Case 1:06-cv-04805 Document 1 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 4
FILED

SEP 0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEl. W. DOItlilNI

EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
ROADWAY EXPRESSS, INC.

06CV48O5

JUDGE GUZMAN MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOLAN

cOMI’I Ai-NY

Defendant,

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of die Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 IJ.S.C. § 2000c et seq= ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and to provide appropriate relief to Kenneth Comer, and a class of Black employees who were adversely affected by such practices.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action is brought by the United State~ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U,S.C. § 2000c et seq, 2. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to § 706(f)(1) and § 706(f)(3) of Title VII, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and §2000e-5(I)(3), and § 102 &the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A, 3. This court has jurisdiction of this action pursu~mt to 28 U.S.C. 9§ 45 I, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345, 4. The unlawful acts alleged below were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction o1’ the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Case 1:06-cv-04805 Document 1 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 4
PARTIES 5. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the "administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Tide VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(1)(I) and (3). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Roadway Express, Inc., has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago Heights, Illinois. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Roadway Express, In¢., has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 8. At all relevant times, Delbndant Roadway Express, inc., has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 9. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Kenneth Comer filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VIl by Defendant Roadway Express, Inc. I 0, All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 11. Since at least 2000, Delbndant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of §703(a) ol’Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Such unlawful employment practices include subjecting Kenneth Comer and a class of Black employees to harassment and different terms and condi’dons because o1" their race. 12. The result of the practices complained of in paragraph I 1 has been to deprive Kenneth Comer and a class of Black employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race. 13. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional. 14. The unlawful practices complained or above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Kenneth Comer and a class of Black employees.
2

¯ . -

Case 1:06-cv-04805 Document 1 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 3 of 4

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Cormnission requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race; B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices and proga’anas which provide equal employment opportunities for its employees regardless of race, and which eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendant to make whole Kemaeth Comer and a class of Black employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from those unlawful employment practices, including medical expenses, in ~unounts to be determined at trial; D. Order Defendant to make whole Kenneth Comer and a cl~s o f Black employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from those unlawful employment practices, including emotional pain, suffering, lo~s of enjoyment of life, httmiliation, and inconvenience, in amounts to be determined at trial; E. Order Defendant to pay Kenneth Comer and a class of Black employees punitive damages for its malicious aaad reckless conduct in amounts to be determined at trial. F. Prohibit Defen&mt ti"om discriminating against any individual for engaging in protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or for opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII, or for participating in this lawsuit; G. Grant such further reliet’as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

.....

Case 1:06-cv-04805 Document 1 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 4 of 4

JURY TRIAL DEMAN~ The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by the Complaint.

Respectfully submittcd, Ronald Cooper General Counsel
Gwcndolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission
n ~toa(’.~.~2. ~20507///

:. Hendrick~d/,

o- ~

hal Att/0tfiey~ . / ,

"t~_ar_g~rizek - ~_ Trial Attdmey
Equal Employment Opportunity Cormnission 500 Wcst M’,dison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 886-9078

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

KENNETH COMER,

)

)

)

Intervening-Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

06 C 4805
Judge Guzman Magistrate Judge Nolan

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES Now comes the intervening-plaintiff, Kenneth Comer, by his attorneys Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty P.C, and hereby complains against the defendant Roadway Express, Inc. as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION 1. This race discrimination case is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the Reconstruction Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, to redress the defendant’s policy of ignoring and failing to promptly investigate or remedy vicious racial harassment directed at plaintiff and other African-American employees, its failure to adopt EEO
1

policies that conform to industry-wide standards, its failure to eliminate a racially hostile environment maintained at defendant’s Chicago Heights facility and its discriminatory and retaliatory treatment of plaintiff Comer.
The plaintiff herein was subjected to racial epithets and threats, including multiple instances of hangman's nooses displayed at the workplace. At all times relevant to this case, the defendant has had an ineffective anti-harassment policy that requires its employees to make all complaints about harassment in writing to its General Counsel at its corporate offices in Ohio before any action would be taken to redress the problem. As a result, the Chicago Heights facility has been rife with incidents of racial harassment throughout the years. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This court has jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division since the unlawful practices occurred within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). III. PARTIES
3. Roadway Express, Inc., is a corporation doing business in the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago Heights, Illinois. At all relevant times, Roadway has continually had in excess of fifteen (15) employees and has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b),(g) and (h).
4. Plaintiff Kenneth Comer is a 42-year-old African-American citizen of the United States. Mr. Comer resides in Merrillville, Indiana. Mr. Comer has been employed as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express for the past eighteen (18) years at its Chicago Heights facility.
2

5. Defendant Roadway Express Inc. is a corporation engaged in the business of worldwide ground transportation. Roadway employs over 23,900 employees in 349 service centers, including the service center located in Chicago Heights, Illinois, where the named plaintiff is employed. In December of 2003, Roadway merged with and became a subsidiary of YRC Roadway Inc., a global shipping company. As of 2003, the Chicago Heights Terminal reported that it employed more than 1,650 employees.
IV. EXHAUSTION OF ADMNISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER TITLE VII 6. On April 13, 2003, plaintiff Comer filed a class action administrative complaint alleging that from on or about April 15, 2001 and continuing to that time, he and AfricanAmericans as a class have been subjected to ongoing racial harassment at Respondent’s Chicago Heights Terminal. On August 4, 2005, Comer filed a second charge alleging that he was terminated from employment in retaliation for complaining of racial harassment and because of his race. 7. The EEOC investigated Mr. Comer’s charges and found reasonable cause to believe that he and a class of Black employees, had been discriminated against because of their race, in that they were subjected to racial harassment. . On September 6, 2006, the EEOC brought suit to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, based upon Mr. Comer’s complaint.
V. ROADWAY’S INEFFECTIVE AND INTIMIDATING “ANTIHARASSMENT” INTERNAL COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
3

8. At all times relevant hereto, the defendant has maintained an alleged antiharassment policy that requires its 23,900 employees of Roadway to present any complaints of racial harassment or discrimination in writing to Roadway’s Office of General Counsel in Akron, Ohio before any investigation or action to remedy the complaint can take place.
9. Plaintiff Comer has experienced numerous acts of racial harassment, including being subject to vile racial graffiti at the workplace and having hangman’s nooses placed at his work site.
10. The defendant’s anti-harassment complaint process is designed more to insulate defendant from legal action than it is to uncover acts of harassment. The defendant’s policy creates an immediate conflict of interest between the office of legal counsel’s duty to protect Roadway from legal liability and its duty to investigate and uncover acts of racial harassment at the workplace.
11. Plaintiff Comer and other African-American employees have been and remain reluctant to communicate their complaints of racial harassment to defendant’s attorney in order to obtain any redress for incidents of workplace harassment.
12. During the course of plaintiff’s employment at defendant’s Chicago Heights facility, he and virtually all other African-American employees were at various times subjected to almost daily racial epithets written in the men’s bathroom, including “KKK”, ”Niggers go back to Africa”, “Make America Safe, Kill a Nigger Today” and “swastikas written and carved into the walls.
13. In March of 2002, a hangman’s noose was placed on plaintiff Comer’s forklift at defendant’s workplace.
4

14. On June 22, 2002, death threats to African-American employees were written in the bathroom of defendant’s workplace.
15. In October 2002, a hangman’s noose was placed on a Roadway truck where it was discovered by an African-American employee, Fred Thompson. Hours after Thompson complained and gave the noose to his supervisor, the same noose was placed at the work area of two other African-American employees.
16. In October of 2002, a white employee was observed riding a forklift with a hangman’s noose dangling from it.
17. In October of 2002, a noose was placed on a jeep intended for Plaintiff Comer’s use.
18. In June of 2003, a hangman’s noose was placed on a trailer being unloaded by plaintiff Comer.
19. In August of 2003, a noose was placed on a trailer being unloaded by Tyrone Martin.
20. Throughout the above period of time, through and including May of 2004, racist graffiti including KKK references were repeatedly present in the bathroom utililized by AfricanAmerican dockworkers and others.
21. The above actions constitute severe and pervasive harassment designed to instill fear in Comer and other African-American employees who worked at the Chicago Heights facility. These actions unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s ability to perform his job.
5

