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

Shirley Miller 6912 E.143rd Street Grandview, MO 64030
Plaintiff,
v.
John Knox Village, a Missouri Corporation 400 NW Murray Road Lee's Summit, MO 64081 SERVE: SHB Registered Agent, Inc. 1200 Main Street, Suite 1300 Kansas City, MO 64105
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)
)

~\ t..~ 'J. ~.•.. V-- \1 I'.:".''1

~T\.f.,~" ,

1,,\, ~',

\~.-.;,'1

.\1~{)
.!..J

.,.~"!.\.-#...

'• .,. . .

) Case No.

) Jury Trial Demanded

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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 against Defendant John Knox Village ("John Knox"). 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. §1981 ("§1981"). The Plaintiff is a fonner AfricanAmerican employee of John Knox 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, subjecting her to disparate discipline, job assignments, retaliation and a hostile work environment all in violation of the Acts of Congress

Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 1 Filed 08/29/00 Page 1 of 10

providing for the protection of Civil Rights. 2. Both jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court, because federal questions are involved, and because, the unlawful employment practices were committed within this judicial circuit. Jurisdiction and venue are therefore proper in this Court pursuant to 28
u.s.c. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
3. Defendant's management personnel has had actual knowledge of discrimination directed against African-A_merican employees, including but not limited to the discriminatory acts and attitudes discussed herein. 4. At all times mentioned herein, all defendant's employees were acting within the scope of their employment with defendant in furtherance of defendant's business. 5. Plaintiff has all had tenns and/or conditions of her employment affected in one or more of the following ways:
a. Pursuant to Defendant's centralized pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiff and other African-American employees are denied promotional opportunities extended to similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees~
b. Pursuant to Defendant's centralized pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiff and other African-American employees are subjected to a work environment that is racially hostile;
c. Pursuant to Defendant's centralized pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiff and other African-American employees are subject to job requirements which are materially different from those imposed on similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees;
d. Pursuant to Defendant's centralized pattern and practice of discrimination. Plaintiff and other African-American employees are accused, disciplined and/or terminated for alleged offenses for
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 1 Filed 08/29/00 Page 2 of 10

which similarly situated Caucasian employees are not; and,

e.

Pursuant to Defendant~s centralized pattern and practice of

discrimination. Plaintiff and other African-American employees

suffer retaliation when they complai.n of Defendant's racially

discriminatory practices.

PLAINTIFF

6. Plaintiff entered a contract of employment with defendant.

7. Plaintiff is an African-American citizen of the United States. Plaintiff earned a

Bachelor of Arts Degree in Human Resources in 1990 from Mid-American Nazerine

University. Plaintiff earned a Masters of Arts Degree in 1992 in Health Management

from Webster University. In 2000, plaintiffearned another Masters ofArts Degree in

Information Systems from Friends University.

8. Plaintiff was hired by defendant on or about March 5, 2000 as a charge nurse on

the night shift in defendant~scomplex known as the Care Center. On her first day of

employment, plaintiff was mistreated by her Caucasian peers and in particular, Aaron

Sykes, who refused to assist plaintiff or help her in any way. Plaintiff complained to

Trudy Stultz, the Coordinator ofDefendant's 200 Unit in the Care Center and was told to

go home and come back to work another shift.

9.

In May 2000, plaintiffwas having difficulties with some ofthe Caucasian staff

members which she believed, in good faith, to be rooted in racial animosity. Plaintiff

approached Ms. Stultz and asked how she was to formally file a complaint. Ms. Stultz

told plaintiff to read her policy manual.

10. In July 2000, plaintiff applied for a promotion with defendant for which she was

qualified. During the interview process, plaintiff was questioned heavily about her

Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 1 Filed 08/29/00 Page 3 of 10

involvement as part owner in Brookside Care Center and was asked about her responsibilities as part owner of that institution in dealing with agencies such the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. Plaintiff felt that these questions were an attempt to single her out as an AfricanAmerican from the promotion and indicated this to her interviewers. 11. Notwithstanding plaintiffs experience, education, and skill, plaintiff was not promoted. Upon information and belief, plaintiff alleges that a less qualified Caucasian was offered the position.
DEFENDANT 12. Defendant John Knox Village was at all times mentioned herein, a corporation
existing under the laws of the State of Missouri with its principal place of business at 400 N.W. Murray Road in Lee~s Summit, Missouri. Defendant John Knox Village is a residential care facility. 13. The Care Center has four different units known as the 100 unit, 200 unit, 300 unit, and 400 unit. 14. From approximately 1984 through present, Herman Spahr has occupied the position ofPresident for Defendant. 15. As President, Mr. Spahr was defendant's executive officer responsible for all Equal Employment Opportunity policies, practices, and issues for defendant.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
16. Plaintiff was repeatedly referred to as "niggers" by residents of the Care Center. Despite complaints to managerial personnel and supervisors, plaintiff was advised that she had to accept this treatment because the residents were of a different era in which that
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 1 Filed 08/29/00 Page 4 of 10

racial epithet was commonly used and accepted. 17. Plaintiff was repeatedly subjected to racially discriminatory treatment in violation of §1981 by supervisory personnel by being subjected to unjust discipline, disparate treatment, and a racially hostile work environment. 18. Plaintiff complained repeatedly about the racially hostile environment and nothing changed. 19. Mr. Spahr and other members of defendant~smanagement were aware of these racially discriminatory practices and hostile work environment, yet did not remedy the situation. 20. Defendant permitted, tolerated, and by its inaction condoned the racial harassment and discrimination of plaintiff. 21. Defendant's management personnel has had actual and constructive knowledge of discrimination directed against African-American employees including, but not limited to, the discriminatory acts and attitudes discussed herein. 22. As evidence of this pattern and practice of race discrimination, plaintiff alleges the following:
(a) According to Defendant's EEO-I Form submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for 1995, Defendant employed 52 Officials and Managers of which none were African-American~
(b) According to Defendant's EEO-l Form submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for 1996, Defendant employed 55 Officials and Managers of whic.h none were African-American;
(c) According to Defendant's EEO-l Form submitted to the Equal Employment
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 1 Filed 08/29/00 Page 5 of 10

Opportunity Commission for 1997, Defendant employed 55 Officials and Managers of which none were African-American; (d) Accordin.g to Defendant's EEO-l Form submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for 1998, Defendant employed 57 Officials and Managers ofwhich 2 were African-American; and (e) According to Defendant's EEO-l Form submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for 1999, Defendant employed 60 Officials and Managers ofwhich 1 was African-American. TERMS AND CONDITIONSIHOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 23. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 24. Defendant's conduct described herein constitutes a hostile environment particularly Defendant's management's tolerance ofracial epithets used by employees and residents directed towards plaintiff. 25. Defendant maintains a pervasive and vile atmosphere by its inaction in failing to reprimand residents and coworkers, perpetuating discriminatory treatment of AfricanAmerican employees. Plaintiff has been subjected to a hostile work environment which is illustrated by the above discriminatory actions. 26. Defendant's conduct in creating and maintaining a hostile work environment constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff
27. Defendant'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.
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 1 Filed 08/29/00 Page 6 of 10

28. Defendant's conduct with regard to maintaining a hostile work environment constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff. 29. Defendant's conduct with regard to maintaining a h.ostile work environment has damaged Plaintiff.
RETALIATION 30. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein.
31. Defendant maintains a pattern and practice of retaliation designed to intimidate plaintiff and 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. 32. Defendant maintains a pattern of retaliation to intimidate its African-American employees and deter them from asserting legal claims based on defendant's policies and Constitutionally guaranteed rights, including those relating to pay, promotion, delegation of assignments and duties, perfonnance reviews and discipline, including termination~ 33. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant's pattern and practice of retaliation against African-American employees. 34. Defendant's retaliatory conduct constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against African-American employees such as plaintiff
DISCRIMINATION IN PROMOTIONS 35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 36. As part of Defendant's practice of denying Mrican-American employees the
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 1 Filed 08/29/00 Page 7 of 10

opportunity for promotion, defendant 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. 37. There are inadequate written policies, procedures, and guidelines used by defendant with respect to promotion of its employees. The system employed by Defendant involves subjective determinations which thereby render the system arbitrary, and such subjective decision making is used as pretext for denying qualified AmcanAmerican employees promotions to which they are qualified and entitled. 38. As part of Defendant's practice of denying African-American employees the opportunity for promotion, defendant discriminates against African-American employees by:
(A) filingjob openings through word-of-mouth recruitment which is subjective and unfairly restricts the promotion of qualified African-Americans~
(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 positions.
39. Defendant maintains a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in the tenns 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-American employees to jobs with less visibility, prestige, responsibility and prospects for promotion than those held by
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 1 Filed 08/29/00 Page 8 of 10

