restricts the promotion of qualified African-Americans;
- 10 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 10 of 22

b. generally failing to publicly post job openings for supervisory and managerial positions; and
c. failing to promote African-Americans to higher level managerial or supervisory jobs.
63. Dillard’s maintains a pattern of racial discrimination in the terms and conditions of its employment practices by relegating African-American employees to jobs with less visibility, prestige, responsibility and prospects for promotion than those held by similarly situated or less qualified Caucasians.
64. Members of Dillard’s upper management maintain vile, racist attitudes which they inject into the employment setting. Said members have made racist comments regarding the employment, promotion and/or job duties and assignments of African-Americans.
65. On information and belief, Dillard’s policies and practices are designed and/or have the effect of denying promotional opportunities to African-American personnel because of their race.
66. As part of Dillard’s pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiff Danielle Wooten has also been denied pay and pay raises equal to those of similarly situated or less experienced Caucasian employees. Plaintiff Wooten also was denied employment at the Oak Park store after she was constructively discharged from the Bannister store.
67. At all times relevant herein, Dillard’s has had actual or constructive knowledge of the unconstitutional and racially discriminatory practices complained of herein.
68. Paragraphs 1 through 67 describe a pattern and practice of racial discrimination utilized by Defendant Dillard’s that constitutes a violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
69. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5, more than sixty (60) days have elapsed since filing a charge alleging unlawful discrimination.
- 11 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 11 of 22

COUNT I - 42 §1981 70. Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated herein by reference. 71. Defendant has intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff and all class members in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 by making promotion decisions based on race, by denying Plaintiff and all class members equal pay and equal terms and conditions of employment, and by maintaining a pervasive atmosphere perpetuating discriminatory treatment. 72. Plaintiff is an African-American current employee of Dillard’s who is the victim of Dillard’s racially discriminatory employment policies and practices. Plaintiff Wooten and all class members are qualified employees who were damaged as a result of purposefully discriminatory employment policies, practices, and procedures conceived and directed by Dillard’s upper management. 73. Plaintiff Danielle Wooten and all class members have been damaged by Dillard’s conduct referenced herein.
COUNT II - DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION 74. Plaintiff hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 73 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 75. Defendant Dillard’s maintains a pattern and practice of compensating AfricanAmerican employees less than Caucasian employees who hold the same or similar job positions, or who hold job positions that entail similar or comparable responsibilities and duties. 76. As part of this discriminatory pattern and practice, Dillard’s:
a. designates lower salaries, raises and other forms of compensation for African-American employees than for similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees;
b. fails to maintain a salary or pay scale which is based on objective, job-related criteria; and
c. Routinely violates its own policies and practices with respect to
- 12 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 12 of 22

compensation. 77. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s pattern and practice of compensating African-American employees less than similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees. 78. Dillard’s conduct with regard to compensation constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against African-American employees such as Ms. Wooten. 79. Defendant Dillard’s conduct with regard to compensation constitutes disparate treatment of African-American employees such as Plaintiff and Defendant’s conduct with regard to compensation has a disparate impact on African-American employees, including Ms. Wooten. 80. Defendant Dillard’s conduct described herein constitutes a hostile environment particularly Defendant’s management’s use of racial epithets and a security policy that targets African-American shoppers and employees for unwarranted and unconstitutional stops and searches.
COUNT III - DISCRIMINATION IN PROMOTIONS 81. Plaintiff hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 80 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 82. As part of Dillard’s practice of denying African-American employees the opportunity for promotion, Dillard’s has promotion practices, which are based on subjective rather than objective, job related criteria, and which are not uniformly applied to African-American and Caucasian employees. 83. There are inadequate written policies, procedures, and guidelines at Dillard’s with respect to promotion of its employees. The system employed by Dillard’s involves subjective determinations which thereby render the system arbitrary, and such subjective decision making is used as pretext for denying qualified African-American employees promotions to which they are qualified and entitled. 84. As part of Defendant’s practice of denying African-American employees the opportunities for promotion, Dillard’s discriminates against African-American employees by:
- 13 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 13 of 22

a. filing job openings through word of mouth recruitment which is subjective and unfairly restricts the promotion of qualified African-American;s
b. generally failing to publicly post job openings for supervisory and managerial positions; and
c. failing to promote African-Americans to higher level managerial or supervisory jobs. Upon information and belief, Dillard’s employs no AfricanAmerican store managers at any store throughout the United States. 85. Plaintiff and other African-American employees have been refused promotional opportunities and damages by Defendant’s pattern and practice of discrimination in promotion. 86. Defendant’s conduct with regard to promotions constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff and other African-Americans. 87. Defendant Dillard’s conduct with regard to promotions constitutes disparate treatment of African-American employees such as Plaintiff and Defendant’s conduct with regard to promotions has a disparate impact on Plaintiff and other African-Americans. 88. Dillard’s policies and practices which discriminatorily deny promotional opportunities have resulted in current and former Dillard’s employees being denied promotional opportunities, including but not limited to Plaintiff and many others. COUNT IV - TERMS AND CONDITIONS/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 89. Plaintiff hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 88 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 90. Defendant Dillard’s conduct described herein constitutes a hostile environment particularly Defendant’s management’s use of racial epithets and a security policy that targets African-American shoppers and employees for unwarranted and unconstitutional stops and searches. 91. Dillard’s maintains a pervasive and vile atmosphere perpetuating discriminatory treatment of African-American employees and customers. Plaintiff and other African-American
- 14 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 14 of 22

employees have been subjected to a hostile work environment which is illustrated by the above discriminatory actions involving Plaintiff and other African-American employees.
92. Defendant Dillard’s conduct in creating and maintaining a hostile work environment constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff.
93. Dillard’s conduct in creating and maintaining a hostile work environment constitutes disparate treatment of African-American employees such as Plaintiff, and Defendant’s conduct has a disparate impact on African-American employees, including Ms. Wooten.
94. Defendant’s conduct with regard to maintaining a hostile work environment constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff and other African-Americans.
95. Defendant’s conduct with regard to maintaining a hostile work environment has damaged Plaintiff and other African-Americans.
COUNT V - RETALIATION 96. Plaintiff hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 95 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 97. Dillard’s maintains a pattern of retaliation designed to intimidate African-American employees and deter them from objecting to Defendant’s discriminatory policies and practices. Dillard’s retaliates against African-Americans who assert their civil rights by diminishing their work responsibilities, limiting access to work related information, by denying promotions, and/or by demoting or terminating the employee. 98. Defendant maintains a pattern of retaliation to intimidate its African-American employees and deter them from asserting legal claims based on Dillard’s policies and Constitutionally guaranteed rights, including those relating to pay, promotion, delegation of assignments and duties, performance reviews and discipline, including termination. 99. Plaintiff and other African-Americans have been damaged by Defendant’s pattern and practice of retaliation against African-American employees.
- 15 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 15 of 22

100. Defendant Dillard’s retaliatory conduct constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against African-American employees such as Ms. Wooten.
COUNT VI - CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE 101. Plaintiff hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 100 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 102. Dillard’s utilizes a discriminatory practice of evaluating individuals whom Dillard’s desires to remove from employment wherein Dillard’s and its agents provide overly critical and unfair evaluations resulting in disparate and harsh disciplinary actions for things for which similarly situated and/or less qualified Caucasians are not disciplined. 103. Dillard’s maintains a common pattern and practice of terminating and/or constructively discharging African-American employees by creating a hostile and offensive working environment so intolerable that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would not withstand such an environment. 104. Plaintiff and other African-American employees have been damaged by Defendant’s pattern and practice of discrimination in terms and conditions, including Dillard’s creation and perpetuation of a racially hostile working environment. 105. Dillard's conduct with regard to constructive discharge constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff. 106. Defendant’s conduct constitutes disparate treatment of African-American employees, including Plaintiff, and Defendant’s conduct has a disparate impact on AfricanAmerican employees, including Plaintiff. 107. Dillard’s conduct constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff. 108. Paragraphs 1 through 107 describe a pattern and practice of racial discrimination utilized by Defendant Dillard’s that constitutes a violation of Plaintiff’s Civil Rights and has damaged Ms. Wooten.
- 16 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 16 of 22

COUNT VII - FAILURE TO HIRE 109. Plaintiff hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 108 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 110. Defendant purposefully and willfully fails to hire African-Americans into management and employee positions. 111. Defendant fails to hire African-Americans for positions despite openings. 112. Dillard’s utilizes a discriminatory practice of failing to evaluate an individual’s qualifications. 113. Dillard’s maintains a common practice and procedure of failing to hire AfricanAmerican employees. 114. Plaintiff and other African-Americans have been damaged by Defendant’s pattern and practice of failure to hire African-American employees. 115. Defendant’s conduct constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Danielle Wooten respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief for herself and all class members: 1. Enter a judgment pursuant to jury verdict that the acts and practices of Dillard’s
complained of herein are in violation of the laws of the United States; 2. Pursuant to jury verdict, award Plaintiff and all class members 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 Plaintiff and all class members absent the illegal discrimination; 3. Award Plaintiff and all class members, pursuant to jury verdict, compensatory and punitive damages; 4. Award Plaintiff and all class members the costs of this action, including the fees
- 17 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 17 of 22

and costs of experts, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees; 5. Grant an Order restraining Dillard’s from any retaliation against Plaintiff or any
other class member; and, 6. Grant Plaintiff and all class members such other and further relief as this Court
finds necessary and proper.
- 18 Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 18 of 22

SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHARTERED
By Stephen R. Bough - #46239 4551 W. 107th Street, Suite 355 Overland Park, KS 66207 (913) 642-0600 (913) 642-9629 FAX
SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHARTERED Scarritt Arcade Building 819 Walnut Street, Suite 205 Kansas City, MO 64106
and
Dennis Egan Bert Braud THE POPHAM FIRM, P.C. 1000 Commerce Trust Bldg. 922 Walnut Street Kansas City, MO 64106 816-221-2288
and
Michael Fletcher SANDERS, SIMPSON, FLETCHER & SMITH 1125 Grand Blvd., Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 816-471-6444 FAX: 816-471-6664
and
John Klamann Dirk Hubbard KLAMANN & HUBBARD, P.A. 7101 College Blvd., Suite 130 Overland Park, KS 66210
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
- 19 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 19 of 22

CERTIFICATE OF FILING The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing was both hand-delivered and electronically filed, on this 26th day of January, 2000, addressed to: John Yates Lynn S. McCreary Staci O. Schorgl Bryan Cave, LLP 3500 One Kansas City Place 1200 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64105-2100 Attorneys for Defendant Dillard’s
____________________________________ Attorney for Plaintiff
- 20 Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 20 of 22

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues of fact and damages in this action. The
location of trial should be Kansas City, Kansas.
Respectfully Submitted,
SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHARTERED
By Stephen R. Bough - #46239 4551 W. 107th Street, Suite 355 Overland Park, KS 66207 (913) 642-0600 (913) 642-9629 FAX
SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHARTERED Scarritt Arcade Building 819 Walnut Street, Suite 205 Kansas City, MO 64106
and
Dennis Egan Bert Braud THE POPHAM FIRM, P.C. 1000 Commerce Trust Bldg. 922 Walnut Street Kansas City, MO 64106 816-221-2288
and
Michael Fletcher SANDERS, SIMPSON, FLETCHER & SMITH 1125 Grand Blvd., Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 816-471-6444
and
John Klamann Dirk Hubbard KLAMANN & HUBBARD, P.A. 7101 College Blvd., Suite 130 Overland Park, KS 66210 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
- 21 -
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 21 of 22

- 22 Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 20 Filed 02/03/00 Page 22 of 22

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

DANIELLE WOOTEN, ROSETTA SMITH, MISTY EWING, MURTYDELL BARNES, BETTY KING, NYCOLE PRICE, LORITA THOMPSON, and KIM RICHARD,
Individually, and as Class Representatives,
Plaintiffs, vs.
DILLARD’S INC., d/b/a DILLARD’S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 99-0990-CV-W-3-1

)

)

)

)

)

)

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT COME NOW Plaintiffs Danielle Wooten, Rosetta Smith, Misty Ewing, Murtydell Barnes, Betty King, Nycole Price, Lorita Thompson, and Kim Richard, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and state and allege the following causes of action against Defendant Dillard’s, Inc. (“Dillard’s”):
NATURE OF THE CLAIM 1. Plaintiffs bring this Class Action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated for racial discrimination in employment with Dillard’s, including discrimination in hiring, pay, promotional opportunities, terms and conditions, and the working environment