VI. NOTICE TO DEFENDANT AND FAILURE TO TAKE EFFECTIVE ACTION
22. In January of 2001, plaintiff and others met with the Respondent’s terminal manager to complain about incidents of racial discrimination. Immediately thereafter, vile racial graffiti appeared in the bathroom.
23. In March of 2002, plaintiff Comer complained in writing to the terminal manager about the presence of a hangman’s noose in the workplace.
24. From June of 2002 through March of 2003, numerous incidents of racial harassment were brought to the attention of supervisors and the terminal manager by various of the defendant’s employees.
25. In November of 2002, a detailed list of racially harassing events, including the noose incidents and racist threats to African-Americans, was forwarded to the Chicago Heights facility Labor Relations Manager, by the plaintiff’s union representative.
26. The company did not respond to the above until January 2, 2003 when the Labor Relations Manager informed the union that company policy dictates that allegations of racial discrimination and harassment not be handled locally. The Labor Relations Manager told the union to have the complaining employee, Ken Comer, write a letter to the company’s Office of General Counsel. The communications to the union was not sent on to Comer until February 2003.
27. Despite the above incidents and complaints, the defendant never conducted an effective investigation to determine who may have been responsible for the racially hostile acts. Affected employees were not questioned in an effort to determine who had participated in the incidents or to determine whether there were witnesses to the incidents. Law enforcement
6

authorities were not brought in to investigate, except by plaintiff Comer, despite the presence of racial threats. And no effective measures were undertaken to prevent continued incidents of racial harassment from taking place.
28. In March of 2003, plaintiff Comer made a written complaint to Roadway’s Office of General Counsel concerning the racially hostile atmosphere at the facility. Thereafter, the defendant conducted a superficial, ineffective investigation of the incidents and took no effective action to stop the incidents from occurring. As a result, additional acts of racial harassment continued to occur at the workplace through at least May of 2004.
VII. RETALIATION AGAINST KENNETH COMER 29. In April of 2005, Kenneth Comer was terminated from his employment by defendant. The reasons given for Comer’s termination were pretextual. Comer was actually terminated because of his race and in retaliation for his good faith assertion of rights protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 30. In March of 2006, after arbitration, Comer was ordered reinstated with full back pay. 31. During the period of his forced unemployment, Comer became severely depressed and suffered humiliation, embarrassment and substantial emotional injury.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Racially Hostile Environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. 32. Defendants have maintained, fostered and tolerated a racially hostile environment
7

at the Chicago Heights facility, allowing racial harassment to exist throughout the Chicago Heights facility and have failed to take prompt and effective remedial action to prevent such harassment from continuing. Defendants have a policy and practice of refusing to investigate complaints of racial discrimination, refusing to take effective action after discovering racial discrimination, refusing and failing to train employees in ways to avoid racial harassment, refusing to adopt an effective non-discrimination grievance procedure and actively discouraging the filing of complaints or racial harassment and retaliating against those employees who do file such complaints.
33. The action and inaction of the defendant as outlined herein has substantially interfered with the ability of the plaintiff to effectively perform his work and has discouraged Comer and other African-American employees from seeking advancement.
34. The above conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination and retaliation prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.
35. The above actions were taken intentionally, willfully and/or with reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Racially Hostile Environment in violation of the Reconstruction Civil Rights Act
42 U.S.C. § 1981 36. Defendants have maintained, fostered and tolerated a racially hostile environment at the Chicago Heights facility, allowing racial harassment to exist throughout the Chicago Heights facility and have failed to take prompt and effective remedial action to prevent such harassment from continuing. Defendants have a policy and practice of refusing to investigate
8

complaints of racial discrimination, refusing to take effective action after discovering racial discrimination, refusing and failing to train employees in ways to avoid racial harassment, refusing to adopt an effective non-discrimination grievance procedure and actively discouraging the filing of complaints or racial harassment and retaliating against those employees who do file such complaints.
37. The action and inaction of the defendant as outlined herein has substantially interfered with the ability of the plaintiff to effectively perform his work and have discouraged Plaintiff and other African-American employees from seeking advancement.
38. The above conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
39. The above actions were taken intentionally, willfully and/or with reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Retaliation Against Plaintiff Kenneth Comer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. 40. The termination of Kenneth Comer’s employment by defendant was in retaliation for Comer’s opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-3(a). 41. As a result of defendant’s retaliatory actions, Comer was forced to live without income for a substantial period of time, causing both physical and emotional hardship for he and his family.
9

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Discriminatory Termination of Plaintiff Kenneth Comer in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. 42. The termination of Kenneth Comer’s employment by defendant was because of plaintiff’s race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)3(a). 43. As a result of defendant’s discriminatory actions, Comer was forced to live without income for a substantial period of time, causing both physical and emotional hardship for he and his family.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Retaliation Against Plaintiff Kenneth Comer in violation of the Reconstruction Civil Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 44. The termination of Kenneth Comer’s employment by defendant was in retaliation for Comer’s engaging in activity protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Discriminatory Termination Plaintiff Kenneth Comer in violation of the Reconstruction
Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 45. The termination of Kenneth Comer’s employment by defendant was because of plaintiff’s race 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RELIEF 46 Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiff is suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from defendant’s discriminatory acts and omissions.
10

47. Roadway’s actions have caused and continue to cause plaintiff substantial losses in earnings, work experience and other employment benefits as well as emotional injury damages.
48. The acts taken by Roadway as set forth herein were taken maliciously, willfully and/or with reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiff thus entitling plaintiff to recover punitive damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, intervening plaintiff respectfully requests that, after trial by jury, this court grant him relief as follows: A. Granting injunctive relief against Defendant enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant from continuing to maintain a racially hostile environment; B. Directing Defendant to take such immediate action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of the above unlawful employment practices are eliminated; C. Granting Declaratory relief that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. D. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Roadway’s ability to pay and to deter future conduct; E. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages for emotional injury damages, humiliation and any and all lost wages and/or benefits; F. Awarding costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988; G Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and H. Award such other relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.
11

Respectfully submitted, /s Jeffrey L. Taren Joanne Kinoy Miriam N. Geraghty Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty P.C. 224 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60604-4404 Tel: (312) 663-5210 Fax: (312) 663-6663
12

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

WILLIAM BANDY, TOBY LEE, LUSHAWN SMITH, )

MARK WILLIAMS CLARENCE STOKES,

)

FRED THOMPSON, CLARENCE ROYSTER,

)

ANTAWON L. MARSHAL, NERVILLE COX

)

and CLEOPHUS MARSHALL individually and on behalf )

of all others similarly situated,

)

)

)

Intervening-Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

06 C 4805 Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES Now come the plaintiffs, William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox and Cleophus Marshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by their attorneys Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty P.C, and hereby complain against the defendant Roadway Express, Inc. as follows:
1

I. INTRODUCTION 1. This class action race discrimination case is brought pursuant to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Reconstruction Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, to redress the defendant’s practice and policy of ignoring and failing to promptly investigate or remedy racial harassment directed at African-American employees, its failure to adopt EEO policies that conform to industry-wide standards and its failure to eliminate a racially hostile environment. Plaintiffs additionally assert claims with regard to discriminatory job assignments and discipline on the basis of race.
The plaintiffs herein were routinely subjected to racial epithets and threats, including multiple instances of hangman's nooses displayed at the workplace. At all times relevant to this case, the defendant has had an ineffective anti-harassment policy that requires its employees to make all complaints about harassment in writing to its General Counsel at its corporate offices in Ohio before any effective action would be taken to redress the problem. Each of the plaintiffs herein were also disciplined at a rate greater than comparably situated non-Black employees and as a result of the overly subjective policies and practices at Roadway with regard to job assignments, regularly were assigned to less desirable jobs than non-Black employees. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This court has jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division since the unlawful practices occurred within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). Members of the Plaintiff class reside in Illinois and within the Northern District.
2