similarly situated or less qualified Caucasians; and, (B) has denied African-American employees opportunities to be transferred to
positions accorded to similarly situated or less qualified Caucasians, thus limiting the opportunity for African-Americans to acquire professional contacts, develop necessary skills, and achieve the level of recognition necessary for promotion prospects. 40. Plaintiff has been refused promotional opportunities and damaged by Defendant's pattern and practice of discrimination in promotion. 41. Defendant's conduct with regard to promotions constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff. 42. Defendant's conduct with regard to promotions constitutes disparate treatment of African-American employees such as Plaintiffand Defendant's conduct with regard to promotions has a disparate impact on Plaintiff 43. Defendant's policies and practices which discriminatorily deny promotional opportunities have resulted in current and former employees being denied promotional opportunities, including but not limited to Plaintiff.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: 1. Enter a judgment pursuant to jury verdict(s) that the acts and practices of Defendant complained of herein are violations of the laws ofthe United States and of Missouri and grant appropriate relief 2. Require defendant to make prospective and retrospective monetary awards to plaintiff;
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 1 Filed 08/29/00 Page 9 of 10

3. Require defendant to pay to plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages;
4. Grant plaintiff such other and further relief as may be necessary and proper; 5. Award plaintiff the costs of this action together with reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
S/Kirk D. Holman Kirk D. Holman #50715 William T. Bernard #18706
1711 Westport Road Kansas City, MO 64111
(816) 756-3737 FAX: (816) 756-1364 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 1 Filed 08/29/00 Page 10 of 10

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

Shirley Miller Plaintiff,
v. John Knox Village, a Missouri Corporation
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) Case No.00-00878-GAF ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) )

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 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 against Defendant John Knox Village (“John Knox”). 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. §1981 (“§1981”), 42. U.S.C. §2000e et seq (“Title VII), and Mo.Rev.Stat. §213.010 et seq. The Plaintiff is a former African-American employee of John Knox 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, subjecting her to disparate discipline, retaliation, and a hostile work environment all in violation of the Acts of Congress providing for the protection of Civil Rights. 2. Both jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court, because federal questions are involved, and because, the unlawful employment practices were committed within this

Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 1 of 13

judicial circuit. Jurisdiction and venue are therefore proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). 3. Defendant John Knox’s management personnel has had actual knowledge of discrimination directed against African-American employees, including but not limited to the discriminatory acts and attitudes discussed herein. 4. At all times mentioned herein, all defendant John Knox’s employees were acting within the scope of their employment with defendant in furtherance of its business. 5. Plaintiff has all had terms and/or conditions of her employment affected in one or more of the following ways:
a. Pursuant to Defendant’s centralized pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiff and other African-American employees are denied promotional opportunities extended to similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees;
b. Pursuant to Defendant’s centralized pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiff and other African-American employees are subjected to a work environment that is racially hostile;
c. Pursuant to Defendant’s centralized pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiff and other African-American employees are subject to job requirements which are materially different from those imposed on similarly situated or less qualified Caucasian employees;
d. Pursuant to Defendant’s centralized pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiff and other African-American employees are accused, disciplined and/or terminated for alleged offenses for which similarly situated Caucasian employees are not; and,
e. Pursuant to Defendant’s centralized pattern and practice of discrimination, Plaintiff and other African-American employees
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 2 of 13

suffer retaliation when they complain of Defendant’s racially discriminatory practices.
CONDITION PRECEDENT 6. Plaintiff has filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR). A copy of the charge is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff received her right-to-sue notices pursuant to Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act. Copies of the right to sue are attached hereto as Exhibit B and C and incorporated herein by reference. This action has been timely filed with this Court, and plaintiff has met all conditions precedent to filing this action.
PLAINTIFF 7. Plaintiff entered a contract of employment with defendant John Knox. 8. Plaintiff is an African-American citizen of the United States. Plaintiff earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Human Resources in 1990 from Mid-American Nazerine University. Plaintiff earned a Masters of Arts Degree in 1992 in Health Management from Webster University. In 2000, plaintiff earned another Masters of Arts Degree in Information Systems from Friends University. 9. Plaintiff was hired by defendant on or about March 5, 2000 as a charge nurse on the night shift in defendant’s complex known as the Care Center. On her first day of employment, plaintiff was mistreated by her Caucasian peers and in particular, Aaron Sykes, who refused to assist plaintiff or help her in any way. Plaintiff complained to Trudy Stultz, the Coordinator of Defendant’s 200 Unit in the Care Center and was told to go home and come back to work another shift.
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 3 of 13

10. In May 2000, plaintiff was having difficulties with some of the Caucasian staff members which she believed, in good faith, to be rooted in racial animosity. Plaintiff approached Ms. Stultz and asked how she was to formally file a complaint. Ms. Stultz told plaintiff to read her policy manual. 11. In July 2000, plaintiff applied for a promotion with defendant for which she was qualified. During the interview process, plaintiff was questioned heavily about her involvement as part owner in Brookside Care Center and was asked about her responsibilities as part owner of that institution in dealing with agencies such the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. Plaintiff felt that these questions were an attempt to single her out as an AfricanAmerican from the promotion and indicated this to her interviewers. 12. Notwithstanding plaintiff’s experience, education, and skill, plaintiff was not promoted. Upon information and belief, plaintiff alleges that a less qualified Caucasian was offered the position. 13. Plaintiff was terminated from her employment at John Knox Village.
DEFENDANT 14. Defendant John Knox Village was at all times mentioned herein, a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Missouri with its principal place of business at 400 N.W. Murray Road in Lee’s Summit, Missouri. Defendant John Knox Village is a residential care facility. 15. From approximately 1984 through the date of her discharge, Herman Spahr occupied the position of President for Defendant. 16. As President, Mr. Spahr was defendant’s executive officer responsible for all
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 4 of 13

Equal Employment Opportunity policies, practices, and issues for defendant John Knox. ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
17. Plaintiff was repeatedly referred to as “niggers” by residents of the Village. Despite complaints to managerial personnel and supervisors, plaintiff was advised that she had to accept this treatment because the residents were of a different era in which that racial epithet was commonly used and accepted. 18. Plaintiff was repeatedly subjected to racially discriminatory treatment in violation of §1981, Title VII, and the MHRA by supervisory personnel by being subjected to unjust discipline, disparate treatment, and a racially hostile work environment. 19. Plaintiff complained repeatedly about the racially hostile environment and nothing changed. 20. Mr. Spahr, since 1988, and other members of defendant’s management were specifically aware of these racially discriminatory practices and hostile work environment, yet did not remedy the situation. 21. Defendant permitted, tolerated, and by their inaction condoned the racial harassment and discrimination of plaintiff. 22. Defendant John Knox’s management personnel has had actual and constructive knowledge of discrimination directed against African-American employees including, but not limited to, the discriminatory acts and attitudes discussed herein. 23. As evidence of this pattern and practice of race discrimination, plaintiff alleges the following:
(a) According to Defendant John Knox’s EEO-1 Form submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for 1995, Defendant employed 52
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 5 of 13

Officials and Managers of which none were African-American; (b) According to Defendant John Knox’s EEO-1 Form submitted to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission for 1996, Defendant employed 55 Officials and Managers of which none were African-American; (c) According to Defendant John Knox’s EEO-1 Form submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for 1997, Defendant employed 55 Officials and Managers of which none were African-American; (d) According to Defendant John Knox’s EEO-1 Form submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for 1998, Defendant employed 57 Officials and Managers of which 2 were African-American; and (e) According to Defendant John Knox’s EEO-1 Form submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for 1999, Defendant employed 60 Officials and Managers of which 1 was African-American. TERMS AND CONDITIONS/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
Violations of 42 U.S.C. §1981, Title VII, and the MHRA 24. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 25. Defendant’s conduct described herein constitutes a hostile environment particularly Defendant’s management’s tolerance of racial epithets used by employees and residents directed towards plaintiff. 26. Defendant maintains a pervasive and vile atmosphere by its inaction in failing to reprimand residents and coworkers, perpetuating discriminatory treatment of AfricanAmerican employees. Plaintiff has been subjected to a hostile work environment which is illustrated by the above discriminatory actions.
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 6 of 13