1 Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 1 of 27

provided to African-American persons by Dillard’s. Plaintiffs seek declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages, nominal damages, and punitive damages, to redress the deprivation of rights accorded to Plaintiffs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. §2000 et seq. ,and applicable regulations thereunder (“Title VII”), and under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981"). Plaintiffs assert disparate treatment and disparate impact claims on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs are African-American former and current employees of Dillard’s. Plaintiffs and all putative Class Members are qualified current or former employees who have been damaged as a result of a purposefully discriminatory employment policy, pattern and practice of racial discrimination on the part of Dillard’s. Defendant has had actual and/or constructive notice of the racial discrimination in these Stores, but has taken no constructive steps to eliminate said discriminatory policies, procedures, and practices.
2. During the course of these Plaintiffs’ employment, Dillard’s has maintained and continues to maintain unconstitutional and discriminatory policies, practices, and customs of racial discrimination relevant to employment.
3. Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members have had terms and/or conditions of their employment with Dillard’s in each of the following ways:
a. Pursuant to Defendant’s pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiffs and other African-American employees are paid less than similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees;
b. Pursuant to Defendant’s pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiffs and other African-American employees are denied promotional opportunities extended to similarly situated Caucasian employees;
c. Pursuant to Defendant’s pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiffs and other African-American employees are subjected to a work environment that is racially hostile;
2
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 2 of 27

d. Pursuant to Defendant’s pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiffs and other African-American employees are subject to job requirements which are materially different from those imposed on similarly situated Caucasian employees; and,
e. Pursuant to Defendant’s pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiffs and other African-American employees suffer from the inadequate training of Defendant’s managers with regard pay, promotion, other job terms and conditions, EEO, and employee rights/management responsibilities under anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and 1343(4), which confer original jurisdiction upon this Court in a civil action to recover damages or to secure equitable relief (i) under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights; (ii) under the Declaratory Judgment Statute, 22 U.S.C. § 2201; (iii) under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (iv) under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; and (v) under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2002 et seq.
5. The Court has jurisdiction over Dillard*s because the unlawful employment practices alleged in this Second Amended Complaint were committed in Kansas City, Missouri, and other areas which lie within this judicial district. In addition, Dillard*s has sufficient minimum contacts within this judicial district and the State of Missouri.
6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), inasmuch as the Defendant has stores, conducts business and can be found in the State of Missouri, and the cause of action has arisen and occurred in substantial part in the State of Missouri. Venue is proper in the Western District of Missouri, Western Division because Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant in this judicial district, and the unlawful acts complained of herein occurred in this district.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Danielle Wooten is an African-American female who worked for Dillard’s
3
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 3 of 27

at the Oak Park and Bannister Mall Stores from November of 1997 through February of 1999. During her employment, Dillard’s paid Ms. Wooten less than similarly-situated Caucasian employees. Dillard’s also denied Ms. Wooten a promotion to a Counter Manager position in or around January of 1998, as well as several other opportunities for promotion to other Management positions. Further, Dillard’s determined Ms. Wooten’s job assignment, both as to the cosmetic counter and the store location, based on her race. Dillard’s also discriminated against Ms. Wooten in other terms and conditions of her employment and subjected her to a racially hostile working environment. Ms. Wooten was denied employment at the Oak Park Mall Store in April of 1999, after leaving Dillard’s employment in good standing two months earlier.
8. Plaintiff Rosettta Smith served as Operations Manager of Dillard’s Mission Store for more than ten years after Dillard’s purchased it in 1986 from Macy’s, where Mrs. Smith already was working the same functional capacity. The Operations Manager position is essentially an assistant Store Manager position, and Mrs. Smith is the only African-American ever to have occupied this high of a position in any of the Dillard’s stores in this region. Dillard’s did not hire and promote Mrs. Smith, rather Mrs. Smith held a managment position with Macy’s when it was acquired by Dillard’s. Mrs. Smith trained numerous Caucasian persons who Dillard’s thereafter promoted to Store Manager positions, yet Dillard’s never provided Mrs. Smith the same opportunity or consideration for promotion to Store Manager. In addition, Dillard’s paid Rosetta Smith less than similarly situated Caucasian employees. Mrs. Smith further suffered from discriminatory job terms and conditions and a racially-hostile work environment. During her employment, Mrs. Smith’s Director of Stores referred to African-Americans in derogatory fashion as “those people,” including statements such as “I’m sick of dealing with ‘those people,’” and, “Every time I turn around `those people’ are causing problems.” In late August of 1997, Dillard’s
4
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 4 of 27

Director of Stores discriminatorily and unjustly demoted Mrs. Smith, who at that time had over 20 years of combined Macy’s/Dillard’s experience. In November of 1997, Dillard’s Director of Stores discriminatorily terminated Mrs. Smith. Rosetta Smith complained to the EEOC regarding her termination and demotion shortly after November of 1997.
9. Plaintiff Murtydell Barnes is a 57 year-old African-American female. She continues to work for Dillard’s at its Ward Parkway Store where she started in October of 1995. During this time period, Dillard’s paid Ms. Barnes less than similarly situated Caucasian employees. Despite Ms. Barnes’ receipt of sales awards for her work for Dillard’s as an Estee Lauder counter associate, Dillard’s will not promote Ms. Barnes to the Counter Manager position. On at least three occasions, Dillard’s refused to even consider Ms. Barnes for openings for Counter Manager positions, despite Dillard’s direct knowledge of her interest in the promotion. On several occasions in 1998 and 1999 alone, lesser experienced and/or qualified Caucasians were promoted to the position of Counter Manager without notice to other potential candidates and without the opportunity for Plaintiff to fairly be considered for the position. Dillard’s also discriminated against Ms. Barnes in other job terms and conditions and in subjecting her, and continuing to subject her, to a racially hostile work environment. Finally, Dillard’s has retaliated against Ms. Barnes since the filing of her two EEOC Charges of discrimination.
10. Plaintiff Misty Ewing is a former employee at Defendant Dillard’s Oak Park Mall Store. During her employment, Dillard’s treated Ms. Ewing differently than it treated her Caucasian co-workers in several respects, including Dillard’s forcibly detaining and falsely accusing Ms. Ewing of theft. Dillard’s paid Ms. Ewing less than similarly-situated Caucasian employees. Dillard’s also discriminated against Ms. Ewing in other job terms and conditions, including her termination. Dillard’s further subjected Ms. Ewing to a racially hostile work
5
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 5 of 27

environment. 11. Plaintiff Betty King worked at Defendant Dillard’s Oak Park Mall Store in the
Cosmetics Department. Dillard’s paid Ms. King less than similarly-situated Caucasian employees. Dillard’s refused Ms. King promotional opportunities provided to similarly-situated Caucasian employees. Dillard’s also discriminated against Ms. King in other job terms and conditions, including her termination. Dillard’s further subjected Ms. King to a racially hostile working environment.
12. Plaintiff Nycole Price worked at Defendant Dillard’s Oak Park Mall Store in Cosmetics. Dillard’s paid Ms. Price less than similarly-situated Caucasian employees. Dillard’s refused Ms. Price promotional opportunities provided to similarly-situated Caucasian employees. Dillard’s also discriminated against Ms. Price in other job terms and conditions, including her job assignments and her termination. Dillard’s further subjected Ms. Price to a racially hostile working environment.
13. Plaintiff Lorita Thompson is an African-American who worked as a sales associate at the Dillard’s Ward Parkway Mall Store in 1996. Dillard’s paid Ms. Thompson less than similarly-situated Caucasian employees. In addition, Dillard’s also did not offer Ms. Thompson a management position or an opportunity to seek a management position despite her thirty-seven years of management experience with the Internal Revenue Service of the United States Government. Dillard’s also subjected Ms. Thompson to a racially-hostile work environment and to discrimination in job terms and conditions. Ms. Thompson filed a Charge with the EEOC in 1996.
14. Plaintiff Kim Richard is an African-American who worked as a sales associate and Department Manager at the Dillard’s Ward Parkway Mall Store for eight years. Dillard’s
6
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 6 of 27

paid Mrs. Richard less than similarly-situated Caucasian employees. Dillard’s refused Mrs. Richard promotional opportunities provided to similarly-situated Caucasian employees. On three separate occasions, Mrs. Richards was passed over for a promotion to an Area Sales Manager. After Caucasians received the promotions, Dillard’s terminated Mrs. Richard. Dillard’s also discriminated against Mrs. Richard in other job terms and conditions, including her termination. Dillard’s further subjected Mrs. Richard to a racially hostile working environment. Mrs. Richard filed a charge with the EEOC for Dillard’s race discrimination.
15. At all times relevant hereto, each Plaintiff was an “employee” and “individual” under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e et seq., as amended, and a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., as amended, who was subject to race discrimination by Defendant.
16. Defendant Dillard*s, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is authorized to do business in Missouri. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Dillard*s has employed 500 or more employees, and is an “employer” under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 17. Plaintiffs allege that, since at least 1994, Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination which subjects African-Americans to unlawful terms and conditions of employment that were different from similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees, including but not limited to, practices related to hiring, pay, promotional opportunities, a racially hostile environment, and job terms and conditions, all in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 18. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and a Class of similarly situated persons under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
7
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 7 of 27

19. The named Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of the following Class: All AfricanAmerican persons employed by Defendant Dillard’s who worked at any time since October 13, 1994 at Dillard’s Stores at St. Joseph, Springfield, Jefferson City, Columbia, Independence Center, Oak Park (north and south), Bannister, Mission, Indian Springs, Metro North, Ward Parkway, Topeka, or Mall of the Great Plains; AND All African-American applicants for employment at any of these same Stores during this same time period. Defendant Dillard’s Director of Stores/District Manager for more than ten years in the Region used racial slurs in reference to African American employees and customers, and he regularly exhibited to his direct managers his and Dillard’s racial hostility toward African-Americans. This Director of Stores/District Manager was the primary and/or final decision-maker in virtually employment pay and promotion decision in the Stores listed above. This Director of Stores/District Manager is also the Dillard’s Executive responsible for all Equal Employment Opportunity policies, practices, and issues for these Stores. Other Dillard’s Managers have similarly exhibited raciallydiscriminatory attitudes. Dillard’s was aware of this conduct by its upper level Executive for years, but did not terminate, suspend, or discipline in any way its Director of Stores/District Manager.
20. The African-Americans in the Class identified above are so numerous that joinder of all Members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are at least 1,000 Members of the Class.
21. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual Members.
22. The claims of the Representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class. 23. The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
8
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 8 of 27

Class.
24. Defendant has acted and/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.
25. A Class Action is manageable and is superior to other available methods for the
fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy described herein.
26. There are questions of law and fact common to this Class which predominate over
any questions solely affecting individual Members of the Class. The questions of law and fact
common to this Class include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Whether Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination with regard to hiring, pay, promotion, terms and conditions, and the creation of a hostile working environment;
b. Whether Federal Civil Rights laws were violated by Defendant’s policies, procedures, and practices;
c. Whether Defendant’s pattern and practice of discrimination amounted to purposeful discrimination;
d. Whether Defendant’s racially discriminatory policies and practices result in disparate impact and/or disparate treatment of African-Americans;
e. Whether Defendant subjected the Class of African-Americans to unlawful terms and conditions of employment that were different than those for similarly situated Caucasian employees, including pay, promotional opportunities, hostile environment, and job terms and conditions;
f. Whether the race of African-American employees was a motivating factor in Defendant’s class-wide decision to pay African-American employees at lower rates than similarly situated Caucasian employees;
g. Whether race was a motivating factor in Defendant’s common policy of denying African-Americans promotions and opportunities for advancement to management positions where such opportunities were made available to similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees;
h. Whether Defendant’s pattern and practice of discrimination has created a
9
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 9 of 27

racially-hostile environment for African-American employees; i. Whether Defendant adequately trains it managers with regard to hiring, pay,
promotion, and Equal Employment Opportunity issues: j. Whether Defendant’s racially discriminatory policies and practices
continue to affect its employees necessitating injunctive relief and monitoring by the Court; k. Whether Defendant’s actions were intentional, wilful, wanton, and/or in reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and Members of the Class; and, l. Whether, and in what amount, Defendant should be assessed punitive damages to punish the Defendant and deter others like Defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981
27. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein.
28. Defendant maintained and continues to maintain a pattern and practice of compensating African-American employees less than Caucasian employees who hold the same or similar job positions, or who hold job positions that entail similar or comparable responsibilities and duties.
29. As part of this discriminatory pattern and practice, Defendant has set lower starting salaries, raises, and other forms of compensation for African-American employees than for similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees.
30. Defendant has utilized salary ranges which are unfairly broad and unduly subjective, enabling Defendant to implement discriminatory pay practices. As part of this discriminatory pattern and practice, Defendant failed and continues to fail to maintain a salary pay scale based on objective, job-related criteria that is uniformly applied to African-American and
10
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 10 of 27

similarly situated Caucasian employees. 31. Plaintiffs and other African-Americans have been victims of Defendant’s pattern
and practice of racial discrimination in pay. 32. Defendant’s conduct with regard to compensation constitutes intentional
discrimination, with malice, against African-American employees such as Plaintiffs and all Class Members.
33. Defendant’s conduct with regard to compensation constitutes disparate treatment of African-American employees such as Plaintiffs and all Class Members, and Defendant’s conduct with regard to compensation has a disparate impact on African-American employees, including Plaintiffs and all Class Members.
DISCRIMINATION IN PROMOTIONS TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981
34. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein.
35. As part of its common pattern and practice, Defendant has discriminated against qualified African-American employees:
a. By denying those employees the opportunity for promotion and by refusing to promote qualified African-American employees into management positions;
b. By denying African-American employees the opportunity to be considered for promotion to management positions; and,
c. By not allowing African-Americans to acquire the experience and opportunities necessary to obtain the qualifications to be promoted.
11
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 11 of 27

36. As part of its practice of denying African-American employees the opportunity for promotion, Defendant’s promotion practices have been and still are based on subjective rather than objective, job-related criteria, and which are not uniformly applied to African-American and Caucasian employees.
37. Defendant maintains inadequate written policies, procedures, or guidelines with respect to promotion of its employees. The system employed by Defendant has involved subjective determinations which thereby render the system arbitrary, and such arbitrariness is and has been used as pretext for denying African-American employees promotions for which they are and were qualified.
38. As part of Defendant’s practice of denying African-American employees the opportunity for promotion, Defendant has also discriminated against African Americans:
a. By filling supervisory and managerial level job openings through word-ofmouth recruitment which is subjective and unfairly restricts the promotion of qualified African-Americans;
b. By generally failing to publicly post job openings for supervisory and managerial positions; and,
c. By failing to promote African-Americans to higher level managerial or supervisory jobs.
39. Defendant maintained and continues to maintain a pattern of racial discrimination in the terms and conditions of its employment by preventing African-American employees from obtaining the experience and opportunities necessary to become qualified for promotion. For instance, Defendant:
a. Has relegated African-Americans to jobs with less visibility, prestige, responsibility and prospects for promotion than those held by similarly situated or less qualified Caucasians;
b. Has denied African-Americans opportunities to be transferred to positions accorded to similarly situated or less qualified Caucasians, thus limiting the 12
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 12 of 27

opportunity for African-Americans to obtain promotions; and, c. Has manipulated Sale Per Hour requirements in a manner to deny African-
Americans opportunities for promotion. 40. Defendant has routinely violated and departed from the few enunciated policies and procedures it has with respect to promotion, including the supposed Sales Per Hour minimum eligibility requirement. Defendant commonly departs from its enunciated rules so that it could establish a pretextual basis to discriminate against African-American employees in promotion and/or so that it could favor Caucasian employees in promotion. 41. Plaintiffs and other African-Americans have been victims of Defendant’s pattern and practice of racial discrimination in promotion. Plaintiffs Danielle Wooten, Rosetta Smith, Murtydell Barnes, Kim Richard and other Plaintiffs and Class Members have not been promoted nor given the opportunity for promotion given by Defendant to similarly situated Caucasian employees. Defendant has never had an African-American Store Manager in any of the Stores within the Class Region. 42. Defendant’s conduct with regard to promotions constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiffs and all Class Members. 43. Defendant’s conduct with regard to promotions constitutes disparate treatment of African-American employees such as Plaintiffs and all Class Members, and Defendant’s conduct with regard to promotions has a disparate impact on African-American employees, including Plaintiffs and all Class Members.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981 44. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 43 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein.
13
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 13 of 27