III. PARTIES 3. Intervening Plaintiff William Bandy is a 46-year-old African American citizen of
the United States. Mr. Bandy resides in Merrillville, Indiana. Mr. Bandy has been employed as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express for over twenty (20) years and currently works at its Chicago Heights facility.
4. Intervening Plaintiff Toby Lee is a 31-year-old African-American citizen of the United States. Mr. Lee resides in Park Forest, Illinois. Mr. Lee has been employed as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express for the past eleven (11) years at its Chicago Heights facility.
5. Intervening Plaintiff LuShawn Smith is an African-American citizen of the United States. Mr. Smith resides in Richton Park , Illinois. Mr. Smith has been employed as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express for the past eleven (11) years at its Chicago Heights facility.
6. Intervening Plaintiff Mark Williams is an African-American citizen of the United States. Mr. Williams resides in Calumet City, Illinois. Mr. Williams has been employed as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express for the past fourteen (14) years at its Chicago Heights facility.
7. Intervening Plaintiff Clarence Stokes is an African-American citizen of the United States. Mr. Stokes resides in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Stokes has been employed as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express for twelve (12) years at its Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village facilities.
8. Intervening Plaintiff Fred Thompson is a 55-year-old African-American citizen of the United States. Mr. Thompson resides in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Thompson has been employed
3

as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express for the past fourteen (14) years at its Chicago Heights facility.
9. Intervening Plaintiff Clarence Royster is a 35-year-old African-American citizen of the United States. Mr. Royster resides in Merrillville, Indiana. Mr. Royster been employed as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express for the past fourteen (14) years at its Chicago Heights facility.
10. Intervening Plaintiff Antawon L. Marshall is a 37-year-old African-American citizen of the United States. Mr. Marshall resides in Merrillville, Indiana. Mr. Marshall has been employed as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express for the past eighteen (18) years at its Chicago Heights facility.
11. Intervening Plaintiff Nerville Cox is an African-American citizen of the United States. Mr. Cox resides in Crown Point, Indiana. Mr. Cox has been employed as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express for eight (8) years at its Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village facilities.
12. Intervening Plaintiff Cleophus Marshall is a 34-year-old African-American citizen of the United States. Mr. Marshall resides in University Park, Illinois. Mr. Marshall has been employed as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express for the past fourteen (14) years at its Chicago Heights facility.
13. Roadway Express, Inc., is a corporation doing business in the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago Heights, Illinois. At all relevant times, Roadway has continually had in excess of fifteen (15) employees and has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b),(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b),(g) and (h).
4

14. Defendant Roadway Express Inc. is engaged in the business of worldwide ground transportation. Roadway employs over 23,900 employees in 349 service centers, including the service center located in Chicago Heights, Illinois, where each of the named plaintiffs are employed. In December of 2003, Roadway merged with and became a subsidiary of YRC Roadway Inc., a global shipping company. As of 2003, the Chicago Heights Terminal reported that it employed more than 1,650 employees. IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS
14. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of all African-American employees of Roadway who have been employed as a dockworker at defendant’s Chicago Heights and/or Elk Grove Village facilities during the applicable statute of limitations. Each of the representative plaintiffs and class members assert claims arising out of the same unlawful conduct as that alleged in Mr. Comer’s timely EEOC charge and are aggrieved persons pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
16. The members of the class identified herein are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Roadway currently operates 349 service centers throughout the United States employing approximately 23,900 employees. Upon information and belief, approximately 25% of the 1,650 employees working at Roadway’s Chicago Heights and the Elk Grove Village satellite facility are African-American.
17. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, which questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include, among others: (1) Whether Roadway’s policy and practice of refusing to investigate complaints of racial harassment or discrimination unless an employee presents a written complaint to the defendant’s General Counsel, created, authorized, fostered and tolerated a racially hostile
5

environment; (2) Whether Roadway has created and tolerated a racially hostile atmosphere at its Chicago Heights and/or Elk Grove Village facility for which it is vicariously liable; (3) Whether Roadway’s purely subjective daily job assignment policy had the intent and/or effect of discriminating against Black employees by assigning them less desirable tasks than non-Black employees policy; (4) Whether Roadway’s purely subjective disciplinary policy had the intent and/or effect of discriminating against Black employees by disciplining them at a greater rate and more harshly than non-Black employees; (5) Whether the practices and policies of Roadway violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, warranting injunctive relief, and punitive damages.
18. The representative Intervening Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class. The representative Intervening Plaintiffs each are actively employed by Roadway. Each of the representative plaintiffs was subjected to severe and pervasive racial harassment while employed by defendant during the applicable statute of limitations and each has been subject to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment based upon his race.
19. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the class. Each of the Intervening Plaintiffs has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions, employment discrimination litigation and the intersection thereof. Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty P.C. have been certified as class counsel in numerous cases in the Northern District of Illinois and elsewhere including Miller v. Spring Valley, 202 F.R.D. 244 (C.D. Ill. 2001) (class action under Fair Housing Act); Tracy v. City of Chicago, 95 C 5714 (collective action under FLSA on behalf of sergeants, lieutenants and captains in the Chicago Police Department); Johnson et. al. v. Reno, (D.C. Cir.) No. 93-5364 (nationwide Title VII class action brought on behalf of 512 African-American FBI agents alleging racial discrimination in
6

all areas of employment); Dyer-Neely v. City of Chicago, 101 F.R.D. 83 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (class action under the federal Rehabilitation Act on behalf of applicants for positions within the Chicago Police Department).
20. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(2) because Roadway has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, making declaratory and injunctive relief proper with respect to Intervening Plaintiffs and the class as a whole. The class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Roadway’s common, uniform and unfair racially discriminatory personnel policies and practices and are entitled to punitive damages as a result of defendant’s willful, malicious or reckless conduct.
21. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for punitive damages because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. The class members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Roadway’s common, uniform and unfair racially discriminatory personnel policies and practices. The propriety and amount of punitive damages are issues common to the class. V. CLASS CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 23(b)(2) FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURPOSES AND PURSUANT 23(b)(2), 23(d)(2) and (5) and 23(b)(3) FOR CLASS-WIDE PUNITIVE DAMAGES
22. Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of obtaining class-wide injunctive relief to redress the above company-wide racially discriminatory policies, in accordance with Allen v. International Truck and Engine Corporation, 358 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2004); Jefferson v. Ingersoll Intern Inc., 195
7

F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 1999); Palmer v. Combined Insurance Company of America, 217 F.R.D. 430 (N.D. Il. 2003).
23. Plaintiffs seek class certification for the purpose of obtaining class-wide punitive damages, pursuant to both Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(d)(2) and (d)(5) and Rule 23(b)(3), as in Palmer v. Combined Insurance Company of America, 217 F.R.D. 430 (N.D. Il. 2003). VI. EXHAUSTION OF ADMNISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER TITLE VII
24. On April 16, 2003, former intervener Kenneth Comer filed a class action administrative complaint alleging that from on or about April 15, 2001 and continuing to that time, he and Blacks as a class have been subjected to ongoing racial harassment and discrimination by defendant .
25. The EEOC investigated Mr. Comer’s charge and found reasonable cause to believe that racial harassment and discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment against blacks as a class had taken place. On September 6, 2006, the EEOC brought suit to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, based upon Mr. Comer’s complaint. Each of the intervening plaintiffs is a member of the class upon whose behalf Comer’s EEOC complaint was filed and the EEOC lawsuit was brought. VI. ROADWAY’S INEFFECTIVE AND INTIMIDATING “ANTI-HARASSMENT” INTERNAL COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
26. At all times relevant hereto, the defendant has maintained an alleged antiharassment policy that requires its 23,900 employees of Roadway to present any complaints of racial harassment or discrimination in writing to Roadway’s Office of General Counsel in Akron, Ohio before any investigation or action to remedy the complaint can take place. This harassment has been an ongoing continuing violation.
8

27. Each of the named plaintiffs has experienced acts of racial harassment, including being subject to vile racial graffiti at the workplace and/or having hangman’s nooses placed at his worksite.
28. The defendant’s anti-harassment complaint process is designed more to insulate defendant from legal action than it is to uncover acts of harassment and take prompt and effective action to prevent further harassment. The defendant’s policy creates an immediate conflict of interest between the office of legal counsel’s duty to protect Roadway from legal liability and its duty to investigate and uncover acts of racial harassment at the workplace.
29. Plaintiffs have been and remain reluctant to communicate their complaints of racial harassment to defendant’s attorney in order to obtain any redress for incidents of workplace harassment. V. REPRESENTATIVES CLAIMS A. FAILURE TO REDRESS RACIALLY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENTS
30. During the course of Intervening Plaintiffs’ employment at defendant’s Chicago Heights facility, they and virtually all other African-American employees were at various times subjected to almost daily racial epithets written in the men’s bathroom, including “KKK”, ”Niggers go back to Africa”, “Make America Safe, Kill a Nigger Today” and “swastikas written and carved into the walls.
31. In March of 2002, a hangman’s noose was placed on Ken Comer’s forklift at defendant’s workplace. That noose was observed by several of the other plaintiffs.
32. On June 22, 2002, death threats to African-American employees were written in the bathroom of defendant’s workplace.
9