27. Defendant’s conduct in tolerating, creating and maintaining a hostile work environment constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff. 28. Defendant’s conduct in tolerating, 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. 29. Defendant’s conduct with regard to maintaining a hostile work environment constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff. 30. Defendant’s conduct with regard to maintaining a hostile work environment has damaged Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant for a finding that she has been subjected to unlawful discrimination; for an award of back pay, including lost fringe benefits, bonuses, costs of living increases and other benefits including interest; for an award of front pay in a reasonable amount; for an award of compensatory and punitive damages; equitable relief including reinstatement to a non-hostile, offensive or intimidating work environment where plaintiff is not subjected to discriminatory conduct and/or other hostile, offensive or intimidating treatment; for her costs expended; for her reasonable attorneys’ and expert’s fees; and for such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.
RETALIATION Violations of 42 U.S.C. §1981, Title VII, and MHRA 31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 30 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein.
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 7 of 13

32. Defendant maintains a pattern and practice of retaliation designed to intimidate plaintiff and 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. 33. Defendant maintains a pattern of retaliation to intimidate its African-American employees and deter them from asserting legal claims based on defendant’s policies and Constitutionally guaranteed rights, including those relating to pay, promotion, delegation of assignments and duties, performance reviews and discipline, including termination. 34. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s pattern and practice of retaliation against African-American employees. 35. Defendant’s retaliatory conduct constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against African-American employees such as plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant for a finding that she has been subjected to unlawful discrimination; for an award of back pay, including lost fringe benefits, bonuses, costs of living increases and other benefits including interest; for an award of front pay in a reasonable amount; for an award of compensatory and punitive damages; for her costs expended; for her reasonable attorneys’ and expert’s fees; and for such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.
DISCRIMINATION IN PROMOTIONS Violations of 42 U.S.C. §1981, Title VII, and the MHRA 36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 35 of the Complaint, by reference, as if fully set forth herein. 37. As part of Defendant’s practice of denying African-American employees the opportunity for promotion, defendant has promotion practices, which are based on
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 8 of 13

subjective rather than objective, job related criteria, and which are not uniformly applied to African-American and Caucasian employees. 38. There are inadequate written policies, procedures, and guidelines used by defendant with respect to promotion of its employees. The system employed by Defendant involves subjective determinations which thereby render the system arbitrary, and such subjective decision making is used as pretext for denying qualified AfricanAmerican employees promotions to which they are qualified and entitled. 39. As part of Defendant’s practice of denying African-American employees the opportunity for promotion, defendant discriminates against African-American employees by:
(A) filing job openings through word-of-mouth recruitment which is subjective and unfairly restricts the promotion of qualified African-Americans;
(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 positions.
40. Defendant maintains a pattern and practice 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-American employees to jobs with less visibility, prestige, responsibility and prospects for promotion than those held by similarly situated or less qualified Caucasians; and,
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 9 of 13

(B) has denied African-American employees opportunities to be transferred to positions accorded to similarly situated or less qualified Caucasians, thus limiting the opportunity for African-Americans to acquire professional contacts, develop necessary skills, and achieve the level of recognition necessary for promotion prospects.
41. Plaintiff has been refused promotional opportunities and damaged by Defendant’s pattern and practice of discrimination in promotion. 42. Defendant’s conduct with regard to promotions constitutes intentional discrimination, with malice, against Plaintiff. 43. Defendant’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. 44. Defendant’s policies and practices which discriminatorily deny promotional opportunities have resulted in current and former employees being denied promotional opportunities, including but not limited to Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant for a finding that she has been subjected to unlawful discrimination; for an award of back pay, including lost fringe benefits, bonuses, costs of living increases and other benefits including interest; for an award of front pay in a reasonable amount; for an award of compensatory and punitive damages; for her costs expended; for her reasonable attorneys’ and expert’s fees; and for such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 10 of 13

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION 45. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 44 of her petition. 46. Defendant has a duty to supervise its agents and employees arising from its master and servant relationship. 47. Defendant has a duty to supervise and prevent its agents and employees from wrongfully and discriminatorily applying employment policies and practices toward plaintiff. 48. Defendant negligently failed to supervise its agents and employees in a manner that reasonable employers would under the circumstances. 49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions resulting in plaintiff’s discharge, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, and mental anguish and emotional distress, and lost benefits and job opportunities. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial. 50. Defendant’s conduct as described herein was malicious and oppressive, and done with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Defendant, through its officers, managing agents and/or supervisors, authorized, condoned and ratified the unlawful conduct described in this action. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages from Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered in his favor in excess of $75,000.00 and against Defendant as follows: 1. That Plaintiff be awarded general and compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 11 of 13

2. That Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial; 3. That Plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit; and 4. That Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
NEGLIGENT TRAINING 51. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 50 of her petition. 52. Defendant has a duty to train its agents and employees arising from its master and servant relationship. 53. Defendant has a duty to provide reasonable training to prevent its agents and employees from wrongfully and discriminatorily applying employment policies and practices toward plaintiff. 54. Defendant negligently failed to train its agents and employees in a manner that reasonable employers would under the circumstances.
55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions resulting in plaintiff’s discharge, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, and mental anguish and emotional distress, and lost benefits and job opportunities. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
56. Defendant's conduct as described herein was malicious and oppressive, and done with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights.
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 12 of 13

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered in his favor in excess of $75,000.00 and against Defendant as follows: 1. That Plaintiff be awarded general and compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at trial; 2. That Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial; 3. That Plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit; and 4. That Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
S/Kirk D. Holman_______ Kirk D. Holman #50715 William T. Bernard #18706 1711 Westport Road Kansas City, MO 64111 (816) 756-3737 FAX: (816) 756-1364 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 11 Filed 05/21/01 Page 13 of 13

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

ERCEL CHANDLER, SHIRLEY MILLER, )

and MARCHALL ALLEN, individually and )

representing a class of similarly situated persons,)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

JOHN KNOX VILLAGE,

)

)

Defendant.

)

No. 00-00878-GAF

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons for whom they bring this action, file this the ir Second Amended Class Action Complaint against defendant John Knox Village. In support of this Complaint, plaintiffs allege and state as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The Court has jurisdiction over this controversy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337 and 1343(a)(4), as well as 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 2. The Court has jurisdiction over John Knox Village because the unlawful employment practices alleged in this Complaint were committed in Jackson County, Missouri, which lies within the Western District of Missouri. In addition, John Knox Village has minimum contacts with the Western District of Missouri and the State of Missouri. 3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events and occurrences giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this judicial district.

Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 39 Filed 03/15/02 Page 1 of 6

PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Ercel Chandler is a black male citizen of Missouri. 5. Plaintiff Shirley Miller is a black female citizen of Missouri. 6. Plaintiff Marchall Allen is a black female citizen of Missouri. 7. Defendant John Knox Village is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. Its principle place of business is located at 400 N.W. Murray Road in Lee’s Summit, Missouri.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 8. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on their own behalf and as representatives of a Class of employees who have been damaged by the discriminatory employment practices of John Knox Village (hereinafter “the Class”). The Class includes all black persons who have worked at John Knox Village in Lee’s Summit, Missouri at any time from March 16, 1995 to the present, including those persons who are still working at John Knox Village, who claim to have been subjected to racial harassment or discrimination. 9. This case is properly maintainable as a class action in that: a. The Class for whose benefit this action is brought is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The total number of persons included in the Class is estimated to exceed 500. b. The claims of plaintiffs are typical of the members of the Class, in that plaintiffs and other members of the Class have sustained damages arising out of John Knox Village’s course of conduct alleged herein, including its violations of federal law. Plaintiffs’ individual experiences with John Knox Village present characteristic
2 Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 39 Filed 03/15/02 Page 2 of 6

examples of the means by which John Knox Village discriminates against its black employees.
c. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiffs know of no conflicts of interest between class members with regard to the issues raised in this case, and know of no interest that individual class members might have in controlling or maintaining separate actions. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in class and civil rights litigation and intend to prosecute this action vigorously.
d. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this matter.
10. John Knox Village has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole.
11. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class. The questions of law and fact affecting the plaintiff class as a whole include, but are not limited to, whether John Knox Village has tolerated racial harassment and whether that practice violates the federal civil rights laws. These common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions that may be unique to any individual.
COUNT I (42 U.S.C. § 1981 − Race Discrimination and Racial Harassment) 12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 above are incorporated herein by reference. 13. John Knox Village is a continuing care retirement community. At all times relevant to this Complaint, plaintiffs and the class members were referred to as “niggers” by the
3 Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 39 Filed 03/15/02 Page 3 of 6

residents and/or staff of John Knox Village, and were subjected to other unwelcome epithets based on their race.
14. The racial epithets and abuse directed at plaintiffs and the class members was sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person in the same position would find their work environment to be hostile and abusive, and each plaintiff and class member in fact believed their work environment to be hostile and abusive.
15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, John Knox Village knew or should have known about the racial epithets and abuse directed at plaintiffs and the class members, but failed to take prompt and effective corrective action to end that harassment and abuse. Management at John Knox Village failed to respond to complaints of racial harassment and filed to control the behavior of residents and/or staff engaging in such harassment.
16. Plaintiffs and the class members have therefore suffered intentional discrimination at the hands of John Knox Village, based on their race and color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
17. As a result of the actions of John Knox Village, plaintiffs and the class members have been deprived of income, as well as other monetary and non- monetary benefits.
18. As a further result of the actions of John Knox Village, plaintiffs and the class members have suffered a loss of self esteem, humiliation, emotional distress and mental anguish.
19. John Knox Village engaged in or permitted these discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of plaintiffs and the class members. They are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish John Knox Village and to deter it and others from like conduct in the future.
4 Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 39 Filed 03/15/02 Page 4 of 6

20. Plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to recover from John Knox Village their reasonable attorneys’ fees, as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, individually and representing a class of similarly situated persons, pray for the following relief: a. That the Court declare that John Knox Village’s conduct complained of herein violates the Civil Rights Act of 1870, 42 U.S.C. § 1981; b. That the Court permanently enjoin John Knox Village from any further conduct violating plaintiffs’ rights, or the rights of the class members, under Section 1981; c. That plaintiffs and the class members be awarded compensatory damages, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, compensation for their emotional distress and suffering, prejudgment interest and postjudgment interest; d. That plaintiffs and the class members be awarded p unitive damages; e. That plaintiffs and the class members by awarded their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action; and f. That plaintiffs and the class members be awarded such additional and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs, individually and representing a class of similarly situated persons, hereby request a trial by jury on all counts of this Complaint.
5 Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 39 Filed 03/15/02 Page 5 of 6

Respectfully submitted, DAVIS KETCHMARK EISCHENS & McCREIGHT By /s/ Michael S. Ketchmark
Michael S. Ketchmark - #41018 Scott A. McCreight - #44002 Brett A. Davis - #43299 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2110 Kansas City, Missouri 64108 Telephone: 816/842-1515 Telecopier: 816/842-4129 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6 Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 39 Filed 03/15/02 Page 6 of 6

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

ERCEL CHANDLER, SHIRLEY MILLER, )

and MARCHALL ALLEN, individually and

)

representing a class of similarly situated persons, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

JOHN KNOX VILLAGE

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 00-0878-GAF

CONSENT DECREE

Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 1 of 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ II. NATURE OF THE CASE .................................................................................................... III. GENERAL TERMS OF THE DECREE ............................................................................
A. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................... B. JURISDICTION AND VENUE...................................................................... C. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF DECREE ............................................. D. PERSONS COVERED BY DECREE, SCOPE OF
CLASS AND LIMITATIONS PERIOD......................................................... E. NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY ............................................................. F. RELEASE/BAR OF CLAIMS ........................................................................ IV. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE MEASURES ............................................................................ A. BACKGROUND............................................................................................ B. FUTURE MEASURES ................................................................................... C. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COURT........................................................... V. SETTLEMENT FUND......................................................................................................... A. CREATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF FUND......................................
1. Creation and Purpose........................................................................... 2. Administrators’ Responsibilities ............................................................ B. CLAIMS FILING PROCEDURES FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS MEMBERS ...........................
2
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 2 of 21

VI. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES ............................................................................. VII. NOTICE ................................................................................................................................
A. INDIVIDUAL NOTICE ................................................................................. B. COST OF NOTICE........................................................................................ VIII. ENFORCEMENT................................................................................................................. A. NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE.................................................. B. FEES............................................................................................................... IX. GOVERNING LAW/ENTIRE AGREEMENT..................................................................
Schedule of Attachments Attachment A (release of claims) Attachment B (stipulation of dismissal) Attachment C (injunctive relief reporting form) Attachment D (notice to class) Attachment E (claim form) Attachment F (request for exclusion form)
3 Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 3 of 21

I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Consent Decree is to set forth the full and final terms by which named
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and members of the class defined herein, and defendant John Knox Village have settled and resolved all claims or potential claims between them, including all claims of any alleged discrimination against African American individuals through an alleged discriminatory practice, purpose, adverse impact, or effect of John Knox Village’s alleged practices and policies. II. NATURE OF THE CASE
Plaintiff originally filed this race discrimination action against John Knox Village on August 29, 2000. On March 15, 2002 plaintiff named additional parties and amended her claims to include class allegations. There are currently 12 other plaintiffs in three separate cases in this court who have similar claims of race discrimination. This lawsuit, however, is the lowest numbered case which is currently active in this Court. The case of Minnie Ford v. John Knox Village, Case No. 00-0879-CV-W-SOW, which is pending in front of the Honorable Scott O. Wright, was filed after this case. The case of Kaye Saunders v. John Knox Village, Case No. 00-0880-CV-W-6, which is pending in front of the Honorable Howard F. Sachs, was filed after this case. The case of Barbara Eldridge v. John Knox Village, Case No. 00-0168CV-W-1, was appealed to the Eighth Circuit and is the subject of a potential petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. As a result, the parties jointly agree that this is the proper case in which to seek class certification and a consent decree. III. GENERAL TERMS OF THE DECREE
A. DEFINITIONS 1. John Knox Village is a not-for-profit corporation. 4
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 4 of 21

2. The phrases "named plaintiffs" or "plaintiffs" mean and refer to Ercel Chandler, Shirley Miller and Marchall Allen.
3. The phrase "African American" means "black" as defined in Appendix 4 of the current Instruction Booklet for completion of Standard Form 100, Employer Information Report EEO- 1. The phrases "African American" and "black" are used interchangeably.
4. The phrase "employment-related claims" means any and all claims based upon or arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.; the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as codified primarily in Titles 29 and 42 of the United States Code; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.; the Missouri Human Rights Act, R.S. Mo. Chapter 213; as well as any other federal, state, or local statute, law, regulation, rule, order, ordinance or other authority of any nature applicable to employment, including without limitation those relating to discrimination, human rights, affirmative action and any employment-related tort or contract claim.
5. The phrases “plaintiffs’ counsel” and “class counsel” refer to Michael S. Ketchmark, DAVIS KETCHMARK EISCHENS & McCREIGHT, P.C., 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2110, Kansas City, Missouri 64108
6. The phrase John Knox Village’s counsel refers to Stanley D. Davis, SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P., One Kansas City Place, 1200 Main Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64105, or such other counsel as may be hereafter designated in writing by John Knox Village.
7. The phrase "eligible class members" or "members of the class," or any variation of such terms shall refer to all members of the class as defined in Section III(D) of this Decree.
5
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 5 of 21

B. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. Venue is
proper in this District. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for the purpose of entering all orders, judgments and decrees which may be necessary to implement the relief provided herein.
C. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF DECREE This Decree and the agreements contained herein are effective as of the date the Decree is
finally approved and entered by the Court and the time for appeal has run without an appeal being filed or, if an appeal is filed, the appeal is vacated or the approval of the Decree has been finally affirmed on appeal and no further appellate review would be possible (the "Effective Date"). The Decree and the agreements contained in it shall continue to be effective and binding upon the parties and their agents and successors for a three year period from the Effective Date, unless a shorter period is specified for a particular provision, and provided that the releases and bars on claims shall survive the Decree. The three year term does not, as such, bar plaintiffs or class members from seeking an extension of the term of the Decree as may be authorized by applicable law.
D. PERSONS COVERED BY DECREE, SCOPE OF CLASS AND LIMITATIONS PERIOD 1. The Class The class shall be maintained as both a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) class which
includes: ALL BLACK PERSONS WHO HAVE WORKED AT JOHN KNOX VILLAGE IN LEE’S SUMMIT, MISSOURI AT ANY TIME BETWEEN MARCH 16, 1995 AND MARCH 15, 2002, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE STILL WORKING AT JOHN KNOX VILLAGE, WHO CLAIM TO
6
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 6 of 21

HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO RACIAL HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION. 2. Opt Out Members of the class (other than named plaintiffs) may opt out of the class and settlement described herein upon Court approval. Members of the class who elect to opt out must do so in writing no later than the date specified in the notice provisions contained herein. Election to opt out must be submitted pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Notice and must be approved by the Court. E. NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY Nothing in this Decree constitutes any admission whatsoever of any wrongdoing or liability of any kind by John Knox Village, whether for any alleged acts of unlawful discrimination or otherwise. John Knox Village expressly denies any wrongdoing or liability. F. RELEASE/BAR OF CLAIMS 1. Release by Named Plaintiffs and those who Receive Payment from the Settlement Fund. The provisions of this Decree shall resolve finally and forever and bar hereafter any and all individual or class employment-related claims as defined in this Decree, in law or in equity, of the named plaintiffs and any members of the class who receive payments from the Settlement Fund, which any of them may have, may have had or in the future may have against John Knox Village (including any of its predecessors, assignees, directors, officers, employees, representatives, agents, attorneys, insurers, affiliates and subsidiaries) arising from any events, acts, omissions, policies, practices, procedures, conditions, or occurrences at any time through and including the Effective Date of this Decree, including any alleged "continuing violation(s)" after the Effective Date of the Decree insofar as any such continuing violations arose
7
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 7 of 21

from events which occurred during any part of such period prior to the Effective Date of the Decree. As a condition precedent to the receipt of any relief under the terms of this Decree, named plaintiffs and members of the class shall, in consideration thereof, execute the Release, exactly as it appears in Attachment A. The named plaintiffs and members of the class must execute the Release before receiving any monetary payment from the Settlement Fund.
2. Release of Claims of All Class Members Who Fail to Opt Out and Who Do Not Receive Monetary Payments from the Settlement Fund. With respect to all members of the class other than (1) the named plaintiffs, (2) persons who receive payments from the Settlement Fund, and (3) persons who have been allowed by the Court to opt out under the provisions of this Decree, the provisions of this Decree shall resolve finally and forever and bar hereafter any and all individual or class claims that any such members of the class may have, may have had or in the future may have against John Knox Village (including any of its predecessors, assignees, directors, officers, employees, representatives, agents, attorneys, insurers, affiliates and subsidiaries) in this or any other proceeding, including lawsuits, administrative actions or grievances under a collective bargaining agreement, relating to race or color discrimination arising from any events, acts, omissions, policies, practices, procedures, conditions or occurrences at any time through and including the Effective Date of this Decree, including any "continuing violation(s)" after the Effective Date of the Decree insofar as any such continuing violations arose from events which occurred during any part of such period prior to the Effective Date of the Decree, as well as any other claim of any nature under any legal authority or theory relating to, arising from, or based on any events, acts, omissions, policies, practices, procedures, conditions or occurrences at any time through and
8
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 8 of 21

including the Effective Date of this Decree that could have given rise to any claim of race or color

discrimination.

3. Effect of this Consent Decree on Future Claims. The doctrines of res judicata and

collateral estoppel shall apply to the named plaintiffs and all members of class (except those who have been

allowed by the Court to opt out under the provisions of this Decree) with respect to all claims as identified

and described above, whether of an individual or class nature.

4. Dismissal of Current Lawsuits. The complaint in this action against John Knox Village

shall be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, on the Effective Date of this Decree, pursuant to the Joint

Stipulation of Dismissal, attached hereto as Attachment B. The Court, however, shall retain jurisdiction of

this case as set forth in Section III.B. Any individual class member who has a lawsuit on file is required to

dismiss their lawsuit, with prejudice, before receiving any monetary compensation from the Settlement Fund.

IV. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE MEASURES

The following general injunctive relief shall apply to and affect the operations of John Knox

Village.

A. BACKGROUND

The following existing measures currently in place at John Knox Village shall be continued

and shall be subject to annual reporting to the Court as set forth below throughout the term of this Consent

Decree.

1. EEO Compliance

·

Current Policies

·

No. 113: Equal Opportunity Employment

9

Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 9 of 21

·

No. 117: Nondiscriminatory Staffing/Assignment

·

No. 420: Discriminatory Harassment

·

No. 512: Problem Solving

·

Reporting Form: Workplace Discrimination/Harassment

(attached as Exhibit C)

·

All associates receive copies of the Village policies, and all shall receive

policy updates and revisions periodically.

·

EEOC/MCHR Posters posted throughout the Village

2. EEO and Related Training

·

Workplace Sensitivity/Diversity

Training designed to communicate and reinforce the Village’s

commitment to maintaining a work environment that is free from

discrimination and harassment is provided to all managers once

each calendar year, and to all associates once each calendar year.

·

EEO Training

New managers are offered a workshop on EEO laws and Village

policies related to EEO laws within the first year of employment.

The training is also included in the orientation of all new Village

associates and in new manager orientation.

·

Interview Process

10 Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 10 of 21

Prior to conducting any performance or other employment related

interviews on their own, all managers and others involved in the

interview process must successfully complete an interviewing

class, which includes education on EEO laws and Village policies

relating to EEO laws.

3. Resident Education

·

Resident Handbook

This handbook is disseminated to all residents and reminds all residents

that all resident agreements require compliance with Village policies. The

General Policies section within the handbook informs residents of the

Village’s policy to encourage diversity and prohibit discrimination against

both residents and associates. The resident handbook is updated

periodically.

·

VCC Admission Process

A separate letter is sent to all new residents and their families during the

admission process to educate residents and their families regarding Village

policies respecting diversity and non-discrimination as well as Village

policies of communicating and treating all associates with dignity and

respect.

4. Diversity Initiatives

·

Associate Diversity Committee

11

Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 11 of 21

The Village developed the Associate Diversity Committee to promote

communication and understanding among associates with different

backgrounds. The Committee is comprised of Village associates at all

levels and reflects diverse backgrounds. The committee has been trained

and began monthly meetings in April 2001. Committee activities have

included development and implementation of a diversity audit, review of

associate policies, and workplace sensitivity training. Future plans for

additional educational activities as well as the celebration of a Diversity

Month are underway.

B. FUTURE MEASURES

The following additional and expanded EEO and diversity measures shall be developed and

implemented at John Knox Village and shall be reported annually to the Court as set forth

below throughout the term of this Consent Decree.

1. The Director of Employment and Associate Relations will

·

Continue to coordinate enforcement of Village policies related to EEO

laws

·

Identify potential EEO concerns in partnership with outside consultants as

necessary

·

Receive and track reports of EEO concerns

12 Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 12 of 21

·

Coordinate investigation and resolution of identified or reported EEO

concerns

2. Communication of Director of Employment and Associate Relations Role

The Village shall promote and communicate to all associates at least annually an

understanding of the Director of Employment and Associate Relations’ role and

responsibilities.

3. EEO Compliance

The Director of Employment and Associate Relations reports directly to the Vice

President of Human Resources to whom quarterly reports on EEO compliance and

diversity measures shall be provided.

4. Board of Directors Reports

The Vice President of Human Resources shall report the status and progress of all

EEO compliance and diversity activity to the Village Board of Directors at least

semi-annually.

5. The Village shall:

·

distribute annually to all associates a summary, in simple language, of

associate rights and responsibilities related to EEO laws and Village

policies related to EEO laws, and their right to be free from retaliation;

·

Periodically (at least annually) publicize and promote Village values, with

emphasis on valuing diversity;

13 Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 13 of 21

·

Post Village values throughout the Village in all locations where associate

information is posted;

·

Retain a qualified outside consultant to advise and consult with the Village

regarding the promotion of diversity;

·

Outside consultant will be available to provide individual,

department specific as well as Village-wide consulting and

diversity review;

·

Outside consultant will assist with annual diversity training for all

associates;

·

Continue to focus on minority recruitment efforts;

·

Offer annual diversity training for all residents; and

·

Coordinate and conduct joint resident/associate diversity awareness.

C. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COURT

1. Pursuant to this Consent Decree, the Village’s Vice President of Human Resources

shall report to the Court annually on or about January 15 each year during the term

of this Consent Decree commencing January 15, 2003 respecting the status of the

Village’s EEO and diversity activities described herein during the preceding year.

2. Each annual report to the Court shall be submitted over the signature of the Vice

President of Human Resources of the Village who shall certify the accuracy and

completeness of the report.

14 Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 14 of 21

3. Each annual report to the Court shall describe each activity, seminar, training

session, communication or publication in furtherance of the Village’s responsibilities

under these Injunctive Measures which description shall include date of the event

or communication, the number of associates and/or residents participating or

involved, a brief description of the substance of the event or communication, and

with respect to ongoing management and operating activities such as continuing

diversity recruitment efforts, a summary of diversity recruiting activities, media

outlets utilized, and a statement of the volume of such activities for the year.