45. Plaintiffs and other Class Members have also been subject to job terms and conditions different than those of similarly situated Caucasian employees.
46. Plaintiffs and other Class Members have been damaged by Defendant’s conduct. 47. Defendant’s conduct in racially discriminating as to job terms and conditions constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiffs and all Class Members. 48. Defendant’s conduct in racially discriminating as to job terms and conditions constitutes disparate treatment of African-American employees such as Plaintiffs and all Class Members, and Defendant’s conduct has a disparate impact on African-American employees, including Plaintiffs and all Class Members.
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981
49. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 48 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein.
50. Since at least October of 1994, Defendant has maintained a pervasive and vile atmosphere perpetuating discriminatory treatment of African-American employees. Plaintiffs and other employees have been subjected to a hostile work environment which is illustrated by the racially-hostile and racially-discriminatory actions and words of Director of Stores/District Manager Richard Eagan, all of which were tolerated by Defendant’s Division Headquarters in St. Louis and Defendant’s Home Office in Little Rock, Arkansas.
51. Defendant’s hostile environment is further illustrated by the targeting of AfricanAmerican employees and customers for allegations of shoplifting and the overall inferior treatment African-American employees and customers are provided by Defendant. Dillard’s security policy
14
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 14 of 27

has utilized racial profiles and has included the referencing of “suspicious blacks” as “Code 3s.” The Director of Stores was responsible for implementing Dillard’s security practices in the Stores in this Region.
52. Defendant’s pervasive atmosphere of discriminatory treatment affected and is affecting the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs’ and other African-American employees’ employment, and they have suffered and are still suffering damages from Defendant’s hostile work environment.
53. Plaintiffs and other Class Members have been damaged by Defendant’s conduct. 54. Defendant’s conduct in creating and maintaining a hostile work environment constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiffs and all Class Members. 55. Defendant’s conduct in creating and maintaining a hostile work environment constitutes disparate treatment of African-American employees such as Plaintiffs and all Class Members, and Defendant’s conduct has a disparate impact on African-American employees, including Plaintiffs and all Class Members.
DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981 56. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 55 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 57. Since at least October 13, 1994, Dillard’s has engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination with respect to hiring thereby seeking to limit or deny African-Americans employment with Dillard’s. Dillard’s purposefully and wilfully fails to hire African-Americans into management and employee positions, despite openings. Dillard’s fails to evaluate an individual’s true qualifications, instead utilizing discriminatory factors.
15
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 15 of 27

58. Plaintiffs and other Class Members have been damaged by Defendant’s conduct. 59. Defendant’s conduct with regard to hiring constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiffs and all Class Members. 60. Defendant’s conduct with regard to hiring constitutes disparate treatment of African-American employees such as Plaintiffs and all Class Members, and Defendant’s conduct has a disparate impact on African-American employees, including Plaintiffs and all Class Members.
ADDITIONAL FACTS AND CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF DANIELLE WOOTEN 61. Plaintiff Danielle Wooten hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 62. Plaintiff Wooten began working at Dillard’s Oak Park Mall Store in October of 1997. 63. Plaintiff Wooten has been denied pay and pay raises equal to those of similarly situated Caucasian employees at Dillard’s. 64. Plaintiff Wooten was denied employment at Dillard’s Oak Park Mall Store after having previously worked for Dillard’s and having left in good standing. 65. Plaintiff Wooten was given job and store assignments by Dillard’s based on her race. 66. Plaintiff Wooten was discriminatorily denied promotions by Dillard’s. 67. Plaintiff Wooten was subjected to a racially hostile environment at Dillard’s. 68. Plaintiff Wooten suffered retaliation by Dillard’s. 69. Plaintiff Wooten was constructively discharged by Dillard’s Bannister Mall Store
16
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 16 of 27

in February of 1999. 70. Plaintiff Wooten has been damaged by Defendant’s discriminatory conduct. 71. Defendant’s conduct with regard to Plaintiff Wooten constitutes intentional
discrimination, with malice. ADDITIONAL FACTS REGARDING
REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF ROSETTA SMITH 72. Plaintiff Rosetta Smith hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 72. Plaintiff Smith began working for Dillard’s in 1986 when she was already a Personnel Manager for a Store Dillard’s had acquire. Plaintiff is the only African-American to have ever held one of the top three management positions in a Dillard’s store in this region. 74. Plaintiff Smith has been denied pay and pay raises equal to those of similarly situated Caucasian employees at Dillard’s. 75. Plaintiff Smith suffered discriminatory job terms and conditions by Dillard’s based on her race. 76. Plaintiff Smith was discriminatorily denied promotions by Dillard’s. 77. Plaintiff Smith was subjected to a racially hostile environment at Dillard’s. 78. Plaintiff Smith was discriminatorily demoted and discriminatorily terminated by Dillard’s Director of Stores. 79. Plaintiff Smith has been damaged by Defendant’s discriminatory conduct. 80. Defendant’s conduct with regard to Plaintiff Smith constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice.
ADDITIONAL FACTS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF MURTYDELL BARNES
17
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 17 of 27

81. Plaintiff Murtydell Barnes hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 80 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein.
82. As a current sales associate, Plaintiff Barnes works behind a cosmetics counter at the Dillard*s store in the Ward Parkway Shopping Center, selling Estee Lauder cosmetics.
83 Plaintiff Barnes has performed her job duties satisfactorily or better at all times relevant hereto during her employment with Defendants. Plaintiff has received the Associate of the Month Award for the month of March 1998, a sales award for being one of the top ten salespersons in 1997, as well as other congratulatory letters from Defendant.
84. On or about May 11, 1998, Plaintiff Barnes expressed her interest in a promotion to the position of Counter Manager for Estee Lauder and Dillard*s at the Dillard*s store in the Ward Parkway Shopping Center. On or about September 4, 1998, Plaintiff was informed that she was not chosen for the promotion to the position of Counter Manager. Carrie Price was hired for the position of Counter Manager who, based on information and belief, was a female Caucasian and was significantly less experienced and less qualified than Plaintiff for the position of Counter Manager. The decision of Defendant not to promote Plaintiff to the position of Counter Manager was based upon Plaintiff’s race. Plaintiff was qualified for the position for which she applied. Plaintiff Barnes filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on or about November 2, 1998.
85. Thereafter, Carrie Price left her employment with Defendant, and Defendant had an available job opening of Counter Manager on several subsequent occasions for which Plaintiff Barnes was qualified for and which Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s interest. Plaintiff made inquiries about filling the position of Counter Manager to Mary Clopton, the Cosmetics Manager at Dillard*s, but Plaintiff was not reconsidered for the position of Counter Manager because of her race and in retaliation for filing her Charge of Discrimination. Plaintiff Barnes’ EEOC Charge of
18
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 18 of 27

Discrimination about Defendant’s unlawful, discriminatory employment practices was a lawfully protected activity. Defendant hired Delaina Renfro who, based on information and belief, was Caucasian and who was significantly less qualified and less experienced than Plaintiff, for the position of Counter Manager vacated by Carrie Price. Plaintiff’s race and her complaints about the unlawful employment practices of Defendant were motivating factors in Defendant’s actions toward Plaintiff in failing to promote Plaintiff to the position of Counter Manager instead of Delaina Renfro, subsequent to Plaintiff filing her Charge of Discrimination.
86. Delaina Renfro, who was hired for the position of Counter Manager, left her employment with Defendant after a few weeks, and Defendant again had an available job opening of Counter Manager. Plaintiff Barnes was qualified for the position, and Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s interest. Plaintiff again made inquiries about filling the position of Counter Manager to Mary Clopton, the Cosmetics Manager at Dillard*s, but Plaintiff was not reconsidered for the position of Counter Manager because of her race and in retaliation for filing her charge of discrimination. Defendant hired Marcia Stovall who, based on information and belief was Caucasian and was significantly less qualified and less experienced than Plaintiff, for the position of Counter Manager vacated by Delaina Renfro. Plaintiff’s race and her complaints about the unlawful employment practices of Defendant were motivating factors in Defendant’s actions toward Plaintiff in failing to promote Plaintiff to the position of Counter Manager instead of Marcia Stovall subsequent to Plaintiff filing her charge of discrimination.
87. Marcia Stovall, who was hired for the position of Counter Manager, left her employment with Defendant after several weeks, and Defendant again had an available job opening of Counter Manager for which Plaintiff Barnes was qualified for and for which Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s interest. Plaintiff again made inquiries about filling the position of
19
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 19 of 27

Counter Manager to Mary Clopton, the Cosmetics Manager at Dillard*s, but Plaintiff was not reconsidered for the position of Counter Manager because of her race and in retaliation for filing her charge of discrimination. Defendant again refused to promote Plaintiff Barnes. Plaintiff’s race and her complaints about the unlawful employment practices of Defendant were motivating factors in Defendant*s actions toward Plaintiff in failing to promote Plaintiff.
88. Lisa, who was hired for the position of Counter Manager, left her employment with Defendant after a few weeks, and Defendant again had an available job opening of Counter Manager for which Plaintiff Barnes was qualified for and for which Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s interest. Plaintiff’s race and her complaints about the unlawful employment practices of Defendant are motivating factors in Defendant’s actions toward Plaintiff in failing to promote Plaintiff to the position of Counter Manager vacated by Lisa, subsequent to Plaintiff filing her charge of discrimination.
89. The Counter Managers for Dillard*s are predominately Caucasian. 90. Defendant acted willfully, maliciously, with discriminatory intent, and with reckless disregard of Plaintiff Barnes’s rights. Defendant did not make any reasonable effort to determine whether the decision not to promote Plaintiff violates federal and state laws. 91. Plaintiff Barnes has been damaged by Defendant’s discriminatory conduct. 92. Defendant’s conduct with regard to Plaintiff Barnes constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice. 93. Plaintiff Barnes has exhausted all of her administrative remedies and prerequisites. Plaintiff filed timely charges of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), charge numbers 281990134 and 281990397 . Plaintiff received her Notices of Right to Sue from the EEOC on November 18, 1999 and
20
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 20 of 27

November 23, 1999. 94. Defendant has also maintained a pattern of retaliation designed to intimidate
African-American employees and deter them from objecting to Defendant’s discriminatory policies and practices. Defendant has frequently retaliated against African-Americans who assert their civil rights. Defendant has used this pattern of retaliation to intimidate African-American employees and deter them from asserting legal claims based on Defendant’s practices including those relating to pay, promotion, hostile environment, and other terms and conditions of employment.
95. Defendant has routinely refused to utilize and/or implement rules and procedures which are delineated as protections against retaliation and protections in the event of improper discipline or termination.
96. Plaintiff Barnes has been damaged by Defendant’s retaliatory conduct. 97. Defendant’s retaliatory conduct constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice.
ADDITIONAL FACTS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF MISTY EWING 98. Plaintiff Misty Ewing hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 97 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 99. Plaintiff Ewing worked at Dillard’s Oak Park Mall Store. 100. Plaintiff Ewing was denied pay and pay raises equal to those of similarly situated Caucasian employees at Dillard’s. 101. Plaintiff Ewing was subjected to a racially hostile environment at Dillard’s, including being forcibly detained and falsely accused of theft. 102. Plaintiff Ewing suffered retaliation by Dillard’s.
21
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 21 of 27