33. In October 2002, a hangman’s noose was placed on a Roadway truck where it was discovered by intervening plaintiff Thompson. Hours after Thompson complained and gave the noose to his supervisor, the same noose was placed at the work area of two other AfricanAmerican employees. This noose was observed by plaintiffs Smith and Williams.
34. In October of 2002, a white employee was observed riding a forklift with a hangman’s noose dangling from it.
35. In October of 2002, a noose was placed on a jeep intended for a Black employee’s use.
36. In June of 2003, a hangman’s noose was placed on a trailer being unloaded by plaintiff Comer.
37. In 2002 or 2003, co-workers wrote “Toby is a Nigger” in large letters on a box at Plaintiff Lee’s workstation. In addition, Mr. Lee has observed a hangman’s noose on Marty James’ forklift, on Aaron Lucas’s work station and behind supervisor Bob Sullivan’s desk.
38. In August of 2003, a noose was placed on a trailer being unloaded by Tyrone Martin.
39. Throughout the above period of time, through and including May of 2004, racist graffiti including KKK references was repeatedly present in the bathroom utililized by AfricanAmerican dockworkers and others at the Chicago Heights facility.
40. In September of 2006, a figurine of a Black man with a noose around its neck was placed on intervening plaintiff Stokes’ forklift at the Elk Grove Village facility. When shown the figurine, Stokes’ supervisor just laughed and started to take it down. Since the filing of the EEOC’s complaint in this case, Black employees at Elk Grove Village have been harassed,
10

demeaned and threatened with termination by supervisory employees; with the terminal manager repeatedly asking them in a sarcastic voice, “Am I discriminating against you?”.
41. The above actions constitute severe and pervasive harassment designed to instill fear in the African-American employees who work at the Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village facilities. These actions unreasonably interfere with the plaintiffs’ ability to perform their jobs.
B. NOTICE TO DEFENDANT AND FAILURE TO TAKE EFFECTIVE ACTION 42. In January of 2001, plaintiffs and others met with the Terminal Manager to complain about incidents of racial discrimination. Immediately thereafter, vile racial graffiti appeared in the bathroom. 43. In March of 2002, Ken Comer complained in writing to the Terminal Manager about the presence of a hangman’s noose in the workplace. 44. From June of 2002 through the present, numerous incidents of racial harassment were brought to the attention of supervisors and the Terminal Manager by various of the plaintiffs. 45. In November of 2002, a detailed list of racially harassing events, including the noose incidents and racist threats to African-Americans, was forward to the Chicago Heights facility Labor Relations Manager, by the plaintiffs’ union representative. 46. The company did not respond to the above until January 2, 2003 when the Labor Relations Manager informed the union that company policy dictates that allegations of racial discrimination and harassment not be handled locally. The Labor Relations Manager told the union to have the complaining employee write a letter to the company’s Office of General Counsel.
11

47. Despite the above incidents and complaints, the defendant never conducted an effective investigation to determine who may have been responsible the racially hostile acts. Employees were not questioned in an effort to determine who had participated in the incidents or to determine whether there were witnesses to the incidents. Law enforcement authorities were not brought in to investigate despite the fact presence of racial threats. And no effective measures were undertaken to prevent continued incidents of racial harassment from taking place.
48. In March of 2003, Mr. Comer sent a written complaint to Roadway’s Office of General Counsel concerning the racially hostile atmosphere at the facility. Thereafter, the defendant conducted a superficial, ineffective investigation of the incidents and took no effective action to stop the incidents from occurring. As a result, additional acts of racial harassment continued to occur at the workplace.
49. In 2006, Plaintiff Cox complained to Human Resources representative Roger Maco about racist statements being made to him by a White foreman. On March 15, 2007, Mr. Cox informed Maco that Terminal Manager Phill Mott had threatened to retaliate against the Black employees, telling Cox that “You guys are taking this f**** company under ground. I’m going to keep banging you with letters until I get rid of you.” Mott further stated that he had heard about “this f**** lawsuit” and that he didn’t “give a f*** about the EEOC.” Maco promised to investigate and get back to Cox. As of one week later, Cox has heard nothing.
50. Various other Intervening plaintiffs have at various times complained to supervisors, foremen, assistant terminal managers and terminal managers about racist activities on the dock.
12

C. Discriminatory Job Assignments 51. Roadway utilizes a subjective policy of allowing foremen to assign the stacking and unstacking of trailers to individual dockworkers with no guidelines for determining who is assigned to difficult loads and who is assigned to easy loads. As a result, African-American employees as a class, are regularly assigned the least desirable loads by the foremen, the vast majority of whom are non-Black. These loads are euphemistically referred to as “brotherloads.” 52 On at least one occasion in 2006, plaintiff Cox complained to foreman Matt LaPier, asking him “why we are getting such a bad trailer.” LaPier told him, “That trailer is for the Black people.”
D. Discriminatory Disciplinary System 53. Roadway utilizes a disciplinary system that authorizes foremen to give disciplinary letters to employees that they believe have committed workplace infractions. After a certain number of disciplinary letters are received, an employee can be suspended and/or terminated. Foreman, assistant terminal managers and terminal managers are also authorized to withdraw disciplinary letters from an employee’s file. 54. Roadway’s disciplinary system has the intent and/or effect of discriminating against African-American employees on the basis of their race. Black employees are given disproportionately more disciplinary letters and receive harsher punishments, including suspensions and terminations, than non-Black employees. In addition, managerial employees are less likely to withdraw a disciplinary letter for a White employee once it has been given than they are for a Black employee.
13

55. White foremen regularly walk past White employees in the break room and write up Black employees for not getting back to work. Similar actions regularly take place on the dock, where Black employees receive disciplinary letters for “Misuse of Company Time” while White employees are engaging in the identical conduct.
56. For example, in 2003, a supervisor wrote up Plaintiff Smith for Misuse of Company Time and then walked over to several White employees and told them “I just wrote two Blacks up. You guys have got to look busy.”
57. In 2005, foreman Matt LaPier told a group of White employees to get to work because “We’re going to write the niggers some letters.”
58. In May of 2005, Bob Sullivan gave plaintiff Toby Lee a “Misuse Letter” for having a one-hour gap in his scans while a similarly situated White employee with a 3-hour gap that same day was not written up. Mr. Lee was temporarily suspended as a result of that discipline.
59. Foreman Michael Connelly has walked past an entire line of White employees who were talking on the job, and given a disciplinary letter to Intervening Plaintiff Toby Lee.
60. In the fall of 2006, foreman Mike Harvey wrote disciplinary letters up on Plaintiffs Mark Williams and Antawon Marshall while ignoring similar conduct on the part of White employees.
61. In February of 2007, two Black employees, along with another White employee, received disciplinary letters for coming to work forty-five (45) minutes late during a snowstorm. A White foreman “pulled” the White employee’s letter. The Black employees were unable to get a foreman to remove their letters.
14

62. On March 25, 2007, a white supervisor ordered plaintiff Bandy and other Black workers to get back to work and then sat down with a group of White workers who were playing cards, allowing them to remain in the break room for at least ten more minutes.
63. Each of the representative Intervening Plaintiffs has received disciplinary actions, up to and including letters of discipline, suspensions and terminations, that constituted unlawful discrimination based upon race.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Racially Hostile Environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. 64. Defendants have maintained, fostered and tolerated a racially hostile environment at their Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village facilities, allowing racial harassment to exist throughout and have failed to take prompt and effective remedial action to prevent such harassment from continuing. Defendant has a policy and practice of refusing to investigate complaints of racial discrimination, refusing to take effective action after discovering racial discrimination, refusing and failing to train employees in ways to avoid racial harassment, refusing to adopt an effective non-discrimination grievance procedure and actively discouraging the filing of complaints or racial harassment and retaliating against those employees who do file such complaints. 65. The action and inaction of the defendant as outlined herein has substantially interfered with the ability of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class to effectively perform their work and have discouraged African-American employees from seeking advancement. 66. The above conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination and retaliation prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.
15

67. The above actions were taken intentionally, willfully and/or with reckless disregard 5for the rights of the Plaintiffs.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Racially Hostile Environment in violation of the Reconstruction Civil Rights Act
42 U.S.C. § 1981 68. Defendant has maintained, fostered and tolerated a racially hostile environment at their Chicago Heights facility, and at the Elk Grove Village facility, allowing racial harassment to exist throughout and have failed to take prompt and effective remedial action to prevent such harassment from continuing. Defendant has a policy and practice of refusing to investigate complaints of racial discrimination, refusing to take effective action after discovering racial discrimination, refusing and failing to train employees in ways to avoid racial harassment, refusing to adopt an effective non-discrimination grievance procedure and actively discouraging the filing of complaints or racial harassment and retaliating against those employees who do file such complaints. 69. The action and inaction of the defendant as outlined herein has substantially interfered with the ability of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class to effectively perform their work and have discouraged African-American employees from seeking advancement. 71. The above conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 71. The above actions were taken intentionally, willfully and/or with reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs.
16