4. Plaintiffs’ opportunity to respond

·

A copy of the Village’s annual report to the Court shall be served on

counsel for plaintiffs concurrently with filing.

·

Counsel for plaintiffs shall have 14 days within which to review the report

and file any response with the Court. Any response shall be served on

counsel for the Village concurrently with filing.

·

In the event counsel for plaintiffs file a response, both parties shall have 14

days within which to reconcile issues reflected or identified in the Village’s

annual report and plaintiffs’ response, and shall report such reconciliation

or failure to reconcile to the Court.

·

In the event reconciliation is not achieved by the parties, the Court may

take such action as the Court deems appropriate to address or resolve the

issues.

15

Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 15 of 21

5. In the event plaintiffs do not file a response to the Village’s annual report within 14 days, the report shall be deemed to be accepted by plaintiffs and the Court without further action by the Court or any party.
V. SETTLEMENT FUND A. CREATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF FUND 1. Creation and Purpose For the purpose of satisfying and settling all of the eligible claims of named plaintiffs
and members of the class and to make full and complete settlement with respect to past and future attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs of class counsel, as well as future administrative fees and expenses, John Knox Village shall, upon final approval and entry of proposed Administrative Order No. 1 attached hereto, deposit by wire transfer to the Settlement Fund the amount of $3,750,000.00.
The Settlement Fund shall be established as a qualified settlement fund that qualifies under Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code and shall be administered by Michael S. Ketchmark and Brett A. Davis (“the Administrators”) under the Court's supervision in accordance with Administrative Order No. 1 submitted to the Court for approval, the terms of which are incorporated herein.
2. Administrators’ Responsibilities In administering the Settlement Fund, including the maintenance of detailed and accurate records, the Administrators shall be bound by the terms of the Court's Administrative Order No. 1, as that order may in the future be supplemented or amended by the Court to administratively carry out the purposes of the Decree, provided that no such supplementation or amendment may alter the terms of the Decree, including John Knox Village’s settlement obligation.
16
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 16 of 21

B. CLAIMS FILING PROCEDURES FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS MEMBERS Members of the class as defined in the Decree, including named plaintiffs, may submit their
claims to the Administrators, under penalty of perjury, in accordance with the procedures set forth on the Claim Form by a date selected by the Court.
Following preliminary approval of the Decree, class counsel shall mail a Claim Form to every known class member at his/her last known address, pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Notice provision of the Decree and the Schedule of Mailing and Publication Notice set forth in the Court's Order preliminarily approving the Decree. Claim Forms shall be made available by class counsel to other class members at their request.
The claims submitted by class members, including named plaintiffs, shall be processed and reviewed by the Administrators and monetary awards from the Settlement Fund shall be recommended to the Court by the Administrators. Underlying Claim Forms prepared by class members may be provided to the Court under seal if so requested, but shall be provided to John Knox Village only if so ordered by the Court. The recommendations shall be provided to the Court under seal, with a copy to counsel for John Knox Village. In order to promote both fairness and efficiency, each claim will be awarded points after review by the Administrators of the information provided on his/her Claim Form. The details of the point system to be applied shall be provided to John Knox Village and recommended by class counsel to the Court after claims are received, and the details are subject to Court approval. The point system will be applied uniformly, will not be discretionary after approval and may be amended only by Court Order. The total points awarded to all claimants will be aggregated, and each claimant's proportionate share of the total
17
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 17 of 21

points will be determined. The claimant shall then be allocated a commensurate proportion of Settlement Fund. All monetary awards shall be subject to the review and approval of the Court before disbursement. All class members receiving awards will be required to keep the amount of the awards confidential from everyone except class counsel, or any attorney, tax or financial advisor representing them or a member of their immediate family (but only after receiving an agreement by such attorney, advisor or family member to keep the amount of the award confidential). VI. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES
Subject to approval by the Court, class counsel shall be entitled to attorneys’ fees including reimbursement of costs and expenses for legal services through the Effective Date of the Decree as well as future attorneys’ fees, administrative fees, costs and expenses in the following amounts:
1. Upon the Effective Date of this Decree, class counsel will receive reimbursementfor out-of-pocket litigation expenses in incurred to that point;
2. Class counsel will receive reimbursement for future out-of-pocket expenses incurred on behalf of the class as such expenses are incurred;
3. Class counsel will receive as attorneys’ fees and administration fees forty percent (40%) of each cash payment tendered by John Knox Village pursuant to paragraph V(A)(1)(a) of this Decree. These amounts are intended to compensate class counsel both for past and future attorneys’ fees and administration fees. These amounts will be paid to class counsel on the Effective Date of this Decree.
18
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 18 of 21

VII. NOTICE A. INDIVIDUAL NOTICE Individual Notice of the terms of this Decree, and of the opportunity to submit written
comments or to appear at the fairness hearing, shall be sent by class counsel by first-class mail to all members of the class of, at their last known address, to the extent those individuals are ascertainable from John Knox Village’s records. Such notice will be in the form as it appears in Attachment D. John Knox Village shall provide such addresses to class counsel on gummed labels within seven (7) days after preliminary approval by the Court. The gummed labels for all class members shall also include the individual's social security number to the extent determinable from John Knox Village’s records. John Knox Village shall also deliver to class counsel alphabetized lists of the persons for whom address labels were supplied. Notice will also be given by publication in the Kansas City Call.
The Notice to class members shall include the Claim Form as it appears in Attachment E, and the Request for Exclusion Form as it appears in Attachment F.
B. COST OF NOTICE The costs of printing, handling and distributing the mailed and published Notices and Claim
Forms to members of the class shall be borne by the Class. VIII. ENFORCEMENT
A. NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE In the event any plaintiff, member of the class, or plaintiffs' counsel have good reason to
believe, at any time during the term of this Decree, that John Knox Village has not complied with any 19
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 19 of 21

provision of the Decree, such persons may, through plaintiffs' counsel, seek enforcement of the Decree from the Court. However, prior to instituting any proceedings to enforce the provisions of this Decree, plaintiffs' counsel shall provide written notice to John Knox Village’s counsel that specifically sets forth the way(s) in which counsel believes that John Knox Village is in violation and the evidence in support thereof. Following written notice, John Knox Village shall be afforded a sixty (60) day opportunity to cure the alleged violation. Only after the expiration of the applicable cure period, or any agreed extension thereof, may plaintiffs' counsel bring any enforcement proceedings before the Court.
Enforcement proceedings, if any, shall be brought on written motion to the Court. If such proceedings are brought, John Knox Village shall have twenty (20) working days to file its response.
B. FEES In the event class counsel brings an enforcement action, the prevailing party may petition the
Court for attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with the provisions and standards of 42 U.S.C. § 1988. IX. GOVERNING LAW/ENTIRE AGREEMENT
The parties agree that federal law shall govern the validity, construction and enforcement of this Decree. To the extent it is determined that the validity, construction or enforcement of this Decree or any release executed pursuant to its terms is governed by state law, the law of the State of Missouri shall apply.
This Decree, including the Attachments hereto, contains the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the settlement of this litigation. This Decree does not impose any obligations on the parties beyond the terms and conditions stated herein. Accordingly, this Decree shall not prevent or preclude John Knox Village from revising its employment practices and policies or taking
20
Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 20 of 21

other personnel actions during the term of the Decree that do not violate specific requirements of the Decree.
This Decree may not be amended or modified except with the express written consent of the parties and the approval of the Court.
All parties to this Decree acknowledge that this Decree is final and binding in all respects. AGREED AND CONSENTED TO THIS 15th DAY OF MARCH, 2002 BY:

/s/ Michael S. Ketchmark Michael S. Ketchmark - #41018 Brett A. Davis - #43299 DAVIS KETCHMARK EISCHENS
& McCREIGHT, P.C. 2345 Grand Boulevard Suite 2110 Kansas City, MO 64108 (816) 842-1515 (816) 842-4129 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class

/s/ Stanley D. Davis Stanley D. Davis - #46411 Carole K. DeWald - #43049 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
1200 Main Street One Kansas City Place Kansas City, MO 64105 (816) 474-6550 (816) 421-5547 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Defendant John Knox Village

21 Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 35-1 Filed 03/15/02 Page 21 of 21

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

ERCEL CHANDLER, SHIRLEY MILLER,

)

and MARCHALL ALLEN, individually and

)

representing a class of similarly situated persons, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