103. Plaintiff Ewing was discriminatorily terminated by Dillard’s. 104. Plaintiff Ewing has been damaged by Defendant’s discriminatory conduct. 105. Defendant’s conduct with regard to Plaintiff Ewing constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice.
ADDITIONAL FACTS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF BETTY KING 106. Plaintiff Betty King hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 105 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 107. Plaintiff King worked at Dillard’s Oak Park Mall Store. 108. Plaintiff King was denied pay and pay raises equal to those of similarly situated Caucasian employees at Dillard’s. 109. Plaintiff King was denied promotional opportunities equal to those of similarly situated Caucasian employees at Dillard’s. 110. Plaintiff King was subjected to a racially hostile environment at Dillard’s. 111. Plaintiff King was discriminatorily terminated by Dillard’s. 112. Plaintiff King has been damaged by Defendant’s discriminatory conduct. 113. Defendant’s conduct with regard to Plaintiff King constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice.
ADDITIONAL FACTS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF NYCOLE PRICE 114. Plaintiff Betty King hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 113 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 115. Plaintiff Price worked at Dillard’s Oak Park Mall Store. 116. Plaintiff Price was denied pay and pay raises equal to those of similarly
22
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 22 of 27

situated Caucasian employees at Dillard’s. 117. Plaintiff Price was denied promotional opportunities equal to those of similarly
situated Caucasian employees at Dillard’s. 118. Plaintiff Price was subjected to a racially hostile environment at Dillard’s. 119. Plaintiff Price suffered discriminatory job terms and conditions, including job
assignments based on race. 120. Plaintiff Price was discriminatorily terminated by Dillard’s. 121. Plaintiff Price has been damaged by Defendant’s discriminatory conduct. 122. Defendant’s conduct with regard to Plaintiff Price constitutes intentional
discrimination, with malice. ADDITIONAL FACTS REGARDING
REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF LORITA THOMPSON 123. Plaintiff Lorita Thompson hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 122 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 124. Plaintiff Thompson worked at Dillard’s Ward Parkway Mall Store in 1996 and 1997. During her training, when a group of African-Americans walked by, plaintiff Thompson was told “we were told to watch those people.” 125. Plaintiff Thompson was paid less than similarly situated Caucasian employees, and she was not offered the management opportunities offered to similarly situated Caucasian employees.. 126. Plaintiff Thompson was subjected to a racially hostile environment at Dillard’s. 127 Plaintiff Thompson suffered discriminatory job terms and conditions at Dillard’s. 128. Plaintiff Thompson has been damaged by Defendant’s discriminatory conduct. 129. Defendant’s conduct with regard to Plaintiff Thompson constitutes intentional
23
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 23 of 27

discrimination, with malice. ADDITIONAL FACTS REGARDING
REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF KIM RICHARD 130. Plaintiff Kim Richard hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 130 of this Second Amended Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 131. Plaintiff Richard worked at Dillard’s Ward Parkway Store for eight years, including many years as a department manager 132. Plaintiff Richard was denied pay and pay raises equal to those of similarly situated Caucasian employees at Dillard’s. 133. Plaintiff Richard was denied promotion opportunities equal to those of similarly situated Caucasian employees at Dillard’s and was passed over for promotions to Area Sales Manager on at least three occasions. 134. Plaintiff Richard was subjected to a racially hostile environment at Dillard’s. 135. Plaintiff Richard was subjected to a racially discriminatory job terms and conditions at Dillard’s. 136. Plaintiff Richard was discriminatorily terminated by Dillard’s. 137. Plaintiff Richard has been damaged by Defendant’s discriminatory conduct. 138. Defendant’s conduct with regard to Plaintiff Richard constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class respectfully request that this Court grant the following relief: 1. Certify this case as a Class Action.
24
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 24 of 27

2. Enter a judgment pursuant to jury verdict(s) that the acts and practices of Defendant complained of herein constitute a pattern and practice of race discrimination in violation of the laws of the United States.
3. Grant Plaintiffs and the Class declaratory relief and equitable relief enjoining Defendants from discriminatory acts and practices and monitoring Defendant’s compliance with anti-discrimination laws, along with such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper.
4. Pursuant to jury verdict(s) 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.
5. Award Plaintiffs and the Class, pursuant to jury verdict(s), other nominal damages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.
6. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action, including the fees and costs of experts, together with reasonable attorneys' fees.
7. Grant an Order restraining Defendant from any retaliation against any Plaintiff or Class Member for participation in any form in this litigation.
25
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 25 of 27

Respectfully Submitted,
KLAMANN & HUBBARD, P.A.
By:__/s/____________________________ John M. Klamann, MO #29335 Dirk Hubbard, MO #37936 7101 College Blvd. Suite 120 Overland Park, KS 66210 (913) 327-7600 Fax: (913) 327-7800
SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHARTERED Stephen R. Bough, MO #46239 4551 West 107th Street, Suite 355 Overland Park, KS 66207 (913) 642-0600 Fax: (913) 642-9629
SANDERS, SIMPSON, FLETCHER, & SMITH, LLC Michael R. Fletcher, MO #47495 1125 Grand Ave. Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 471-6444 Fax: (816) 471-6664
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
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND ALL OTHER CLASS MEMBERS
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
26
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 26 of 27

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.
KLAMANN & HUBBARD, P.A.
By:_____/s/_________________________ John M. Klamann, MO #29335 Dirk Hubbard, MO #37936 7101 College Blvd. Suite 120 Overland Park, KS 66210 (913) 327-7600 Fax: (913) 327-7800
SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHARTERED Stephen R. Bough, MO #46239 4551 West 107th Street, Suite 355 Overland Park, KS 66207 (913) 642-0600 Fax: (913) 642-9629
SANDERS, SIMPSON, FLETCHER, & SMITH, LLC Michael R. Fletcher, MO #47495 Dan Craig 1125 Grand Ave. Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 471-6444 Fax: (816) 471-6664
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
27
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 90 Filed 06/01/00 Page 27 of 27

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

DANIELLE WOOTEN, MURTYDELL )

BARNES, MISTY EWING, BETTY

)

KING, NYCOLE PRICE, KIM

)

RICHARD, ROSETTA SMITH, and )

LORITA THOMPSON, Individually and )

as Representatives of a class of

)

similarly situated individuals,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

DILLARD’S, INC., d/b/a Dillard’s

)

Department Stores,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 99-0990-CV-W-3-ECF

ORDER EXPRESSING THE COURT’S PRELIMINARY VIEWS OF THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The parties have submitted reached a settlement that calls for the Court, among other things, to preliminarily approve certification of a plaintiff class and dissemination of notice to the class that the matter has been settled. The Court has completed its initial review of the materials submitted by the parties, and they can expect that the Court will issue its preliminary approval once the following matters have been addressed: 1. The Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement (the parties’
Exhibit B) should be amended to contain the correct caption (which appears at the top of this Order), including particularly (a) a complete listing of the named plaintiffs and (b) the correct case number. 2. The Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement should be amended to clearly disclose the number of individuals who will be seeking a special award of $100,000. In addition, the amount of the award that each will

Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 138 Filed 07/17/01 Page 1 of 2

be seeking must be disclosed. Finally, the parties should submit the revised notice to the Court for final review 3. The Stipulation and Settlement Agreement shall be amended to require the Settlement Administrator’s faithful performance be guaranteed by a surety approved by the Court in a form approved by the Court. Alternatively, the parties may agree to eliminate the “hold harmless provision” appearing as the last sentence of paragraph 29 of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. The parties shall also submit a revised agreement to the Court for final review. 4. The parties shall supply the Court with a computer disk containing a copy of the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement. Once these matters are attended to, the parties can expect the Court to issue the preliminary order as promptly as is possible.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: July 17, 2001

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith ORTRIE D. SMITH, JUDGE

2 Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 138 Filed 07/17/01 Page 2 of 2

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

DANIELLE WOOTEN,

)

MURTYDELL BARNES,

)

MISTY EWING,

)

BETTY KING,

)

NYCOLE PRICE,

)

KIM RICHARD,

)

ROSETTA SMITH,

)

LORITA THOMPSON,

)

Individually, and as

)

Class Representatives,

)

Plaintiffs, )

vs.

)

)

DILLARD’S INC. d/b/a DILLARD’S

)

DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,

)

Defendant )

.

Case No. 99-0990-CV-W-3-ECF

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Following months of negotiations among counsel for the parties to this action,

during which period the parties used the service of a Court-appointed mediator to

facilitate their settlement discussions, the Plaintiffs, individually and as Class

Representatives, and Defendant Dillard’s, Inc. (“Dillard’s”) have entered into a

Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, including Exhibits thereto, dated July 5, 2001,

and an Addendum to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, including Exhibits thereto,

dated July 31, 2001 (collectively referred to herein as the “Settlement Agreement”), all

subject to the Court’s approval and determination of the fairness, reasonableness and

adequacy of the settlement. If approved, the settlement would result in the dismissal of

the action with prejudice.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the following has occurred:

(a)

Plaintiffs have moved the Court to certify a class for settlement

purposes (the “Settlement Class”), to consist of:

Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 141 Filed 07/31/01 Page 1 of 10

All African-Americans who were employed by Dillard’s in any of the following stores: Bannister Mall, Columbia, Independence Center, Indian Springs, Jefferson City, Mall of the Great Plains, Manhattan, Metro North, Mission Mall, Oak Park Mall, St. Joseph, Springfield, Topeka, and/or Ward Parkway (the “Class Stores”), at any time from October 13, 1994 to January 31, 2001. The Class does not include persons who have previously entered into a written settlement agreement releasing the claims released herein.
Defendant has stipulated to the proposed certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; and
(b) Plaintiffs and Defendant have asked the Court to preliminarily approve the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the form of notices to be mailed to members of the Settlement Class and to be published.
The Court has reviewed and considered the terms of the Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class for settlement purposes, and the parties’ joint motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.
NOW, UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE PARTIES HERETO, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are preliminarily approved, subject to final consideration thereof at the Settlement Hearing described in paragraph 13 of this Order. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is the product of arms-length negotiations between counsel for the parties and was concluded after each of the parties had reasonable opportunity to explore the factual and legal bases of the claims and defenses asserted in the action. The Court further concludes that the Settlement Agreement is sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate to warrant sending notice of the action and the settlement thereof to the Class and to schedule a full hearing on the merits of the proposed settlement.
2
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 141 Filed 07/31/01 Page 2 of 10

2. Preliminary Class Certification. This action is preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, under subparagraphs (a) and (b)(3) of Rule 23, solely for the purpose of considering and acting on the proposed settlement. For settlement purposes only, this action shall be maintained as a class action on behalf of the following Settlement Class:
All African-Americans who were employed by Dillard’s in any of the following stores: Bannister Mall, Columbia, Independence Center, Indian Springs, Jefferson City, Mall of the Great Plains, Manhattan, Metro North, Mission Mall, Oak Park Mall, St. Joseph, Springfield, Topeka, and/or Ward Parkway, at any time from October 13, 1994, to January 31, 2001. The Class does not include persons who have previously entered into a written settlement agreement releasing the claims released herein.
3. Class Representatives. The Court designates for settlement purposes the following individuals as Class Representatives in this case: Danielle Wooten, Murtydell Barnes, Misty Ewing, Betty King, Nycole Price, Kim Richard, Rosetta Smith, and Lorita Thompson.
4. Class Counsel. The Court designates for settlement purposes the following attorneys and law firms as counsel to represent the Settlement Class in this action:
KLAMANN & HUBBARD, P.A. John M. Klamann Dirk L. Hubbard 7101 College Blvd., Suite 120 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 327-7600 Telecopier: (913) 327-7800
SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHARTERED Lynn Johnson Stephen R. Bough 4551 W. 107 Street, Suite 355 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 642-0600 Telecopier: (913) 642-9629
3
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 141 Filed 07/31/01 Page 3 of 10

SANDERS, SIMPSON, FLETCHER, & SMITH, P.C. Michael R. Fletcher Dan Craig 1125 Grand Ave., Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 471-6444 Telecopier:(816) 471-6664
THE POPHAM LAW FIRM Dennis Egan Bert S. Braud 323 West 8th Street Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 221-2288 Telecopier: (816) 221-3999
MARGOLIN LAW FIRM James S. Margolin 4520 Madison Avenue, Suite 220 Kansas City, MO 64111 (816) 753-3838 (816) 753-3842 (fax)
5. Settlement Administrator. Class Counsel are authorized to retain Rust Consulting, Inc. or comparable class action settlement administrator as the Settlement Administrator in this action to act pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
6. Findings. Based upon the pleadings and the information and materials submitted in support of plaintiffs’ motion to certify the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, the Court finds as follows:
(a) The Class Representatives will fairly and adequately represent the Settlement Class;
(b) Class Counsel collectively are experienced trial lawyers with class action experience and may reasonably be expected to fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Settlement Class;
4
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 141 Filed 07/31/01 Page 4 of 10

(c) The Class consists of approximately three thousand individuals and their identity may be ascertained by Class Counsel from Dillard’s records;
(d) The Settlement Class, as conditionally certified herein for settlement purposes only, meets the numerosity, commonality, typicality and preponderance requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
(e) Certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy; and
(f) The Notices attached as Exhibits B and C to the Settlement Agreement are reasonably calculated to apprise Members of the Settlement Class of each of the following: (1) the pendency of the action and the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (2) the right of Members of the Settlement Class to object to the proposed settlement or request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (3) the procedures for Settlement Class Members to request exclusion from the Settlement Class or to object to the terms of the proposed settlement; (4) that any judgment, whether favorable or not, will bind all Settlement Class Members who do not request exclusion in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice; and (5) that any Settlement Class Member who does not request exclusion may object to the settlement. The mailing and publication of Notice as provided herein is the best practicable notice under the circumstances, and comports with due process, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the United States Constitution.
7. Notice. (a) The Settlement Administrator shall, on or before August 31, 2001, send a copy of the Notice, in the form attached as Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement, to each Member of the Settlement Class identified on the Verified List of employees provided to Class Counsel by Dillard’s, by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each such Settlement Class Member’s last known mailing address. The
5
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 141 Filed 07/31/01 Page 5 of 10

Notice shall be mailed in envelopes bearing the return address “Clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, P.O. Box ___” and stating “Please Forward.” Class Counsel shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that each Settlement Class Member receives a copy of the Notice. Within five (5) days after mailing of the Notice, Class Counsel shall supply Dillard’s with information relating to the mailing of Notice to the Settlement Class in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
(b) As soon as practicable after August 31, 2001, the Settlement Administrator and/or Class Counsel shall use best efforts to cause to be published in the Kansas City Star a summary Notice in the form attached as Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement.
(c) 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 disputes concerning employment duration, and for the receipt of written objections to the Settlement. No later than 7 days after the deadlines set out in paragraph 11, the Settlement Administrator shall provide to Counsel for Dillard’s copies of all written objections, all written disputes of employment duration, and all opt-out requests. A list of all Settlement Class Members who have properly and timely opted out of the Class shall be filed with the District Court under seal prior to the Settlement Hearing.
8. On or before August 31, 2001, Class Counsel shall file and serve their applications for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs and expenses, and special awards to the Class Representatives.
9. On or before October 15, 2001, Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator shall file and serve an affidavit detailing the efforts made to provide Notice to all Members of the Settlement Class and advising of the status of those efforts.
6
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 141 Filed 07/31/01 Page 6 of 10