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Intentional Discrimination with Respect to Job Assignments in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. 1981 72. Defendant has authorized, fostered and maintained a practice and policy of job assignments that is intended to and that does discriminate against Black employees on the basis of their race. 73. The above conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination and retaliation prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. 74 The above actions were taken intentionally, willfully and/or with reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Disparate Impact Discrimination with Respect to Job Assignments in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. 75. Defendant has authorized, fostered and maintained an overly subjective practice and policy of job assignments that has had the effect of discriminating against Black employees on the basis of their race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq..
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Intentional Discrimination with Respect to Discipline in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. 1981 76. Defendant has authorized, fostered and maintained a practice and policy of discipline, including Letters of Discipline, suspensions and terminations that is intended to and that does discriminate against Black employees on the basis of their race. 77. The above conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination and retaliation prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. 78. The above actions were taken intentionally, willfully and/or with reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs.
17

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Disparate Impact Discrimination with Respect to Discipline in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. 79. Defendant has authorized, fostered and maintained an overly subjective practice and policy of discipline, including Letters of Discipline, suspensions and terminations that has had the effect of discriminating against Black employees on the basis of their race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq..
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RELIEF 80. Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from defendant’s discriminatory acts and omissions. 81. The acts taken by Roadway as set forth herein were taken maliciously, willfully and/or with reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiffs and plaintiff class, thus entitling plaintiffs to recover punitive damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and the plaintiff class respectfully request that, after trial by jury, this court grant them relief as follows: A. Grant certification of the case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of obtaining class-wide injunctive relief and punitive damages, with the designation of the class requested herein; B. Grant certification of the case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) for the purpose of determining punitive damages after a determination of class wide liability.
18

C. Granting injunctive relief against Defendant enjoining and permanently restraining Defendant from continuing to maintain a racially hostile environment and from continuing to discriminate in job assignments and discipline;
D. Directing Defendant to take such immediate action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of the above unlawful employment practices are eliminated, including but not limited to the appointment of a court appointed monitor;
E. Granting Declaratory relief that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.
F. Awarding Plaintiffs punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Roadway’s ability to pay and to deter future conduct;
G. Awarding costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
H Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and I. Award such other relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.

Respectf

ully submitted,

/s /s
Kinoy, 224 Chicago,
Tel:
Fax:

/s Jeffrey L. Taren Miriam N. Geraghty Joanne Kinoy
Taren & Geraghty P.C. S. Michigan Ave. Suite 300
IL 60604-4404 (312) 663-5210
(312) 663-6663

19

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:505

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

YRC, Inc. formerly known as ROADWAY EXPRESS, )

INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

WILLIAM BANDY, TOBY LEE, LUSHAWN SMITH, )

MARK WILLIAMS CLARENCE STOKES,

)

FRED THOMPSON, CLARENCE ROYSTER,

)

ANTAWON L. MARSHAL, NERVILLE COX

)

and CLEOPHUS MARSHALL individually and on behalf )

of all others similarly situated,

)

)

)

Intervening-Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

YRC, Inc. formerly known as ROADWAY EXPRESS, )

INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

06 CV 4805 Magistrate Judge Susan Cox

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Now come the plaintiffs, William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox and Cleophus Marshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by their attorneys Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty P.C, and hereby complain against the defendant YRC INC., formerly

1

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:506

known as Roadway Express, as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1.

This class action race discrimination case is brought pursuant to Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Reconstruction Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, to redress

the defendant’s practice and policy of ignoring and failing to promptly investigate or remedy

racial harassment directed at African-American employees, its failure to adopt EEO policies that

conform to industry-wide standards and its failure to eliminate a racially hostile environment.

Plaintiffs additionally assert disparate treatment and disparate impact claims with regard to

discriminatory job assignments and discipline on the basis of race.

The plaintiffs herein were routinely subjected to racial epithets and threats, including

multiple instances of hangman’s nooses displayed at the workplace. At all times relevant to this

case, the defendant has had an ineffective anti-harassment policy that requires its employees to

make all complaints about harassment in writing to its General Counsel at its corporate offices in

Ohio before any effective action would be taken to redress the problem. Each of the plaintiffs

herein were also disciplined at a rate greater than comparably situated non-Black employees and

as a result of the overly subjective policies and practices at YRC with regard to job assignments,

regularly were assigned to less desirable jobs than non-Black employees.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.

This court has jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343.

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division since the unlawful practices

occurred within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). Members of the Plaintiff

class reside in Illinois and within the Northern District.

2

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:507

III. PARTIES

3.

Intervening Plaintiff William Bandy is a 46-year-old African American citizen of

the United States. Mr. Bandy resides in Merrillville, Indiana. Mr. Bandy has been employed as a

dockworker for defendant Roadway Express (now known as “YRC”) for over twenty (20) years

and currently works at its Chicago Heights facility.

4.

Intervening Plaintiff Toby Lee is a 31 -year-old African-American citizen of the

United States. Mr. Lee resides in Park Forest, Illinois. Mr. Lee has been employed as a

dockworker for defendant Roadway Express (now known as “YRC”) for the past eleven (11)

years at its Chicago Heights facility.

5.

Intervening Plaintiff LuShawn Smith is an African-American citizen of the United

States. Mr. Smith resides in Richton Park, Illinois. Mr. Smith was employed as a dockworker for

defendant Roadway Express (now known as “YRC”) for over eleven (11) years at its Chicago

Heights facility, until early 2009.

6.

Intervening Plaintiff Mark Williams is an African-American citizen of the United

States. Mr. Williams resides in Calumet City, Illinois. Mr. Williams has been employed as a

dockworker for defendant Roadway Express (now known as “YRC”) for the past fourteen (14)

years at its Chicago Heights facility.

7.

Intervening Plaintiff Clarence Stokes is an African-American citizen of the United

States. Mr. Stokes resides in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Stokes was employed as a dockworker for

defendant Roadway Express (now known as “YRC”) for twelve (12) years at its Chicago Heights

and Elk Grove Village facilities, until September 2007.

8.

Intervening Plaintiff Fred Thompson is a 55-year-old African-American citizen of

the United States. Mr. Thompson resides in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Thompson has been employed

3

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:508

as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express (now known as “YRC”) for the past fourteen

(14) years at its Chicago Heights facility.

9.

Intervening Plaintiff Clarence Royster is a 35-year-old African-American citizen

of the United States. Mr. Royster resides in Merrillville, Indiana. Mr. Royster has been employed

as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express (now known as “YRC”) for the past fourteen

(14) years at its Chicago Heights facility.

10.

Intervening Plaintiff Antawon L. Marshall is a 37-year-old African-American

citizen of the United States. Mr. Marshall resides in Merrillville, Indiana. Mr. Marshall has been

employed as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express (now known as “YRC”) for the past

eighteen (18) years at its Chicago Heights facility.

11.

Intervening Plaintiff Nerville Cox is an African-American citizen of the United

States. Mr. Cox resides in Crown Point, Indiana. Mr. Cox has been employed as a dockworker

for defendant Roadway Express (now known as “YRC”) for eight (8) years at its Chicago

Heights and Elk Grove Village facilities.

12.

Intervening Plaintiff Cleophus Marshall is a 34-year-old African-American citizen

of the United States. Mr. Marshall resides in University Park, Illinois. Mr. Marshall has been

employed as a dockworker for defendant Roadway Express (now known as “YRC”) for the past

fourteen (14) years at its Chicago Heights facility.

13.

Effective October 1, 2008, Yellow Transportation, Inc. and Roadway Express,

Inc., merged with YRC as the surviving entity. At the effective time of the merger, YRC was

renamed “Yellow YRC Corp.” Following the merger, the name Yellow YRC Corp. was

changed to “YRC Inc.” YRC is a corporation doing business in the State of Illinois and the cities

of Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village, Illinois. At all relevant times, YRC has continually

4

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:509

had in excess of fifteen (15) employees and has been an employer engaged in an industry

affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b),(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §~

2000e(b),(g) and (h).

14.

Defendant YRC is engaged in the business of worldwide ground transportation.

YRC employs over 23,900 employees in 349 service centers, including the service centers

located in Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village, Illinois, where each of the named plaintiffs

are or have been employed. As of 2003, the Chicago Heights Terminal reported that it employed

more than 1,650 employees.

IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS

15.

Plaintiffs bring this action individually and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a),

(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of all African-American employees of YRC who have been employed

as a dockworker at defendant’s Chicago Heights and/or Elk Grove Village facilities during the

applicable statute of limitations. Each of the representative plaintiffs and class members assert

claims arising out of the same unlawful conduct as that alleged in Mr. Comer’s and Mr. Stokes’ timely EEOC charges1 and are aggrieved persons pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

16.