JOHN KNOX VILLAGE

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 00-0878-GAF

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT On May 31, 2002, the Court held a final hearing regarding the parties’ proposed
class settlement herein. After consideration of the proposed Consent Decree, the statements and arguments of counsel for the parties, and comments received from the class members after publication of notice, the Court hereby finds that the proposed class settlement is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Consent Decree attached to the Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree filed by the parties on March 15, 2002, is approved and entered on this date; and
2. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree.
/s/ Gary A. Fenner United States District Judge Dated: May 31, 2002

Case 4:00-cv-00878-GAF Document 50 Filed 05/31/02 Page 1 of 1

 
 CLOSED, EAPADMIN
U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:00−cv−00878−GAF

Miller v. John Knox Village Assigned to: District Judge Gary A. Fenner Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/29/2000 Date Terminated: 05/31/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Shirley Miller

represented by Brett A. Davis Davis Ketchmark &McCreight 2345 Grand Blvd. Suite 2110 Kansas City, MO 64108 (816) 842−1515 Fax: (816) 842−4129 Email: bdavis@dkelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirk Daniel Holman Holman Schiavone, LLC 4600 Madison Avenue Ste. 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 (816) 283−8738 Fax: (816)283−8739 Email: kholman@hslawllc.com TERMINATED: 02/05/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael S Ketchmark Davis Ketchmark &McCreight, PC 2345 Grand Boulevard Suite 2110 Kansas City, MO 64108 (816)842−1515 Fax: (816)842−4129 Email: mike@dkelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William T Bernard 1711 Westport Road Kansas City, MO 64111 816−756−3737 Fax: 816−756−1364 Email: racingrexer@hotmail.com TERMINATED: 02/28/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant John Knox Village
Case: 4:00-cv-00878-GAF

represented by Carole Kay DeWald Shank &Hamilton, PC 2345 Grand Avenue Suite 1600 Kansas City, MO 64108 (816) 471−0909 Fax: (816) 471−3888
As of: 07/16/2010 12:32 PM CDT 1 of 6

Email: caroled@shankhamilton.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie Ann Novion Shook Hardy &Bacon LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108−2613 (816)474−6550 Fax: (816)421−4066 Email: lnovion@shb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stanley Daryl Davis Shook Hardy &Bacon LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108−2613 (816) 474−6550 Fax: (816) 421−5547 Email: sddavis@shb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

08/29/2000

1 COMPLAINT against John Knox Village. filed by William T Bernard, Kirk Daniel Holman on behalf of Shirley Miller. Receipt #178906. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 08/30/2000)

08/29/2000

2 Notice of EAPADMIN.(Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 08/30/2000)

09/25/2000

3 MOTION to stay Proceedings and for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Plead in Response to the Complaint (related document(s) 1 ) on behalf of John Knox Village. (Attachments: # 1 Suggestions in Support of Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings and For Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Plead in Response to the Complaint# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7)(Novion, Laurie) (Entered: 09/25/2000)

09/26/2000

4 ORDER granting deft's motion for extension of time to respond to complaint entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner.(Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 09/26/2000)

09/28/2000

5 SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION To Defendant's Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by Kirk Daniel Holman of Holman &Associates on behalf of Shirley Miller. Reply Suggestions due by 10/10/2000. (Related motion(s) 3 ) (Other related filing(s) 1 , 3 ) (Holman, Kirk) (Entered: 09/28/2000)

10/10/2000

6 REPLY SUGGESTIONS filed by Stanley Daryl Davis of Shook, Hardy &Bacon L.L.P. on behalf of John Knox Village. (Related motion(s) 3 ) (Kendall, Shelly) (Entered: 10/11/2000)

11/01/2000

7 ORDER by Judge Gary A. Fenner granting motion to stay (Related Doc # 3 ) (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 11/01/2000)

04/26/2001

8 STATUS REPORT filed by Laurie Ann Novion of Shook, Hardy &Bacon, L.L.P. on behalf of John Knox Village.(Novion, Laurie) Modified on 4/30/2001 to remove blank page from document (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 04/26/2001)

04/26/2001

9 MOTION for leave to file First Amended Complaint on behalf of Shirley Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint# 2 Exhibit MCHR Right to Sue# 3 Exhibit EEOC Right to Sue)(Jones, Robin) Modified on 4/27/2001 to attach correct exhibit (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 04/27/2001)

05/15/2001

10 Order entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner on 5/15/2001 granting motion for leave to file (Related Doc # 9 ) (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 05/15/2001)

05/21/2001

11 AMENDED COMPLAINT against John Knox Village. Filed by Kirk Daniel Holman on behalf of Shirley Miller. Service due by 9/18/2001, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Charge of Discrimination# 2 Pleading MCHR Right to Sue# 3 Pleading EEOC Right to Sue)(Holman, Kirk) (Entered: 05/21/2001)

Case: 4:00-cv-00878-GAF As of: 07/16/2010 12:32 PM CDT 2 of 6

05/31/2001

12 ANSWER to amended complaint (Related Doc # 11 ) filed by Carole Kay DeWald on behalf of John Knox Village. (Related document(s) 11 ) (DeWald, Carole) (Entered: 05/31/2001)

06/01/2001

13 Joint PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN filed by Carole Kay DeWald on behalf of John Knox Village. (DeWald, Carole) (Entered: 06/01/2001)

06/11/2001

14 RULES OF TRIAL entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner(Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 06/11/2001)

06/11/2001

15 SCHEDULING ORDER entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner.Discovery due by 1/30/2002, pre−trial conference set for 9/6/2002 at 02:30 PM at Chambers, accelerated jury trial held on 10/7/2002 at 09:00AM at Courtroom 8A, Kansas City (GAF) dispositive motions due by 2/25/2002, (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 06/11/2001)

09/14/2001

16 ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE filed by Kirk Daniel Holman on behalf of Shirley Miller. (Holman, Kirk) (Entered: 09/14/2001)

11/21/2001

17 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of shirley miller on November 30, 2001 filed by Carole Kay DeWald on behalf of John Knox Village. (DeWald, Carole) (Entered: 11/21/2001)

12/10/2001

18 Amended NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Shirley Miller on December 19, 2001 (Videotaped) filed by Carole Kay DeWald on behalf of John Knox Village. (DeWald, Carole) (Entered: 12/10/2001)

12/26/2001

19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant filed by Brett A. Davis on behalf of Shirley Miller. (Davis, Brett) (Entered: 12/26/2001)

12/27/2001

20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents filed by Stanley Daryl Davis on behalf of John Knox Village. (Davis, Stanley) (Entered: 12/27/2001)

12/28/2001

21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to Defendant and Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents to Defendant filed by Brett A. Davis on behalf of Shirley Miller. (Davis, Brett) (Entered: 12/28/2001)

01/02/2002

22 Amended NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Shirley Miller on January 14, 2002 (Videotaped) filed by Carole Kay DeWald on behalf of John Knox Village. (DeWald, Carole) (Entered: 01/02/2002)

01/09/2002

23 Joint MOTION to amend the Scheduling Order filed by Brett A. Davis on behalf of Shirley Miller. suggestions in opposition due by 1/24/2002. (Davis, Brett) (Entered: 01/09/2002)

01/09/2002

24 Order entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner on 1/9/2002 granting motion to amend (Related Doc # 23 ) (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 01/09/2002)

01/11/2002

25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Brett A. Davis on behalf of Shirley Miller. (Davis, Brett) (Entered: 01/11/2002)

02/05/2002

26 MOTION to withdraw/substitute attorney filed by Kirk Daniel Holman on behalf of Shirley Miller. suggestions in opposition due by 2/20/2002. (Holman, Kirk) (Entered: 02/05/2002)

02/05/2002

27 Order entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner on 2/5/2002 granting motion to withdraw/substitute attorney (Related Doc # 26 ) (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 02/05/2002)

02/22/2002

28 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Stephanie Roberts filed by Brett A. Davis on behalf of Shirley Miller. (Davis, Brett) (Entered: 02/22/2002)

02/22/2002

29 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Mary Lou Gajdosik filed by Brett A. Davis on behalf of Shirley Miller. (Davis, Brett) (Entered: 02/22/2002)

02/22/2002

30 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Betty Freeman−Boots filed by Brett A. Davis on behalf of Shirley Miller. (Davis, Brett) (Entered: 02/22/2002)

Case: 4:00-cv-00878-GAF As of: 07/16/2010 12:32 PM CDT 3 of 6

02/22/2002 02/27/2002 02/28/2002 03/15/2002 03/15/2002
03/15/2002 03/15/2002 03/15/2002 03/15/2002 03/15/2002 03/15/2002 03/27/2002 04/09/2002 04/11/2002 04/19/2002 04/23/2002