10. Pending the hearing for final approval of the Settlement, the parties and their counsel shall use their best efforts to comply in all respects with the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
11. Opt Outs. (a) Settlement Class Members who wish to be excluded from the
Settlement Class must make a written request mailed to the Clerk of the District Court of the Western District of Missouri, at the address arranged by Class Counsel as described in paragraph 7(c), above, with a copy to Class Counsel addressed to Dirk Hubbard, Klamann & Hubbard, P.A., 7101 College Blvd., Suite 120, Overland Park, Kansas and a copy to Counsel for Dillard’s addressed to Michael P. Burke, Bryan Cave LLP, 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600, St. Louis, Missouri 63102. In order to be valid, any requests to be excluded from the Settlement Class must contain the name and number of this case, be signed by the person who wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class, state that the person wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class, and be postmarked on or before October 1, 2001. Any Class Member who fails to comply with the provisions of this paragraph shall waive and forfeit any and all rights he or she may have to be excluded from the Settlement Class and shall be bound by all the terms of this Settlement Agreement and by all proceedings, orders and judgments in this action.
(b) Objectors. Settlement Class Members who wish to object to the Settlement or to the applications of Class Counsel for fees, costs and expenses, and/or special awards must do so in writing bearing the name and number of the action, and mailed to the Clerk of the District Court of the Western District of Missouri, at , at the address arranged by Class Counsel as described in paragraph 7(c), above, with copy to Class Counsel addressed to Dirk Hubbard, Klamann & Hubbard, P.A., 7101 College Blvd., Suite 120, Overland Park, Kansas 66210 and a copy to Counsel for Dillard’s addressed to Michael P. Burke, Bryan Cave LLP, 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600, St. Louis, Missouri 63102. In order to be acted on, any objection to the Settlement Agreement or to the applications of Class Counsel must be postmarked on or before October 1, 2001. Any Settlement Class Member who files and serves a
7
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 141 Filed 07/31/01 Page 7 of 10

written objection, as described above, may appear at the final approval hearing, either in person or through personal counsel hired at the Settlement Class Member’s expense, to object to the proposed Settlement, or to the award of attorney’s fees, costs and expenses and/or special awards; provided, however, that Settlement Class Members or their attorneys intending to make an appearance at the final approval hearing must mail to the Court and to Class Counsel and Counsel for Dillard’s, postmarked no later than October 1, 2001, a notice of intention to appear at the final approval hearing. Any objection to the Settlement or to the applications of Class Counsel which is not made in conformity with these requirements shall be null and void. Any Class Member who fails to comply with the provisions of this paragraph shall waive and forfeit any and all rights he or she may have to appear separately and to object, and shall be bound by all the terms of this Settlement Agreement and by all proceedings, orders and judgments in this action.
12. Preliminary Injunction. All Settlement Class Members who have not timely and properly elected to be excluded from the Class are hereby preliminarily enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting, maintaining, intervening in, participating in (as class members or otherwise), or receiving any benefits from any other lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative, regulatory or other 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 Compromised Claims (as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement). In addition, all other persons, their agents, servants, and attorneys who receive actual notice of the Order by personal service or otherwise are hereby preliminarily enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting or maintaining any other lawsuit as a class action (including by seeking to amend a pending complaint to include class allegations, or by seeking class certification in a pending action in any jurisdiction) on behalf of Settlement Class Members who have not timely and properly elected to be excluded from the Settlement Class, if such other class action is based on or relates to any of the claims and causes of action, or the facts and circumstances relating thereto, in this action and/or the Compromised Claims (as that term is defined
8
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 141 Filed 07/31/01 Page 8 of 10

in the Settlement Agreement). The Court finds that issuance of this preliminary injunction is necessary and appropriate in aid of the Court’s jurisdiction over this action.
13. Hearing. A hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) shall be held on November 30, 2001, at 1:00 p.m. to determine the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement, whether the Settlement should be finally approved, whether the Settlement Class should be finally certified for settlement purposes, whether an injunction should be entered against Settlement Class Members who do not opt out, whether Class Counsel’s applications for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs and expenses and special awards to Class Representatives should be approved, and whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice. At that time or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Court will 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, litigation costs and expenses, and special awards to Class Representatives. The Settlement Hearing may be postponed, adjourned or continued by the Court without further notice to the Settlement Class.
14. All proceedings in this action other than such as may be necessary to carry out the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement or the responsibilities incidental thereto are stayed and suspended until further Order of this Court.
15. Upon consummation and approval of the settlement provided for in the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Agreement and each and every term and provision thereof shall be deemed incorporated herein as if explicitly set forth and shall have the full force and effect of an Order of this Court.
16. If the settlement is terminated for any reason whatsoever, the Settlement Agreement and all proceedings had in connection therewith shall be without prejudice to the status quo ante of the parties to the action, the parties shall stand in the same position as to every issue of fact and law (including whether a class may be certified) as they did on the date of execution of the Settlement Agreement as though the
9
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 141 Filed 07/31/01 Page 9 of 10

Settlement Agreement had never been entered into and this Order had never been issued, and this Order and any other Order(s) issued pursuant to the Settlement Agreement shall be vacated and of no further force and effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: July 31, 2001

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

10
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 141 Filed 07/31/01 Page 10 of 10

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

DANIELLE WOOTEN, Plaintiff,
vs. DILLARD’S, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 99-0990-CV-W-3-ECF

)

)

)

)

ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN LIGHT OF PENDING SETTLEMENT

In light of the pending settlement, all pending motions that are not related to the settlement process (Document Numbers 58, 93, 95, 112, 113, 114, and 122) are denied without prejudice to their being refiled or reinstated as may be necessary in the event the settlement is not finalized.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: August 21, 2001

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

Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 142 Filed 08/21/01 Page 1 of 1

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

DANIELLE WOOTEN,

)

ROSETTA SMITH,

)

MISTY EWING,

)

MURTYDELL BARNES,

)

BETTY KING,

)

NYCOLE PRICE,

)

LORITA THOMPSON, and

)

KIM RICHARD,

)

On Behalf of Themselves and All )

Others Similarly Situated,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

DILLARD’S, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 99-0990-CV-W-3-ECF

CONDITIONAL FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

On July 5, 2001, Plaintiffs Danielle Wooten, Murtydell Barnes, Misty Ewing, Betty King,

Nycole Price, Kim Richard, Rosetta Smith and Lorita Thompson (“Plaintiffs” or “Class

Representatives”), acting on behalf of themselves and the putative class in the above-captioned action

(the “Action”), entered into a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and an Addendum thereto

(collectively referred to as the “Settlement Agreement”) in settlement of all claims in the Action (the

“Settlement”) with Defendant Dillard’s Inc. (“Dillard’s”), and thereafter applied to this Court for

approval of the Settlement pursuant to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P.

By Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement dated July 31, 2001 (the

“Preliminary Order”), this Court, pursuant to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., granted preliminary approval

to Plaintiff’s motion to certify a class for settlement purposes only, such class (the “Settlement Class”)

to consist of::

Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 1 of 13

All African-Americans who were employed by Dillard’s at Bannister Mall, Columbia, Independence Center, Indian Springs, Jefferson City, Mall of the Great Plains, Manhattan, Metro North, Mission Mall, Oak Park Mall, St. Joseph, Springfield, Topeka and/or Ward Parkway (the “Class Stores”) at any time fromOctober 13, 1994 to January 31, 2001. The Class does not include persons who have previously entered into a written settlement agreement releasing the Claims released here. The Court also preliminarily approved Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and the selection of counsel for the Settlement Class (“Class Counsel”). Pursuant to the Preliminary Order, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement and scheduled a Settlement Hearing for November 30, 2001 to determine, among other things, whether the proposed Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate. This Court ordered Class Counsel to provide notice to all persons in the Settlement Class and approved the form of the notices to be published and to be mailed to Settlement Class Members. As attested in the Affidavit of the Settlement Administrator and the Affidavit of Class Counsel, both filed with this Court on or about October 12, 2001, the provisions of the Preliminary Order and the Settlement Agreement regarding mailing and publication of the Notices have been satisfied. Class Counsel filed Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Final Certification of the Class (“Fairness Brief”), Application for Special Awards for Class Representatives, and Final Approval of the Proposed Class Settlement, including application for special awards to the Representative Plaintiffs, on or about November 14, 2001. Class Counsel filed its Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses on or about August 28, 2001. As attested in the Affidavit of the Settlement Administrator, no objections to the Settlement have been received, and no one requested a right to appear or an opportunity to be heard at the Settlement Hearing that was previously scheduled for November 30, 2001. There being no filed requests to appear, the parties then suggested that a hearing
2
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 2 of 13

was no longer necessary. However, on November 19, 2001, the Court denied the parties’ informal request to cancel the hearing and outlined several issues the Court believed required further explanation and justification. One of those issues related to the amount of the Special Awards to be awarded to the Class Representatives.
Following the Court’s November 19 Order, Plaintiffs informally submitted a letter intended to address the Court’s concerns. A telephone conference was held with the parties on November 28. Plaintiffs’ counsel were given an opportunity to present any information or arguments they desired regarding the propriety of the Special Awards. At the conclusion of the conference, the parties were told that if they were satisfied with what had been presented and had no desire to offer anything at a hearing, there would be no need to appear on November 30. The parties were also told that if they wished to augment their arguments with additional authority or evidence, they could do so; either way, the undersigned would be available in the event anyone appeared for the hearing. Plaintiffs elected to submit a letter further detailing their justifications, which was received on November 29. The named parties did not appear on November 30; neither did any Class Members.
As the Court has stated, and as the November 19 Order reflects, the focus of the Court’s concern is the amount of the Special Awards. The justifications for awarding class representatives a special award are well-documented, are not disputed, and need not be recounted here. However, even though none of the Class Members objected, the Court still has an independent obligation to insure that the settlement is fair. The lack of objections is simply one factor to consider in conducting a fairness inquiry. In this case, the lack of objections is insufficient to justify Special Awards in the amount sought in this case.
Under the settlement, the Class Members will receive (at a minimum) between $500 and $6000 depending upon their length of employment with Defendant. The settlement calls for the Class
3
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 3 of 13

Representatives to received Specials Awards of $100,000 each in addition to the amount awarded under the formula for compensating Class Members – or, more than 16.5 times the highest possible award to a Class Member.
There are three factors to be considered in evaluating a special award to a class representative: “(1) the action taken by the Class Representatives to protect the interests of Class Members and others and whether these actions resulted in a substantial benefit to Class Members; (2) whether the Class Representatives assumed substantial direct and indirect financial risk; and (3) the amount of time and effort spent by the Class Representatives in pursuing the litigation.” Enterprise Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 137 F.R.D. 240, 250 (S.D. Ohio 1991) (cited with approval in White v. National Football League, 41 F.3d 402, 408 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied 515 U.S. 1137 (1995)). Plaintiffs also point to the fact that some of them (but not all of them) advanced other claims that were not premised on race discrimination and surrendered them as part of the settlement. The Court agrees that this is a factor to be considered (although it does not apply to all of the Class Representatives; Plaintiffs’ argument would justify a larger special award only for those Class Representatives who had other claims to surrender). Plaintiffs also suggest that the risk factor identified in Enterprise Energy is greater in an employment case than, for example, in a consumer or shareholder suit because the plaintiff in a civil rights case often has a continuing employment relationship with the defendant. This also seems reasonable, but not all of the Class Representatives continued working for Defendant during the pendency of this case. Finally, the Court notes that the third factor should be of diminished value because time spent by a plaintiff in depositions, reviewing documents, and so forth is an ordinary part of litigation. This factor is helpful in justifying an award, but it is not particularly helpful in establishing the amount of the award.
A comparison to other employment class action cases demonstrates the Special Awards 4
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 4 of 13

proposed in this case are excessive. In Leuvano v. Campbell, 93 F.R.D. 68 (D.D.C. 1981), the
settlement called for the class members to receive $3,000. The court approved Special Awards in
the amount of $8,500, and the representatives did not receive the $3,000 award. In Women’s
Committee for Equal Employment Opportunity v. National Broadcasting Co., 76 F.R.D. 173 (S.D.N.Y.
1977), each class member received an average of $200 in backpay while the class representatives
were to receive approximately $10,625. As in Leuvano, the class representatives did not receive a
distribution from the fund earmarked for the class members. InHuguleyv. General Motors Corp., 128
F.R.D. 81 (E.D. Mich. 1989), the class members were to receive between $800 and $1,200, while
“an additional group of eighty-eight named potential and anecdotal witnesses and named plaintiffs”
would share a pool of $322,496 – for an average of less than $3,700. 128 F.R.D. at 85.
Two other cases deserve special mention. In Ingram v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 200 F.R.D.
685 (N.D. Ga. 2001) the court approved $300,000 for each class representative and $38,000 for class
members. Despite the large sum awarded to the class representatives, it is less than eight times the
amount recovered by each class member. In addition, the record documented the unique nature of the
class representatives’ contributions:
A great deal of evidence has been presented to the Court regarding the unique and extraordinary contribution these four individuals made to the investigation, prosecution, and settlement of this case. That factual showing is bolstered by the testimony of Class Counsel and the mediator, who uniformly agreed that in no prior case within their experience had Class Representatives been as involved with the litigation as in this case. Of note is the fact that the four Class Representatives in this case directly participated in the mediation process and vigorously asserted the interests of the class, as Class Counsel and the mediator attested. Further, the Class Representatives took risks, bore hardships, and made sacrifices that absent class members did not. Significantly, the Class Representatives have agreed never to seek re-employment with Coca-Cola.
200 F.R.D. at 694. In this case, the Class Representatives eschewed their opportunity to make a
record, preferring instead to rely upon the general principle that class representatives are entitled to
5
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 5 of 13