The members of the class identified herein are so numerous that joinder of all

members is impracticable. YRC currently operates 349 service centers throughout the United

States employing approximately 23,900 employees. YRC’s records show 198 African-American

dockworkers who have been employed at the Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village terminals

since January, 2000. 167 of these dockworkers have affirmatively notified the EEOC that they

wish to take part in the instant lawsuit.

17.

There are questions of law and fact common to the class, which questions

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include,

1 See paragraphs 24-26, infra.
5

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:510

among others: (1) Whether YRC’s policy and practice of refusing to investigate complaints

of racial harassment or discrimination unless an employee presents a written complaint to the

defendant’s General Counsel, created, authorized, fostered and tolerated a racially hostile

environment; (2) Whether YRC has created and tolerated a racially hostile atmosphere at its

Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village facility for which it is vicariously liable; (3) Whether

YRC’s purely subjective daily job assignment policy had the intent and/or effect of

discriminating against Black employees by assigning them less desirable tasks than non-Black

employees; (4) Whether YRC’s purely subjective disciplinary policy had the intent and/or effect

of discriminating against Black employees by disciplining them at a greater rate and more

harshly than non-Black employees; (5) Whether the practices and policies of YRC violate 42

U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, warranting injunctive relief, and punitive

damages.

18.

The representative Intervening Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the

class. The representative Intervening Plaintiffs were each actively employed by YRC as of the

initial filing of the Complaint in Intervention. Each of the representative plaintiffs was subjected

to severe and pervasive racial harassment while employed by defendant during the applicable

statute of limitations and each has been subject to discriminatory terms and conditions of

employment based upon his race.

19.

Intervening Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests

of the members of the class. Each of the Intervening Plaintiffs has retained counsel competent

and experienced in complex class actions, employment discrimination litigation and the

intersection thereof. Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty P.C. has been certified as class counsel in

numerous cases in the Northern District of Illinois and elsewhere including Moreno v. DFG,

6

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:511

2003 WL 21183903 (N.D. Il. 2003)(class action under the WARN act); Miller v. Spring Valley,

202 F.R.D. 244 (C.D. III. 2001) (class action under Fair Housing Act); Tracy v. City of Chicago,

95 C 5714 (collective action under FLSA on behalf of sergeants, lieutenants and captains in the

Chicago Police Department); Johnson et. al v. Reno, (D.C. Cir.) No. 93-5364 (nationwide Title

VII class action brought on behalf of 512 African-American FBI agents alleging racial

discrimination in all areas of employment); Dyer-Neely v. City of Chicago, 101 F.R.D. 83 (N.D.

Ill. 1984) (class action under the federal Rehabilitation Act on behalf of applicants for positions

within the Chicago Police Department).

20.

Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(2) because YRC

has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, making declaratory

and injunctive relief proper with respect to Intervening Plaintiffs and the class as a whole. The

class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end YRC’s common, uniform and unfair

racially discriminatory personnel policies and practices and are entitled to punitive damages as a

result of defendant’s willful, malicious or reckless conduct.

21.

Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for

punitive damages because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions

affecting only individual members of the class and because a class action is superior to other

available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. The class members

have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of YRC’s common, uniform and

unfair racially discriminatory personnel policies and practices. The propriety and amount of

punitive damages are issues common to the class.

V. CLASS CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 23(b) (2) FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURPOSES AND PURSUANT 23(b)(2), 23(d)(2) and (5) and 23(b)(3) FOR CLASS-WIDE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

7

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:512

22.

Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, for the purpose of obtaining class-wide injunctive relief to redress the above

company-wide racially discriminatory policies, in accordance with Allen v. International Truck

and Engine Corporation, 358 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2004); Jefferson v. Ingersoll Intern Inc., 195

F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 1999); Palmer v. Combined Insurance Company of America, 217 F.R.D. 430

(N.D. II. 2003).

23.

Plaintiffs seek class certification for the purpose of obtaining class-wide punitive

damages, pursuant to both Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(d)(2) and (d)(5) and Rule 23(b)(3), as in Palmer

v. Combined Insurance Company of America, 217 F.R.D. 430 (N.D. Il. 2003).

VI. EXHAUSTION OF ADMNISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER TITLE VII

24. On April 16, 2003, former intervener Kenneth Comer filed a class action administrative complaint alleging that from on or about April 15, 2001 and continuing to that time, he and Blacks as a class have been subjected to ongoing racial harassment and discrimination by defendant.
25. The EEOC investigated Mr. Comer’s charge and found reasonable cause to believe that racial harassment and discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment against blacks as a class had taken place. On September 6, 2006, the EEOC brought suit to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, based upon Mr. Comer’s complaint. Each of the intervening plaintiffs is a member of the class upon whose behalf Comer’s EEOC complaint was filed and the EEOC lawsuit was brought.
26. On October 19, 2006, class member Clarence Stokes filed a class action Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC found reasonable cause on this charge and on August 29, 2008, the EEOC filed a second lawsuit against Defendant Roadway entitled EEOC v.
8

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:513

Roadway Express, 08 C 5555. This case alleged that Defendant violated Title VII subjecting

Clarence Stokes and a class of Black employees to harassment and different terms and conditions

because of their race.

VI. YRC’S INEFFECTIVE AND INTIMIDATING “ANTI-HARASSMENT” INTERNAL COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

27. At most times relevant hereto, the defendant maintained an alleged anti-

harassment policy that required its 23,900 employees of YRC to present any complaints of racial

harassment or discrimination in writing to YRC’s Office of General Counsel in Akron, Ohio

before any investigation or action to remedy the complaint can take place.

28. To the extent that subsequent EEO policies of the defendant authorized a different

discrimination and harassment complaint procedure, said policies were not adequately

publicized, distributed or otherwise made known to the Plaintiff class. In addition, said policies

were regularly ignored or violated by the Defendant when a complaint was communicated to a

supervisory employee.

29.

The defendant’s anti-harassment complaint process was designed more to

insulate defendant from legal action than to uncover acts of harassment and take prompt and

effective action to prevent further harassment. The defendant’s policy created an immediate

conflict of interest between the office of legal counsel’s duty to protect YRC from legal liability

and its duty to investigate and uncover acts of racial harassment at the workplace.

30. Because of the ineffectiveness of the policies and procedures, Plaintiffs have been

and remain reluctant to communicate their complaints of racial harassment to defendant’s

attorney or to supervisory employees in order to obtain any redress for incidents of workplace

harassment.

9

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:514

V. REPRESENTATIVES CLAIMS

A. Failure to Redress Racially Hostile Environments

31.

From the start of their employment, continuing through the present time, each

of the named plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class has experienced acts of racial

harassment and has otherwise been subject to a hostile racial environment at his or her place of

work, including being subject to vile racial graffiti at the workplace and/or having hangman’s

nooses placed at the worksite, being subject to racial epithets and discriminatory treatment.

32.

During the course of Intervening Plaintiffs’ employment at defendant’s

Chicago Heights facility, they and virtually all other African-American employees were at

various times subjected to almost daily racial epithets written in the men’s bathroom, including

“KKK”, “Niggers go back to Africa”, “Make America Safe, Kill a Nigger Today” , “White

Power” and “swastikas” written and carved into the walls.

33.

During the course of Intervening Plaintiffs’ employment at Chicago Heights

and at Elk Grove Village they have been subjected to multiple incidents of racial intimidation

and threats, including numerous incidents of hangman’s nooses displayed at the worksite and

death threats written in the bathrooms.

34. The above actions constitute severe and pervasive harassment designed to instill

fear in the African-American employees who work at the Chicago Heights and Elk Grove

Village facilities. These actions unreasonably interfere with the plaintiffs’ ability to perform their

jobs.