31 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of Trudy Stultz filed by Brett A. Davis on behalf of Shirley Miller. (Davis, Brett) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
32 MOTION to withdraw/substitute attorney filed by William T Bernard on behalf of Shirley Miller. suggestions in opposition due by 3/14/2002. (Kendall, Shelly) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
33 Order entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner on 2/28/2002 granting motion to withdraw/substitute attorney (Related Doc # 32 ) (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
Remark − Original Document #35 (NOTICE OF FILING of Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree filed by Michael S Ketchmark on behalf of Shirley Miller has been deleted and will be refiled under correct document type and as a complete document (Kendall, Shelly) (Entered: 03/15/2002)
35 Joint MOTION for order for Entry of Consent Decree filed by Michael S Ketchmark on behalf of Shirley Miller. suggestions in opposition due by 4/1/2002. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent Decree# 2 Exhibit A to Consent Decree − Release of Claims# 3 Exhibit B to Consent Decree − Stip of Dismissal# 4 Exhibit C to Consent Decree − Reporting Form# 5 Exhibit D to Consent Decree − Notice to Class# 6 Exhibit E to Consent Decree − Claim Form# 7 Exhibit F to Consent Form − Request for Exclusion Form)(Ketchmark, Michael) (Entered: 03/15/2002)
Remark − Document #34 was deleted as it was filed inproperly. Atty to refile document today. (Honeycutt, Cassaundra) (Entered: 03/15/2002)
36 Joint MOTION for leave to file Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Michael S Ketchmark on behalf of Shirley Miller. suggestions in opposition due by 4/1/2002. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Class Action Complaint)(Ketchmark, Michael) (Entered: 03/15/2002)
37 Order entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner on 3/15/2002 granting motion for leave to file (Related Doc # 36 ) (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 03/15/2002)
38 Minute Entry of hearing held on 3/15/2002 Settlement hearing to be held on 5/31/2002 at 09:00 AM at Courtroom 8A, Kansas City (GAF) (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 03/15/2002)
39 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against John Knox Village. Filed by Michael S Ketchmark on behalf of Shirley Miller. Service due by 7/15/2002, (Ketchmark, Michael) (Entered: 03/15/2002)
40 ORDER FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner. (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 03/15/2002)
41 ORDER entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner directing plaintiff's counsel to file status report regarding non−compliance with ECF. (Mitchell, Lisa) Modified on 3/27/2002 to replace incomplete document (Kendall, Shelly). (Entered: 03/27/2002)
42 RESPONSE TO MOTION −Request for Exclusion filed by Plaintiff Odetta Allen on behalf of Odetta Allen filed. Reply Suggestions due by 4/24/2002. (Related document(s) 35 ) (Beard, Melanie) Modified on 4/9/2002 to correct pleading title(Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 04/09/2002)
43 RESPONSE TO MOTION Request for Exclusion filed by John A. Wright Reply Suggestions due by 4/26/2002. (Related document(s) 35 ) (Beard, Melanie) Modified on 4/12/2002 to correct pleading title(Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 04/12/2002)
46 RESPONSE TO MOTION Request for Exclusion filed by Robbie Jean Neely. Reply Suggestions due by 5/6/2002. (Related document(s) 35 ) (Beard, Melanie) Modified on 4/23/2002 to correct pleading text(Beard, Melanie). Modified on 4/23/2002 (Beard, Melanie). (Entered: 04/23/2002)
Documents 44 and 45(Response to Motion #(35)) were deleted due to misfiling by the Clerk's office. Remark (Beard, Melanie) (Entered: 04/23/2002)

Case: 4:00-cv-00878-GAF As of: 07/16/2010 12:32 PM CDT 4 of 6

05/14/2002

47 MOTION for leave to file out of time to opposition to proposed settlement filed by Shirley Miller. suggestions in opposition due by 5/29/2002. (Kendall, Shelly) Terminated on 5/31/2002 (Diefenbach, Tracy). (Entered: 05/14/2002)

05/31/2002

48 Order entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner on 5/31/2002 granting motion for order (Related Doc # 35 ) (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 05/31/2002)

05/31/2002

49 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 1 entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner. (Mitchell, Lisa) Modified on 5/31/2002. Original Order replaced with correctly dated Order. (Mitchell, Lisa). (Entered: 05/31/2002)

05/31/2002

50 ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner. (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 05/31/2002)

05/31/2002

51 Minute Entry of settlement hearing Dated: 5/31/2002 (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 05/31/2002)

07/02/2002

52 ORDER entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner granting plaintiffs an extension of time to July 31, 2002, within which to make recommendation on settlement distributions. (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 07/02/2002)

07/18/2002

53 NOTICE OF FILING Report and Recommendation of Administrators Regarding Proposed Distribution of Class Settlement Proceeds filed by Michael S Ketchmark on behalf of Shirley Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Ketchmark, Michael) (Entered: 07/18/2002)

07/18/2002

54 MOTION to seal document Exhibit 2 to Administrators' Report and Recommendation Regarding Proposed Distribution of Class Settlement Proceeds filed by Michael S Ketchmark on behalf of Shirley Miller. suggestions in opposition due by 8/2/2002. (Ketchmark, Michael) (Entered: 07/18/2002)

07/18/2002

55 Order entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner on 7/18/2002 granting motion to seal document (Related Doc # 54 ) (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 07/18/2002)

07/18/2002

56 EXHIBIT 2 to the Report and Recommendation of Administrators. (Related document(s) 53 ) (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 07/18/2002)

07/18/2002

57 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF ADMINISTRATORS entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner. (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 07/18/2002)

08/01/2002

58 LETTER from the Jackson County Prosecutor filed by John Knox Village. (Kendall, Shelly) (Entered: 08/01/2002)

08/06/2002

59 Notice of Lien on Claims, Counterclaims and Suits at Law (Kendall, Shelly) (Entered: 08/06/2002)

08/06/2002

60 MOTION to amend Report and Recommendation of Administrators Regarding Proposed Distribution of Class Settlement Proceeds filed by Michael S Ketchmark on behalf of Shirley Miller. suggestions in opposition due by 8/21/2002. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Ketchmark, Michael) (Entered: 08/06/2002)

08/06/2002

61 MOTION to seal document Exhibit 2 to Motion to Amend Report and Recommendation of Administrators Regarding Proposed Distribution of Class Settlement Proceeds filed by Michael S Ketchmark on behalf of Shirley Miller. suggestions in opposition due by 8/21/2002. (Ketchmark, Michael) Terminated on 8/12/2002 (Diefenbach, Tracy). (Entered: 08/06/2002)

08/06/2002

62 MOTION to seal document filed by Michael S Ketchmark on behalf of Shirley Miller. suggestions in opposition due by 8/21/2002. (Kendall, Shelly) Terminated on 8/12/2002 (Diefenbach, Tracy). (Entered: 08/08/2002)

08/12/2002

63 SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibit 2 filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 61 ) (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 08/12/2002)

08/12/2002

64 Order entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner on 8/12/2002 granting motion to amend (Related Doc # 60 ) (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 08/12/2002)

08/12/2002

65 ORDER entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner granting motion to seal exhibit (Doc. #61) (Mitchell, Lisa) (Entered: 08/12/2002)

Case: 4:00-cv-00878-GAF As of: 07/16/2010 12:32 PM CDT 5 of 6

01/15/2003 01/15/2004
01/14/2005

66 NOTICE of filing by John Knox Village DEFENDANT'S ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COURT (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Exhibit Attachment)(DeWald, Carole) Modified on 1/16/2003 to acknowledge receipt of exhibits in Clerk's office (Kendall, Shelly). (Entered: 01/15/2003)
67 STATUS REPORT Defendant's Annual Report To The Court by John Knox Village. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit 17# 18 Notice of Exhibit Attachment 18# 19 Notice of Exhibit Attachment 19# 20 Exhibit 20)(DeWald, Carole) Modified on 1/16/2004 to acknowledge receipt of exhibits in Clerk's office (Kendall, Shelly). (Entered: 01/15/2004)
68 STATUS REPORT Final Annual Report to the Court by John Knox Village. (Attachments: # 1)(Davis, Stanley) Modified on 1/19/2005 to acknowledge receipt of exhibits in Clerk's office (McDowell, Shelly). (Entered: 01/14/2005)

Case: 4:00-cv-00878-GAF As of: 07/16/2010 12:32 PM CDT 6 of 6