special awards because of their work in this matter. As noted earlier, this justifies an award but absent some showing of uniqueness it does not justify an award that is more than sixteen times that granted to class members.
In Roberts v. Texaco, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 185 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), the court approved special awards ranging from$2,500 to $85,000; the highestaward was justified byfacts demonstrating actual hardships experienced by that class representative during the pendency of the suit. Meanwhile, the average class member was expected to receive a sum between $60,000 and $80,000, and some would receive pay increases as well, demonstrating a rather reasonable ratio between the special awards and the monetary benefits to the class members. In this case, the Class Representatives have not made a particularized showing of hardship or other harm actually realized from the “risk” of their continued employment. The mere possibility of retribution or harassment is much less significant than the showing in Roberts, and cannot justify an unusually large award.
The extremely high ratio between the Special Awards sought and the highest possible recovery for class members, coupled with the lack of any particularized showing that the Class Representatives’ experiences in their roles was any different than the norm results in the conclusion that the Special Awards are excessive. The Court will approve special awards of $50,000 per Class Representative, conditioned upon the parties’ acceptance of the settlement on these terms, which follow in greater detail.1 The parties (Class Representatives and Defendant) shall have twenty-one days to file2 notice
1The balance of the money originally earmarked for the Special Awards will be placed in the Employee Allocation Fund and distributed to the class members in accordance with paragraph 40 of the Settlement Agreement.
2The Court emphasizes this point because there has been a disturbing trend toward presenting information to the Court via letter. This case is a class action, and it therefore possesses a heightened public interest, so the use of “off the record” means of communicating with the Court is particularly inappropriate.
6
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 6 of 13

of their acceptance; if all parties file their notices of acceptance, this order will become final and binding.
In accordance with the foregoing discussion, it is conditionally adjudged and decreed as follows:
1. This Courthas subject matter jurisdiction over all claims of all Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members asserted in the Action, subject matter jurisdiction to approve the Settlement Agreement, and personal jurisdiction over all parties to the Action, including the Class Representatives and all other Members of the Settlement Class.
2. This Action is certified for settlement purposes only as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3). In light of the Settlement and the parties’ stipulations thereto, the Court finds and concludes that the Settlement Class meets the numerosity, commonality, typicality and preponderance requirements of the statute, and that certification of the Class is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
3. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs fully and adequately represent the interests of the Members of the Class. The Court further finds that Class Counsel collectively are experienced class action practitioners and have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of the Class.
4. The Class Notice for mailing, the SummaryNotice for publicationand the methodology set forth in the Settlement Agreement for notifying Settlement Class Members (i)constitute the best practicable notice; (ii) constitute notice that is reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the Action, their right to object or exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement and their right to appear at the final Approval hearing; (iii) are reasonable and constitute due, adequate and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice; and (iv) meet all applicable requirements of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
7
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 7 of 13

United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause) and any other applicable law. 5. The proposed Settlement, as provided in the Settlement Agreement and as modified
earlier in this order, is fair, reasonable and adequate, consistent and in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), and any other applicable law, and is in the best interests of the Settlement ClassMembers. No objections to this Class Action Settlement were filed. The parties and their counsel are directed to implement and to consummate the Settlement in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement as modified herein. If the parties agree to the conditions imposed on page 6 of this order, the Settlement Agreement and this order will be binding on the Class Representatives and all other Settlement Class Members (other than the one person who requested exclusion), as well as their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, mortgagees, lienholders and assigns, and anyone claiming through or under them, and shall have res judicata, collateral estoppel, and all other preclusive effect in all pending and future claims, lawsuits, or other proceedings, including all forms of alternative dispute resolution, maintained by or on behalf of any such persons, to the extent those claims, lawsuits or other proceedings involved matters that were or could have been raised in this Action or were otherwise encompassed by the Release set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
6. The Class Representatives, Settlement Class Members and Dillard’s shall consummate the Settlement according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement as modified herein. The Settlement Agreement and each and every term and provision thereof shall be deemed incorporated herein as if explicitly set forth and shall have the full force and effect of an order of this Court.
7. The person who has requested exclusion from the Settlement Class is listed on the attached Exhibit A (filed under seal) and shall not be subject to the terms of the Settlement nor
8
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 8 of 13

participate in the Settlement nor receive any benefits provided under the Settlement, and is not bound by this Final Order and Judgment.
8. Each Class Representative and each Settlement Class Member, and their respective heirs, administrators, successors and assigns, hereby release and forever discharge the Dillard’s Releases (as defined in the Settlement Agreement and repeated on Exhibit B hereto) from all Compromised Claims (as defined in the Settlement Agreement and repeated on Exhibit B hereto), and covenant not to sue the Dillard’s Releasees on any and all Compromised Claims.
9. All Settlement Class Members except the individual listed on Exhibit A (who elected to be excluded fromthe Class) are herebyenjoined fromfiling, commencing, prosecuting, maintaining, intervening in, participating in (as class members or otherwise), or receiving any benefits from any other lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative, regulatory or other 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 Compromised Claims (as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement and repeated on Exhibit B attached hereto). In addition, all other persons, their agents, servants, and attorneys who receive actual notice of the Final Order and Judgment by personal service or otherwise are hereby preliminarily enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting or maintaining any other lawsuit as a class action (including by seeking to amend a pending complaint to include class allegations, or by seeking class certification in a pending action in any jurisdiction) on behalf of Settlement Class Members who have not timely and properly elected to be excluded from the Settlement Class, if such other class action is based on or relates to any of the claims and causes of action, or the facts and circumstances relating thereto, in this Action and/or the Compromised Claims (as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement and repeated on Exhibit B hereto).
9
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 9 of 13

10. If the parties accept the conditions imposed bythe Court, this Actionwill be dismissed with prejudice without an award of Court costs except as provided in the Settlement Agreement and approved herein, and all Compromised Claims, as defined in the Settlement Agreement and repeated on Exhibit B hereto, are hereby extinguished.
11. Jurisdiction is hereby retained as to all matters related to administration, consummation and enforcement of the Settlement hereby approved, including, without limitation, issues of compliance or non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the Settlement.
12. Neither this Final Order and Judgment nor any other Order in this Action nor the Settlement Agreement: (a) is an admission or concession by Dillard’s of any actual or potential fault, omission, liability or wrongdoing, or (b) is a finding or determination of the validity or invalidity of any claims in the Action or of any wrongdoing by Dillard’s. In no event shall the Settlement Agreement, or any of its provisions or exhibits, or any negotiations, statements, court proceedings or court orders relating to its provisions, in any way be construed as, offered as, received as, used as or deemed to be evidence of any kind in any action, or any judicial, administrative, regulatory or other proceeding, except a proceeding to consummate or to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement or the Judgment. Without limiting the foregoing, neither the Settlement Agreement nor the Settlement nor any related negotiations, statements, Court proceedings or Court Orders shall be construed as, offered as, received as, used as or deemed to be evidence or an admission or concession of any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of any person or entity, including, but not limited to, Dillard’s or any of the Dillard’s Releasees, or as evidence or an admission or concession against Dillard’s or any of the Dillard’s Releasees relating to class certification, or as a waiver by Dillard’s or any of the Dillard’s Releasees of any applicable defense, including, without limitation any defense on the merits or against class certification.
10
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 10 of 13

13. Plaintiffs’ Application for Approval and Authorization of Payment of Attorneys Fees and Expenses (Doc.# 143) is granted. In making this decision, the Court notes that in a case where the attorneys’ work has generated a “common fund” for the benefit of the plaintiffs, a court has the discretion to use the “percentage of the fund” methodology instead of the lodestar method to evaluate and award fees. Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140, 1157 (8th Cir. 1999). The Court holds that the percentage of fund approach is more appropriate than the lodestar method in this case precisely because counsels’ efforts were instrumental in generating a fund that is to be distributed to a class of employees. The Settlement Agreement calls for Class Counsel to receive $1,350,000.00, which represents between 20% and 30% of the settlement value – a range that is often described as permissible. E.g., id. The Court also finds this sum is fair and reasonable in light of Class Counsels’ experience and efforts in this case, as well as the result that has been achieved. Accordingly, Class Counsel is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,350,000.00. In addition, the Court approves reimbursement of Class Counsels’ litigation expenses in the amount of $50,000.00.
In making this decision, the Court is relying exclusively on the percentage of the fund approach for awarding fees. Therefore, nothing in this order should be construed as approving the reasonableness of the hourly rates or the time spent on the case as reflected in the materials Class Counsel submitted for calculating the lodestar.
14. In the event an appeal is takenchallenging onlythe awards of attorneys’ fees, litigation costs and expenses, or special awards to the Class Representatives but no appeal is taken challenging any other aspect of this Settlement, then the Settlement Agreement and this Order shall be final and binding as to all aspects of the Settlement other than those that are the subject of the appeal. Any appeal challenging only the Order awarding attorneys’ fees, litigation costs and expenses and/or special awards to the Class Representatives shall have no effect on the finality of the settlement for
11
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 11 of 13

the class as a whole or the distribution of funds to the class as a whole. 15. If (a) the Settlement is terminated for any reason whatsoever in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement, (b) one or more parties fail to file their consent to the modifications made by the Court in this order, or (c) the approval of the Settlement by the Court is ultimately reversed on appeal, then: (a) the Settlement Agreement and each and every provision thereof shall have no further force or effect of any kind; (b) the parties shall stand in the same position as to every issue of fact and law as they did on the date prior to the execution of the Settlement Agreement (including the issue of whether a class may be certified) as though the Settlement Agreement was never entered into; (c) any and every order entered pursuant to the Settlement Agreement (including the Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement, and this Final Order and Judgment) shall be vacated and of no further force or effect; and (d) any class certified for settlement purposes shall be decertified, subject and without prejudice to the ability of any party to file (or oppose) a motion to certify a class or classes for purposes of discovery, pre-trial and trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: December 7, 2001

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

12 Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 12 of 13

EXHIBIT B
Compromised Claims means
a) with respect to the Settlement Class, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, as against Dillard’s, and all its subsidiaries, and all of the past and present officers, directors, employees, attorneys, insurers, representatives and agents of Dillard’s and all its subsidiaries, and the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the foregoing or any of them (collectively “Dillard’s Releasees”), any and all liabilities, actions, indebtedness, obligations, claims, causes of action, suits, damages, demands, taxes, costs and expenses whatsoever, of every kind and nature, known or unknown, disclosed or undisclosed, whether or not known or contemplated, whether in law or in equity, relating to the Claims or the Action, including the defense and settlement thereof;
b) with respect to the Plaintiffs, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, as against the Dillard’s Releasees, any and all liability, actions, indebtedness, obligations, claims, causes of action, suits, damages, demands, taxes, costs and expenses whatsoever, of every kind and nature, known or unknown, disclosed or undisclosed, whether or not known or contemplated, whether in law or in equity, arising 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; and
c) with respect to Dillard’s, it successors and assigns, as against the Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and all of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns and attorneys, and any person, firm, organization, corporation, partnership or entity liable by, through, under or on behalf of any of the foregoing Plaintiffs, any and all liabilities, actions, contracts, indebtedness, obligations, claims, causes of action, suits, damages, demands, taxes, costs and expenses whatsoever, of every kind and nature, known or unknown, disclosed or undisclosed, whether or not known or contemplated, whether in law or in equity, relating to the Claims or the Action including the prosecution and settlement thereof.
Claims means any and all claims of race discrimination, including but not limited to all claims for a pattern and practice of race discrimination and/or claims for race discrimination in hiring, pay, promotion, job assignments, terms and conditions of employment, termination, and /or claims for racial harassment and hostile environment, and whether or not based on allegations of disparate treatment or disparate impact.
13
Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 147 Filed 12/07/01 Page 13 of 13

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

DANIELLE WOOTEN, Plaintiff,
vs. DILLARD’S, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 99-0990-CV-W-3-ECF

)

)

)

)

FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

On December 7, 2001, the Court issued an order conditionally approving the parties’ settlement agreement. Final approval was conditioned upon the parties’ agreement to certain modifications, including particularly a special award for the Class Representatives in the amount of $50,000. All parties have agreed to the modifications. Accordingly, the December 7, 2001 order conditionally approving the settlement is hereby made final under the terms contained in that order and as agreed to by the parties. Furthermore, this case is now dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: January 16, 2002

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

Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 153 Filed 01/16/02 Page 1 of 1

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

DANIELLE WOOTEN, ET AL. Plaintiff,
v.
DILLARD’S, INC., Defendant.

)

)

)

Case No. 99-0990-CV-W-3-ECF

)

)

)

ORDER APPROVING SECOND DISTRIBUTION TO CLASS MEMBERS

Upon the Status Report on Settlement Administration and Motion to Approve Second

Distribution to Class Members (“Status Report and Motion”), the Court hereby approves the

accounting provided with regard to the settlement funds in this case and the administration of this

Settlement, to date, by Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator. The Court additionally

Orders as follows:

1. Notice provided to Class Members of this Class Action Settlement was appropriate

and reasonable. Notice of this Settlement was published, and direct notice of the Class Action

Settlement was sent out to the last known addresses of Class Members. With regard to mailed

notices that were returned as undeliverable, the Settlement Administrator performed reasonable

efforts to locate those Class Members. The Court accordingly finds that the Settlement

Administrator has exhausted all reasonable attempts to locate Class Members who have not, to

date, come forward and filed Verification Forms which confirm their membership in the Class and

request a monetary award in this matter.

2. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval

Order, a second distribution is to be made to Class Members of any monies remaining in the

Settlement Fund following the exhaustion of reasonable attempts to locate Class Members. Total

distributions in the amount of $2,919,500.00 have been made to the 2508 Class Members who

Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 155 Filed 10/17/02 Page 1 of 2

responded to the Notice and filed valid Verification Forms. After payment of taxes, expenses, and all other costs, there is a balance of $708,186.18 in the settlement funds.
3. The Court further Orders that a second distribution be made to Class Members as requested by Class Counsel and as set forth in Exhibit B to the Status Report and Motion.
4. The Court also approves the Settlement Administrator continuing its efforts to locate the approximately 25 Class Members who responded to the Notice and who timely filed Verification Forms, but who have either not received or not negotiated their initial distribution checks.
5. Class Counsel are to provide a final accounting at an appropriate time following the second distribution to Class Members as provided for in this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: October 17, 2002

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

2 Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 155 Filed 10/17/02 Page 2 of 2

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

DANIELLE WOOTEN, et al..