B. Notice to Defendant and Failure to Take Effective Action

35. In January of 2001, plaintiffs and others met with the Terminal Manager to

10

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:515
complain about incidents of racial discrimination. Immediately thereafter, vile racial graffiti appeared in the bathroom.
36. In March of 2002, Ken Comer complained in writing to the Terminal Manager about the presence of a hangman’s noose in the workplace.
37. From June of 2002 through the present, numerous incidents of racial harassment and discrimination were brought to the attention of supervisors and the Terminal Manager by various of the plaintiffs.
38. In November of 2002, a detailed list of racially harassing events, including the noose incidents and racist threats to African-Americans, was forwarded to the Chicago Heights facility Labor Relations Manager, by the plaintiffs’ union representative.
39. The company did not respond to the above until January 2, 2003 when the Labor Relations Manager informed the union that company policy dictates that allegations of racial discrimination and harassment not be handled locally. The Labor Relations Manager told the union to have the complaining employee write a letter to the company’s Office of General Counsel.
40. Despite the above incidents and complaints, the defendant never conducted an effective investigation to determine who may have been responsible for the racially hostile acts. Employees were not adequately questioned in an effort to determine who had participated in the incidents or to determine whether there were witnesses to the incidents. Law enforcement authorities were not brought in to investigate despite the presence of racial threats. And no effective measures were undertaken to prevent continued incidents of racial harassment from taking place.
41. In March of 2003, Mr. Comer sent a written complaint to YRC’s Office of
11

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:516
General Counsel concerning the racially hostile atmosphere at the facility. Thereafter, the defendant conducted a superficial, ineffective investigation of the incidents and took no effective action to stop the incidents from occurring. As a result, additional acts of racial harassment continued to occur at the workplace.
42. Despite continuing acts of racial harassment, Defendant failed to adequately and effectively train its supervisors and/or employees with regard to anti-harassment policies. Instead, Defendant showed a sexual harassment video to its employees which made little if any mention of issues regarding racial harassment.
43. Despite continuing acts of racial harassment, Defendant failed to initiate effective disciplinary action against employees who engaged in racially offensive conduct or against supervisors who had knowledge of racially offensive conduct and took no action to in response to that knowledge.
44. Various other Intervening plaintiffs have at various times complained to supervisors, foremen, assistant terminal managers, human resource employees and terminal managers about racist activities on the dock.
C. Discriminatory Job Assignments and Segregated Dock Assignments 45. YRC utilizes a subjective policy of allowing foremen to assign the stacking and stripping of trailers to individual dockworkers with no guidelines for determining who is assigned to difficult loads and who is assigned to easy loads. As a result, African-American employees as a class are regularly assigned the least desirable loads by the foremen, the vast majority of whom are non-Black. These loads are euphemistically referred to by both White and Black employees alike as “brotherloads.” 46. On at least one occasion in 2006, plaintiff Cox complained to foreman Matt
12

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:517
Lapperre, asking him “why we are getting such a bad trailer.” Lapperre told him, “That trailer is for the Black people.”
47. The discriminatory job assignments have lead to lower productivity, greater rates of discipline, including disproportionate amount of suspensions and terminations, greater rates of injury and resulting lost income.
48. Defendant has racially segregated the workforce on the Outbound dock with African-American employees disproportionately assigned to the West end and Caucasian dockworkers disproportionately assigned to the East end of the dock. The West end of the dock has historically received the more difficult freight to strip and stack.
D. Discriminatory Disciplinary System 49. YRC utilizes an overly subjective, disciplinary system that authorizes foremen to give disciplinary letters to employees that they believe have committed workplace infractions. After a certain number of disciplinary letters are received, an employee can be suspended and/or terminated. Foremen, assistant terminal managers and terminal managers are also authorized to withdraw disciplinary letters from an employee’s file with no objective standards in place to instruct when to withdraw a disciplinary letter. 50. YRC’s disciplinary system has the intent and/or effect of discriminating against African-American employees on the basis of their race. Black employees are given disproportionately more disciplinary letters and receive harsher punishments, including suspensions and terminations, than non-Black employees. In addition, managerial employees are more likely to withdraw a disciplinary letter for a White employee once it has been given than they are for a Black employee. 51. White foremen regularly walk past White employees in the break room and write
13

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:518
up Black employees for not getting back to work. Similar actions regularly take place on the dock, where Black employees receive disciplinary letters for “Misuse of Company Time” while White employees are engaging in the identical conduct.
52. For example, in 2003, a supervisor wrote up Plaintiff Smith for Misuse of Company Time and then walked over to several White employees and told them “I just wrote two Blacks up. You guys have got to look busy.”
53. In 2005, foreman Matt Lapperre told a group of White employees to get to work because “We’re going to write the niggers some letters.”
54. In May of 2005, Bob Sullivan gave plaintiff Toby Lee a “Misuse Letter” for having a one-hour gap in his scans while a similarly situated White employee with a 3-hour gap that same day was not written up. Mr. Lee was temporarily suspended as a result of that discipline.
55. Foreman Michael Connelly has walked past an entire line of White employees who were talking on the job, and given a disciplinary letter to Intervening Plaintiff Toby Lee.
56. In the fall of 2006, foreman Mike Harvey wrote disciplinary letters up on Plaintiffs Mark Williams and Antawon Marshall while ignoring similar conduct on the part of White employees.
57. In February of 2007, two Black employees, along with another White employee, received disciplinary letters for coming to work forty-five (45) minutes late during a snowstorm. A White foreman “pulled” the White employee’s letter. The Black employees were unable to get a foreman to remove their letters.
58. On March 25, 2007, a white supervisor ordered plaintiff Bandy and other Black workers to get back to work and then sat down with a group of White workers who were playing
14

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:519
cards, allowing them to remain in the break room for at least ten more minutes. 59. Each of the representative Intervening Plaintiffs has received disciplinary actions,
up to and including letters of discipline, suspensions and terminations, that constituted unlawful discrimination based upon race.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Racially Hostile Environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. 60. Defendant has maintained, fostered and tolerated a racially hostile environment at its Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village facilities, allowing racial harassment to exist throughout and has failed to take prompt and effective remedial action to prevent such harassment from continuing. Defendant has a policy and practice of refusing to investigate complaints of racial discrimination, refusing to take effective action after discovering racial discrimination, refusing and failing to train employees in ways to avoid racial harassment, refusing to adopt an effective non-discrimination grievance procedure and actively discouraging the filing of complaints or racial harassment and retaliating against those employees who do file such complaints. 61. The action and inaction of the defendant as outlined herein has substantially interfered with the ability of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class to effectively perform their work and has discouraged African-American employees from seeking advancement. 62. The above conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination and retaliation prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. 63. The above actions were taken intentionally, willfully and/or with reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs.
15

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:520
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Racially Hostile Environment in violation of the Reconstruction Civil Rights Act
42 U.S.C. § 1981 64. Defendant has maintained, fostered and tolerated a racially hostile environment at its Chicago Heights facility, and at the Elk Grove Village facility, allowing racial harassment to exist throughout and has failed to take prompt and effective remedial action to prevent such harassment from continuing. Defendant has a policy and practice of refusing to investigate complaints of racial discrimination, refusing to take effective action after discovering racial discrimination, refusing and failing to train employees in ways to avoid racial harassment, refusing to adopt an effective non-discrimination grievance procedure and actively discouraging the filing of complaints of racial harassment and retaliating against those employees who do file such complaints. 65. The action and inaction of the defendant as outlined herein has substantially interfered with the ability of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class to effectively perform their work and has discouraged African-American employees from seeking advancement. 66. The above conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 67. The above actions were taken intentionally, willfully and/or with reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Intentional Discrimination with Respect to Job Assignments in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. 1981 68. Defendant has authorized, fostered and maintained a practice and policy of job assignments that is intended to and that does discriminate against Black employees on the basis
16

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:521
of their race. 69. The above conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination and retaliation
prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. 70. The above actions were taken intentionally, willfully and/or with reckless
disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Disparate Impact Discrimination with Respect to Job Assignments in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.
71. Defendant has authorized, fostered and maintained an overly subjective practice and policy of job assignments that has had the effect of discriminating against Black employees on the basis of their race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Intentional Discrimination with Respect to Discipline in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. 1981
72. Defendant has authorized, fostered and maintained a practice and policy of discipline, including warning letters, suspensions and terminations that is intended to and that does discriminate against Black employees on the basis of their race.
73. The above conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination and retaliation prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.
74. The above actions were taken intentionally, willfully and/or with reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Disparate Impact Discrimination with Respect to Discipline in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. 75. Defendant has authorized, fostered and maintained an overly subjective practice and policy of discipline, including Letters of Discipline, suspensions and terminations that has
17

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:522
had the effect of discriminating against Black employees on the basis of their race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RELIEF 76. Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from defendant’s discriminatory acts and omissions. 77. The acts taken by YRC as set forth herein were taken maliciously, willfully and/or with reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiffs and plaintiff class, thus entitling plaintiffs to recover punitive damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and the plaintiff class respectfully request that, after trial by jury, this court grant them relief as follows: A. Grant certification of the case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of obtaining class-wide injunctive relief and punitive damages, with the designation of the class requested herein; B. Grant certification of the case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) for the purpose of determining punitive damages after a determination of class wide liability. C. Grant injunctive relief against defendant enjoining and permanently restraining defendant from continuing to maintain a racially hostile environment and from continuing to discriminate in job assignments and discipline; D. Direct defendant to take such immediate action as is necessary to ensure that the
18