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

Case No. 99-0990-CV-W-ODS

)

DILLARD’S INC. d/b/a DILLARD’S

)

DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

ORDER APPROVING FINAL ACCOUNTING AND CLOSING SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION Upon Class Counsel’s Status Report and Motion to Close Settlement Administration (Doc. # 156), the Court hereby Orders as follows: 1. Notice provided to Class Members of this Class Action Settlement was appropriate and reasonable. Notice of this Settlement was published in several newspapers, and direct notice of the Class Settlement allocation award was sent out to the last known addresses of Class Members. With regard to mailed notices and distribution awards that were returned as undeliverable, the Settlement Administrator performed reasonable efforts to locate those Class Members. The Court accordingly finds that the Settlement Administrator has exhausted all reasonable attempts to locate Class Members whose awards remain unclaimed. 2. The Court approves the Settlement Administrator’s and Class Counsel’s accountings in this case and orders that settlement administration in this matter be

Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 157 Filed 09/20/04 Page 1 of 2

closed. The Court further orders that any remaining monies be disbursed in equal

portions to the following four charities: HopeFaith Ministries, Ronald McDonald House,

Legal Aid of Western Missouri, and St. Vincent’s Operation Breakthrough.

3. The Settlement Administrator and Class Counsel are hereby released of

further obligations other than to carry out the final disbursements in accordance with this

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: September 20, 2004

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

2 Case 4:99-cv-00990-ODS Document 157 Filed 09/20/04 Page 2 of 2

 
 CLOSED, CONSOL, EAPADMIN, PHV, PROTO
U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:99−cv−00990−ODS

Wooten et al v. Dillard's Inc Assigned to: District Judge Ortrie D. Smith Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff Danielle Wooten

Date Filed: 10/13/1999 Date Terminated: 01/16/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Bert S Braud The Popham Law Firm, P.C. 712 Broadway Ste. 100 Kansas City, MO 64105 (816) 221−2288 Fax: (816) 221−3999 Email: bbraud@pophamlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel W. Craig Daniel W. Craig, PC 1125 Grand Blvd. Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816)221−7772 Fax: (816)283−3823 Email: dcraig@dancraigpc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis E Egan The Popham Law Firm, P.C. 712 Broadway Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64105 (816)512−2628 Fax: (816) 221−3999 Email: degan@pophamlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dirk L. Hubbard 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

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

Michael Robert Fletcher Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 1 of 14

Sanders Simpson Fletcher &Smith LC 1125 Grand Blvd Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816)471−6444 Fax: (816)471−6664 Email: mrfletcher@ssfs.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen R. Bough The Law Offices of Stephen R. Bough 917 W. 43rd St. Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64111 (816) 931−0048 Fax: (816) 931−4803 Email: stephen@boughlawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rosetta Smith

represented by Dirk L. Hubbard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen R. Bough (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Misty Ewing

represented by Dirk L. Hubbard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M. Klamann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen R. Bough (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Murtydell Barnes

represented by Dirk L. Hubbard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James S. Margolin Margolin ADR Firm 5502 High Drive Mission Hills, KS 66208 (913) 262−0677 Email: jmargolin@kc.rr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M. Klamann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen R. Bough (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 2 of 14

Betty King
Plaintiff Nycole Price
Plaintiff Lorita Thompson
Plaintiff Kim Richard

represented by Dirk L. Hubbard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Klamann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Bough (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dirk L. Hubbard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Bough (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dirk L. Hubbard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Klamann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Bough (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dirk L. Hubbard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Klamann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Bough (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Dillard's Inc
Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS

represented by Charles A. Weiss Bryan Cave LLP Suite 3600 211 North Broadway Saint Louis, MO 63102−2750 314−259−2000 Fax: (314) 259−2020 Email: caweiss@bryancavellp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremiah J. Morgan Missouri Attorney General's Office−JC
As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 3 of 14

P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573−751−1800 Fax: 573−751−0774 Email: jeremiah.morgan@ago.mo.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Yates Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP−Main St 4801 Main Street Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 (816) 421−4800 Fax: (816) 421−0596 Email: jack.yates@huschblackwell.com TERMINATED: 09/18/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn S. McCreary Fiserv, Inc. 255 Fiserv Drive Brookfield, WI 53045 (262) 879−5019 Fax: (262) 879−5532 Email: lynn.mccreary@fiserv.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark A. Jess Employee Rights Law Firm 1600 Genessee Stuite 842 Kansas City, MO 64102−5639 (816) 474−4608 Fax: (816) 474−4601 Email: mark.jess@employeerightslawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P Burke Bryan Cave LLP 211 N Broadway Suite 3600 St Louis, MO 63102−2750 (314) 259−2700 Fax: (314) 552−8700 Email: mpburke@bryancave.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terence J. Thum Bryan Cave, LLP 1200 Main Street Suite 3500 Kansas City, MO 64105 (816)374−3233 Fax: (816)374−3300 Email: tthum@bryancave.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

10/13/1999

1 COMPLAINT with 3 summons issued against Dillard's Inc. filed by Steven Bough, Bert S Braud, Dennis E Egan, Michael R Fletcher, Dirk L Hubbard, John M Klamann on behalf of Danielle Wooten. Filing fee collected, receipt #173575. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet )(Mason, April) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/15/1999 (Mason, April). (Entered: 10/13/1999)

Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 4 of 14

10/13/1999 01/07/2000 01/10/2000 01/21/2000 01/26/2000
01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 02/01/2000 02/02/2000

2 Notice of EAPJ Jerry Venters.(Mason, April) (Entered: 10/13/1999)
3 ANSWER to complaint (Related Doc # 1 ) filed by John J. Yates of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Yates, John) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
4 RULE 16 NOTICE issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Proposed scheduling order due by 3/17/2000, rule 26 conference due by 3/7/2000,.(Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
5 STATEMENT OF CORPORATE INTEREST (Defendant's Disclosure Statement) filed by John J. Yates of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Yates, John) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
6 MOTION for leave to file First Amended Complaint − Class Action (related document(s) 1 ) on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−First Amended Complaint−Class Action# 2 Exhibit B−Proposed Order)(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
8 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Bert Bestor filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
9 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of David Bosam filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
10 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Michael Bowen filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
11 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Richard Curtis filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
12 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Don/Dillard's, Columbia filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
13 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Jim Franco filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
14 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Linda McAnany filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
15 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Ken Moore filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
16 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Jack Rodgers filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
17 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Dena White filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 02/01/2000)
19 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint.(Related Doc # 6 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 02/02/2000)

Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 5 of 14

02/03/2000 02/03/2000 02/04/2000 02/14/2000 02/16/2000 02/17/2000 02/17/2000
02/24/2000 02/24/2000 02/28/2000 03/07/2000 03/07/2000 03/07/2000 03/08/2000 03/16/2000 03/17/2000

20 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Dillard's Inc. filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 02/03/2000)
21 PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER filed by Stephen R. Bough on behalf of all parties.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 02/03/2000)
22 PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER and Discovery Plan filed by Stephen R. Bough on behalf of all parties.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 02/04/2000)
23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by John J. Yates of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Yates, John) (Entered: 02/14/2000)
24 ANSWER to amended complaint (Related Doc # 20 ) filed by John J. Yates of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Yates, John) (Entered: 02/16/2000)
25 RULES OF TRIAL issued by Judge Ortrie Smith.(Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 02/17/2000)
26 TRIAL ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. All pretrial discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed on or before November l, 2000. If plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied, a jury trial is scheduled on the Joint Accelerated Civil Docket commencing at 8:30 a.m. on April 2, 2001, at the United States Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri. If plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is granted, a jury trial is scheduled commencing at 8:30 a.m. on June 4, 2001, at the United States courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri. If plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied, a final pretrial conference will be held at 10:00 a.m. on March 2, 2001, at the United States Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri. If plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is granted, a final pretrial conference will be held at 10:00 a.m. on May 3, 2001, at the United States Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 02/17/2000)
27 MOTION to amend Court's Scheduling and Trial Order (related document(s) 26 ) on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Yates, John) (Entered: 02/24/2000)
28 MEMORANDUM and Suggestions in Support of Defendant's Motion to Amend Scheduling and Trial Order (related document(s) 27 ) filed by John J. Yates on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Yates, John) (Entered: 02/24/2000)
29 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and Things filed by John J. Yates of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Yates, John) (Entered: 02/28/2000)
30 RESPONSE TO MOTION to Amend Scheduling and Trial Order filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs. Reply Suggestions due by 3/20/2000. (Attachments: # 1 Pleading Notice of Exhibit Attachment) (Related motion(s) 27 ) (Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 03/07/2000)
31 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Mark Lee on 3/15/2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 03/07/2000)
32 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Robbie Keeney on 3/9/2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 03/07/2000)
33 Amended NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Jim Franco on 3/20/00 filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 03/08/2000)
34 Reply MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendant's Motion to Amend Scheduling and Trial Order. (related document(s) 27 ) filed by John J. Yates on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Yates, John) (Entered: 03/16/2000)
35 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Tom Burnett on 3/29/00 filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 03/17/2000)

Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 6 of 14

03/23/2000

36 Amended NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Michael Bowen on 3/30/00 filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 03/23/2000)

03/23/2000

37 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Nan Weeks−Jones on 4/13/2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 03/23/2000)

03/24/2000

38 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Rule 30(b)(6) Designee on 4/18/2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 03/24/2000)

03/24/2000

39 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Mary Sheldon on 4/3/2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 03/24/2000)

03/25/2000

40 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE filed by Mark A. Jess of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 03/25/2000)

03/25/2000

41 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests to Plaintiff filed by Mark A. Jess of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 03/25/2000)

03/27/2000

42 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Linda McAnany on behalf of plf, on 3/15/2000; $784.30 pd by plf filed by Daniel W. Craig of Sanders Simpson Fletcher &Smith LC on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 03/27/2000)

03/28/2000

43 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Ed Auffert on March 31, 2000 filed by Dirk L. Hubbard, John M Klamann of Klamann &Hubbard on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Honeycutt, Cassaundra) (Entered: 03/28/2000)

03/29/2000

44 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. The Court schedules a hearing to be held on 3/31/2000 at 09:00 AM at Courtroom 7D, Kansas City (ODS).(Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 03/29/2000)

03/31/2000

45 MOTION for leave to file to Join Seven Additional Plaintiffs and Suggestions in Support on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 03/31/2000)

03/31/2000

46 MOTION to amend Scheduling Order (related document(s) 26 ) on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 03/31/2000)

04/03/2000

47 TRANSCRIPT of type Proceedings, date proceeding held 3/15/2000, as to, in front of Hon Ortrie D. Smith.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 04/04/2000)

04/05/2000

48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Supplemental Answers to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories filed by Mark A. Jess of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 04/05/2000)

04/05/2000

49 STIPULATION To Entry of Protective Order filed by Stephen R. Bough, John J. Yates, Mark A. Jess on behalf of Dillard's Inc, Danielle Wooten.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 04/05/2000)

04/06/2000

50 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Denying Defendant's motion to amend scheduling order(Related Doc # 27 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 04/06/2000)

04/07/2000

51 RESPONSE TO MOTION By Plaintiff for Extension of Time filed by Mark A. Jess of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc. Reply Suggestions due by 4/19/2000. (Related motion(s) 46 ) (Other related filing(s) 46 ) (Jess, Mark) (Entered: 04/07/2000)

04/10/2000

52 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Roberta Bestor on 3/8/200; $680.00 pd by plf filed by Michael R Fletcher of Sanders Simpson Fletcher &Smith LC on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 04/10/2000)

04/11/2000

53 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Plaintiff's motion to amend scheduling order, Plaintiff has until April 14, 2000 to file Motion and Suggestions for Class Certification. (Related Doc # 46 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 04/11/2000)

Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 7 of 14

04/12/2000 04/12/2000 04/13/2000
04/14/2000 04/14/2000 04/14/2000 04/14/2000 04/14/2000
04/14/2000 04/17/2000
04/18/2000 04/19/2000 04/19/2000 05/02/2000 05/08/2000

54 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Join Seven Additional Plaintiffs filed by Mark A. Jess of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc. Reply Suggestions due by 4/24/2000. (Related motion(s) 45 ) (Other related filing(s) 45 ) (Jess, Mark) (Entered: 04/12/2000)
56 ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE filed by Bert S Braud, Dennis E Egan of The Popham Law Firm, P.C. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
55 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Ortrie D. Smith that confidential treatment as provided below may be claimed by the dft for documents and information and any portion or summary thereof relating to subject matter of the following types, but this paragraph shall not be deemed to exclude any other type or classification of documents for which confidentiality is claimed by said dft: (a) personnel files or other confidential personnel records; and (b) confidential business records of dft.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
57 MOTION for excess pages (related document(s) 26 ) on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
58 MOTION for class certification on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael R Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
60 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting Plaintiff's motion for excess pages in support of motion for class certification. (Related Doc # 57 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
61 MEMORANDUM Suggestions in Support of Motion for Class Certification (related document(s) 58 ) filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael R Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of Danielle Wooten. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Statement of Common Facts Supporting Class Certification)(Hubbard, Dirk) Modified on 4/14/2000 to add additional attachment(s) (Terry, Bill). (Entered: 04/14/2000)
62 SEALED DOCUMENT the exhibits are attached to Doc #61 filed by Stephen R. Bough on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 04/17/2000)
63 REPLY SUGGESTIONS in Support of Motion for Leave to Join Seven Additional Plaintiffs filed by Dirk L. Hubbard of Klamann &Hubbard on behalf of Danielle Wooten. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Class Action Complaint# 2 Exhibit Letter) (Related motion(s) 45 ) (Other related filing(s) 45 ) (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 04/17/2000)
64 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Responses to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
65 MOTION by Mark A. Jess AND ORDER for Charles A. Weiss to appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of defendant Dillard's Inc. Receipt # 176209 Amount of fee: $25.00.(Brogan, Shannon) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
66 MOTION by Mark A. Jess AND ORDER for Michael P. Burke to appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of defendant Dillards, Inc. Receipt # 176209 Amount of fee: $25.00.(Brogan, Shannon) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
67 Joint MOTION for extension of time for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (related document(s) 53 , 26 ) on behalf of all parties.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 05/02/2000)
68 ORDER by Judge Ortrie D. Smith granting plf's motion for leave to file (Related Doc # 45 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 05/08/2000)

Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 8 of 14

05/08/2000

69 ORDER by Judge Ortrie D. Smith granting joint motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 67 ) suggestions in opposition due by 6/5/2000; plf has until 12 days after receipt to dft's opp pleadings to file her reply brief in support. (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 05/08/2000)

05/16/2000

70 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Danielle Wooten on May 18,2000 filed by Lynn S. McCreary of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 05/16/2000)

05/23/2000

71 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 05/23/2000)

05/24/2000

72 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Nycole Price on 05/26/00 filed by Mark A. Jess of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 05/24/2000)

05/24/2000

73 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Betty King on 05/25/00 filed by Mark A. Jess of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 05/24/2000)

05/26/2000

74 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Kurt Schmidt filed by Dirk L. Hubbard of Klamann &Hubbard on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

05/26/2000

75 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Don Langston filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

05/26/2000

76 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Rick Gordon filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

05/26/2000

77 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Lynn Lee on June 2, 2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

05/26/2000

78 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Pete Mohn on June 2, 2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

05/26/2000

79 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Harry Passow on June 5, 2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

05/26/2000

80 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Roy Grimes on June 5, 2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

05/26/2000

81 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Sylvia Lachnit on June 9, 2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

05/26/2000

82 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Harold Randa on June 9, 2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

05/26/2000

83 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Richard Curtis on June 8, 2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

05/26/2000

84 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Heather Quiroz on June 12, 2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert

Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 9 of 14

05/26/2000
05/26/2000
05/30/2000 05/30/2000 05/31/2000 06/01/2000
06/05/2000 06/05/2000 06/12/2000 06/12/2000
06/12/2000 06/12/2000 06/12/2000 06/12/2000 06/15/2000 06/19/2000

Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)
85 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of David Butterworth on June 8, 2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)
86 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Angela Fateno on June 12, 2000 filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, John M Klamann, Dirk L. Hubbard of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)
87 MOTION for extension of time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (related document(s) 69 , 26 ) on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 05/30/2000)
88 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Danielle Wooten, Volume I filed by Dillard's Inc on behalf of all defendants.(Kuhl, Carol) (Entered: 05/31/2000)
89 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting second motion for extension of time, until June 12, 2000 to respond to the motion for Class Certification. (Related Doc # 87 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 05/31/2000)
90 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against Dillard's Inc. (related document(s) 68 ) filed by Dirk L. Hubbard of Klamann &Hubbard on behalf of Murtydell Barnes, Misty Ewing, Betty King, Nycole Price, Kim Richard, Rosetta Smith, Lorita Thompson, Danielle Wooten.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 06/01/2000)
91 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Nicole Price on 5/26/2000 ; $994.25 pd by dft filed by Lynn S. McCreary of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 06/07/2000)
92 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Danielle Wooten, Volume II on 5/26/2000 ; $465.50 pd by dft filed by Lynn S. McCreary of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 06/07/2000)
93 MOTION for excess pages for Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (related document(s) 60 , 26 ) on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
94 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Mark A. Jess of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc. Reply Suggestions due by 6/26/2000. (Related motion(s) 58 ) (Jess, Mark) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
95 MOTION to strike Report of Plaintiffs' Proposed Expert (related document(s) 61 , 62 ) on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
96 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE filed by Terence J. Thum of Bryan Cave, LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Thum, Terence) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
97 MEMORANDUM and Suggestions in Support of Defendant's Motion to Strike Report of Plaintiffs' Proposed Expert (related document(s) 95 ) filed by Mark A. Jess on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
98 STIPULATION filed by Charles A. Weiss on behalf of Dillard's Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 06/14/2000)
99 ANSWER to amended complaint (Related Doc # 90 ) (Answer to Second Amended Complaint) filed by Mark A. Jess of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 06/15/2000)
100 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Betty Jean King on 5/25/2000; $809.85 pd by dft filed by Lynn S. McCreary of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 06/20/2000)

Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 10 of 14

06/19/2000 06/21/2000 06/22/2000
06/22/2000 06/23/2000
06/30/2000
07/18/2000 07/21/2000 07/24/2000
07/24/2000 08/23/2000
08/28/2000 08/28/2000 09/01/2000 09/05/2000
09/07/2000 09/12/2000

101 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Nicole Price, Vol. II on 6/1/2000, $475.25 pd by dft filed by Lynn S. McCreary of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 06/20/2000)
102 MOTION for excess pages on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 06/21/2000)
103 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to Defendant's Suggestions in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Related motion(s) 58 ) (Other related filing(s) 94 ) (Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 06/22/2000)
104 ORDER by Judge Ortrie D Smith granting plf's motion for excess pages (Related Doc # 102 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 06/23/2000)
105 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION to Defendant's Motion to Strike The Report of Plaintiffs' Proffered Expert Steve M. Cohen filed by Dirk L. Hubbard of Klamann &Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. Reply Suggestions due by 7/5/2000. (Related motion(s) 95 ) (Other related filing(s) 95 ) (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 06/23/2000)
106 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to Plaintiffs' Suggestions in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Report of Plaintiff's Proferred Expert Steve M. Cohen filed by Lynn S. McCreary of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc. (Related motion(s) 95 ) (McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 06/30/2000)
107 NOTICE OF FILING Agreement to Terms of Protective Order filed by James S. Margolin on behalf of Murtydell Barnes.(Honeycutt, Cassaundra) (Entered: 07/20/2000)
108 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents and Things filed by Dirk L. Hubbard of Klamann &Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 07/21/2000)
109 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Defendant's Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures, Defendant's First Requests for Admission, Dillard's Second Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, Dillard's Second Request for Production of Documents and Response to Plaintiff's Third Request for Production of Documents and Things to Defendant Dillard's, Inc. filed by Lynn S. McCreary of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 07/24/2000)
110 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Notice of Service filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 07/24/2000)
111 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant Dillard's, Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiffs' Second (Sic) Request for Production of Documents and Things filed by Lynn S. McCreary of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 08/23/2000)
112 MOTION for extension of time to Respond to Discovery on behalf of Danielle Wooten.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
113 MOTION for extension of time to respond to discovery on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
114 Joint MOTION to amend Scheduling and Trial Order (related document(s) 26 ) on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 09/01/2000)
115 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant Dillard's, Inc.'s Responses to First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Dillard's Department Stores by Plaintiffs Murtydell Barnes, Kim Richard, Nicole Price, Misty Ewing, Lorita Thompson, Betty King, and Rosetta Smith filed by Lynn S. McCreary of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 09/05/2000)
116 MOTION to withdraw/substitute attorney Withdrawal of Counsel on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 09/07/2000)
117 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT (related document(s) 114 ) filed by Dirk L. Hubbard of Klamann &Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Hubbard, Dirk)

Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 11 of 14

09/12/2000 09/12/2000 09/13/2000 09/18/2000 11/01/2000 11/20/2000 02/07/2001
03/07/2001 03/12/2001 03/30/2001 03/30/2001 04/27/2001
05/04/2001
05/14/2001 05/16/2001 06/08/2001 06/11/2001

(Entered: 09/12/2000)
118 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendant's Second Interrogatories filed by Dirk L. Hubbard of Klamann &Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
119 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Notice of Service filed by Stephen R. Bough of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
120 Joint MOTION for protective order Motion to Amend (related document(s) 55 ) on behalf of all parties.(Bough, Stephen) (Entered: 09/13/2000)
121 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Granting motion to withdraw/substitute attorney (Related Doc # 116 ), granting motion for protective order (Related Doc # 120 ) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
122 Joint MOTION to amend Scheduling and Trial Order (related document(s) 26 ) on behalf of all parties.(McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
123 Amended CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION OF DEPOSITION of Danielle Wooten, Volume I , $1,236.75 pd by dft filed by Lynn S. McCreary of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
124 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order striking all deadlines and directing parties to file a joint status report and proposed scheduling order on or before March 7, 2001. PTC set March 1, 2001 and May 3, 2001 and trial dates of April 2, 2001 and June 4, 2001 are struck and will be rescheduled at a later time.(Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
125 Joint STATUS REPORT filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
126 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT (related document(s) 125 ) filed by Mark A. Jess of Bryan Cave LLP on behalf of Dillard's Inc.(Jess, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
127 Joint STATUS REPORT filed by Jeremiah J. Morgan on behalf of all parties.(Morgan, Jeremiah) (Entered: 03/30/2001)
128 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT of Joint Status Report filed by Dirk L. Hubbard of Klamann &Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 03/30/2001)
129 Joint STATUS REPORT filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Michael P Burke, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, Dirk L. Hubbard, Mark A. Jess, John M Klamann, James S. Margolin, Jeremiah J. Morgan, Terence J. Thum, Charles A. Weiss, Lynn S. McCreary on behalf of all parties.(McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 04/27/2001)
130 Joint STATUS REPORT filed by Stephen R. Bough, Bert S Braud, Michael P Burke, Daniel W. Craig, Dennis E Egan, Michael Robert Fletcher, Dirk L. Hubbard, Mark A. Jess, John M Klamann, James S. Margolin, Jeremiah J. Morgan, Terence J. Thum, Charles A. Weiss, Lynn S. McCreary of Shamberg, Johnson &Bergman, Chtd. on behalf of all parties.(McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 05/04/2001)
131 Joint STATUS REPORT of all Parties filed by Lynn S. McCreary on behalf of Dillard's Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 05/14/2001)
132 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT for Joint Status Report filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 05/16/2001)
133 Joint STATUS REPORT filed by Mark A. Jess on behalf of all parties. (Jess, Mark) (Entered: 06/08/2001)
134 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT for Joint Status Report filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 06/11/2001)

Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 12 of 14

07/06/2001 07/09/2001 07/09/2001 07/17/2001 07/30/2001 07/30/2001 07/31/2001 08/21/2001
08/28/2001 10/12/2001
11/14/2001 11/19/2001 12/07/2001 12/27/2001 12/28/2001

135 Joint MOTION for order Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement filed by Lynn S. McCreary on behalf of Dillard's Inc. suggestions in opposition due by 7/18/2001. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment)(McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
136 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT of Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 135 ) (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
137 MOTION for class certification for Settlement Purposes filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 7/23/2001. (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
138 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order expressing the Court's preliminary views of the parties' settlement agreement. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
139 Joint RESPONSE TO ORDER Joint Response of the Parties to the Court's July 17, 2001 Order filed by Lynn S. McCreary on behalf of all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 138 ) (McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
140 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT for Joint Response of The Parties to The Court's July 17, 2001 Order filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
141 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order preliminarily approving class action settlement. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
142 Order issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Denying motion for class certification (Related Doc # 58 ), denying motion for excess pages (Related Doc # 93 ), denying motion to strike (Related Doc # 95 ), denying motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 112 ), denying motion for extension of time (Related Doc # 113 ), denying motion to amend (Related Doc # 114 ), denying motion to amend (Related Doc # 122 ) The motions are denied without prejudice to their being refiled or reinstated as may be necessary in the event the settlement is not finalized. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
143 MOTION for attorney fees and Expenses filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. suggestions in opposition due by 9/10/2001. (Attachments: # 1)(Hubbard, Dirk) Modified on 8/29/2001 to relect exhibits received in Clerks Office on8/29/01(Honeycutt, Cassaundra). (Entered: 08/28/2001)
144 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION −− Plaintiff's Submission of Affidavits Regarding Notice and Settlement Administration filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Hubbard, Dirk) Modified on 10/15/2001 Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment received in the Clerk's Office (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 10/12/2001)
145 SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT of Final Certification of the Class, Application for Special Awards for Class Representatives, and Final Approval of the Proposed Class Settlement filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
146 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Rescheduling hearing to approve settlement, hearing to be held on 11/30/2001 at 09:00 AM at Courtroom 8C, Kansas City (ODS) (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
147 ORDER issued by Judge Smith conditionally approving settlement; parties have twenty−one days to indicate their assent to the settlment as modfied. (Wolfe, Steve) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
148 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF DECEMBER 7, 2001 AND REQUEST FOR FINAL JUDGMENT filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 147 ) (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 12/27/2001)
149 ORDER issued by Judge Smith extending time for Plaintiffs to file cosnent. (Wolfe, Steve) (Entered: 12/28/2001)

Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 13 of 14

12/28/2001 01/08/2002 01/16/2002 01/16/2002 10/15/2002 10/17/2002 09/16/2004
09/20/2004

150 RESPONSE TO ORDER Defendant's Response to December 7 and December 28, 2001 Orders filed by Lynn S. McCreary on behalf of Dillard's Inc. (McCreary, Lynn) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
151 NOTICE OF FILING of Plaintiffs' Filing of Consent of Representative Plaintiff Barnes filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
152 NOTICE OF FILING Plaintiffs' Filing of Consent of Representative Plaintiff Ewing filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
153 ORDER OF DISMISSAL issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Final Order approving settlement agreement and dismissing case with prejudice. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
154 STATUS REPORT ON SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION AND MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND DISTRIBUTION TO CLASS MEMBERS filed by Dirk L. Hubbard on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
155 ORDER issued by Judge Ortrie Smith. Order approving second distribution of class members. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
156 STATUS REPORT And Motion to Close Settlement Administration by Murtydell Barnes, Misty Ewing, Betty King, Nycole Price, Kim Richard, Rosetta Smith, Lorita Thompson, Danielle Wooten. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Final Reconciliation of Funds)(Hubbard, Dirk) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
157 ORDER approving final accounting and closing settlement administration. Signed by Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 09/20/2004. (Will−Fees, Eva) (Entered: 09/20/2004)

Case: 4:99-cv-00990-ODS As of: 07/06/2010 02:19 PM CDT 14 of 14