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 109 Filed: 09/29/09 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:523
effects of the above unlawful employment practices are eliminated, including but not limited to the appointment of a court appointed monitor;
E. Grant declaratory relief that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.
F. Award plaintiffs punitive damages in an amount commensurate with YRC’s ability to pay and to deter future conduct;
G. Award costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
H. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and I. Award such other relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.
Respectfully submitted, s/ Jeffrey L. Taren s/ Miriam N. Geraghty s/ Joanne Kinoy Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty P.C. 224 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60604-4404 Tel: (312) 663-5210 Fax: (312) 663-6663
19

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 173 Filed: 09/14/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1491

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUALE~LOYMENTOPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC., and YRC, INC.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

06-cv-4805, 08-cv-5555

)

Magistrate Judge Cox

)

)

)

)

WILLIAM BANDY, TOBY LEE, LUSHAWN SMITH, )

MARK WILLIAMS CLARENCE STOKES,

)

FRED THO~SON, CLARENCE ROYSTER,

)

ANTAWON L. MARSHAL, NERVILLE COX

)

and CLEOPHUS MARSHALL,

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

Re)

~

)

)

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. and YRC, INC.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

10-cv-5304 Magistrate Judge Cox

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER Upon consideration of the Intervening-Plaintiffs' and EEOC's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree, and separate supporting memoranda and materials filed by the parties, including the parties' proposed Consent Decree, it is hereby ordered that the Motion be, and it is, GRANTED. The Court further malces the following findings and rulings: 1. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter ofthe litigation and over all parties to this litigation, including all members of the §1981 Settlement Class as defined below. 2. No Determination. This Court hereby decrees that neither the Consent J?ecree, nor this preliminary approval order, nor the fact of a settlement, are an admission regarding any claims or

1

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 173 Filed: 09/14/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:1492

potential clams or any defenses whatsoever. 3. Proposed Settlement. The Court finds preliminarily that the parties' proposed Consent
Decree is fair, adequate and reasonable, and, therefore, warrants submission to members of the §1981 Settlement Class for their consideration and a formal fairness hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) ("Fairness Hearing").
4. §1981 Settlement Class Certification. The Court provisionallyfmds thatthe requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) have been satisfied, and that the class-wide claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 asserted in the Amended Complaint in Intervention, case number 10-cv-5304, may be certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). The §1981 Settlement Class shall consist of:
All African-American employees ofthe Defendants working at their Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village facilities as a dockworker, including switchers, seniority list, percenters and casual positions, at any point between April9, 2003 and the present.
This Court's certification ofthe §1981 Settlement Class is for purposes ofthe settlement agreement and is provisional pending fmal approval of the Consent Decree. If the Consent Decree is not approved, this certification will be null and void.
5. Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel. The Court finds that plaintiffs and their counsel are adequate representatives ofthe §1981 Settlement Class. Accordingly, the Court appoints William Bandy, Toby Lee, Lushawn Smith, Mark Williams Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Antawon L. Marshal, Nerville Cox And Cleophus Marshall, as Class Representatives, and Jeffrey L. Taren and Joanne Kinoy ofKinoy, Taren & Geraghty P.C. as §1981 Class Counsel.
6. Claims Administrator. The Court approves the parties' agreement that Settlement Services Inc., whose duties are set forth in the Consent Decree, will serve as the Claims Administrator.

1 Four years prior to the Donnell(!)' & Sons Inc.,

AprillO,

2007

filing

of the

interveners'

class

action

complaint

in

intervention.

See Jones v.

541 U.S . 369, 124 S. Ct. 1836 (2004).

2

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 173 Filed: 09/14/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:1493
7. Notice and Claim Form. The attached Notice of Class Action, Proposed Settlement Agreement and Settlement Hearing ("Notice") are hereby approved as reasonable, adopted and incorporated herein. The parties are directed to serve the Notice and EEOC Claim Forms on class members as set forth in the proposed Consent Decree.
8. Requests for Exclusion. The Notice sets forth the procedures pursuant to which members of the §1981 Settlement Class may exclude themselves ("opt-out") from the § 1981 Settlement Agreement. Any request for exclusion must be received by November 1, 2010, which is ten (10) days before the fairness hearing described below, pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree.
9. Objections to the Proposed Settlement. The Notice sets forth the procedures pursuant to which me~bers of the §1981 Settlement Class may object to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Any objection must be received by November 1, 2010, which is ten (10) days before the fairness hearing described below, pursuant to the terms ofthe Consent Decree.
10. Fairness Hearing. The Court shall hold a fairness hearing on the proposed§ 1981 settlement on November 10, 2010, which, pursuant to the terms ofthe Consent Decree, is a date at least thirty-five (3 5) days after notice ofpreliminary approval ofthe consent decree has been issued.
11. Motion for Final Approval. The parties are to file motions for final approval of their proposed class settlement and to address any objections to the Settlement Agreement, no later than December 13,2010, which, pursuant to the terms ofthe Consent Decree, is at least ninety (90) days after preliminary approval of the consent decree. The parties will appear to present their motions for final approval on December 16, 2010.
12. Final Approval. A decision on final approval shall be entered on or after December 20, 2010, to allow Defendant to satisfy notice obligations under the Class Action Fairness Act.
3

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 173 Filed: 09/14/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:1494 ENTERED this 14th DAY OF September, 2010
;Lo -
SUSAN E. COX U.S. Magistrate Judge
4

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 1 of 71 PageID #:1872

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v.
ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC., and YRC, INC.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

06-cv-4805, 08-cv-5555

)

Magistrate Judge Cox

)

)

)

)

WILLIAM BANDY, TOBY LEE, LUSI-IAWN SMITH,)

MARK WILLIAMS CLARENCE STOKES,

)

FRED THOMPSON, CLARENCE ROYSTER,

)

ANTAWON L. MARSHAL, NERVILLE COX

)

and CLEOPI-IUS MARSHALL,

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. and YRC, INC.,

)

)

Dcfundanb.

)

10-cv-5304 Magistrate Judge Cox

SECOND AMENDED CONSENT DECREE
THE LITIGA TJON
1. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") filed suit 1

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 2 of 71 PageID #:1873
(case number 06 CV 4805) against Defendant Roadway Express, Inc., ("Roadway") under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the "Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., ("Chicago Heights Title VII case"), alleging that Roadway discriminated against AfricanAmerican employees at its Chicago Heights facility. The EEOC alleged that Roadway violated Title VII by unlawfully discriminating against a class of Black employees by fostering a hostile work environment based upon race, and unlawfully discriminated against its Black employees in the terms and conditions of employment. The EEOC amended its complaint to add YRC, Inc. ("YRC") as a defendant. Roadway employees William Bandy, Toby Lee, Lushawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Antawon L. Marshal, Nerville Cox, and Cleophus Marshall ("Named Intervenors") intervened individually in the EEOC's action.
2. Named Intervenors' separate intervening complaint alleged that Roadway violated Title Vll and Section 1981,42 U.S.C. §1981, by discriminating against them and a class of Black dockworkers at Roadway's Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village facilities because of their race. In their complaint, Named Intervenors alleged that Roadway unlawfully discriminated against them and other Black employees by fostering a hostile work environment based upon race, and unlawfully discriminated against them and other Black employees in the terms and conditions of employment, specifically with regard to job assignments and discipline. The Named Intervenors, in their intervening complaint, sought only injunctive relief and punitive damages. The Named Intervenors amended their complaint to add YRC, Inc.,
2

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 3 of 71 PageID #:1874
("YRC") as a defendant. On August 24, 2010, Named Intervenors' §1981 claims were severed and assigned case number 10 CV 5304. That case is consolidated for the purpose of entering this decree.
3. On September 29, 2008, the EEOC filed suit (case number 08 cv 5555) against Defendant Roadway Express, Inc. ("Roadway") under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the "Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., ("Elk Grove Title VII case"), alleging that Roadway discriminated against African-American employees at its Elk Grove Village facility. The EEOC alleged that Roadway violated Title VII by unlawfully discriminating against a class of Black employees by fostering a hostile work environment based upon race, and unlawfully discriminated against its Black employees in the terms and conditions of employment. The EEOC amended its complaint to add YRC, Inc., ("YRC") as a defendant. Without objection, the EEOC's Chicago Heights Title VII case and the Elk Grove Title VII case were consolidated.
4. In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, all parties in all of the above cases have agreed that these actions pertaining to the Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village facilities should be finally resolved by Entry of this Consent Decree (hereafter "Decree").
5. By entering into this Consent Decree, no party makes any admission regarding any claims or potential clams or any defenses thereto.
6. This Decree fully and finally resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of 3

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 4 of 71 PageID #:1875
the Complaints filed by the EEOC, the intervening complaint filed by the Named Intervenors, and the Section 1981 complaint filed by Named Intervenors.
DEFINITIONS 7. In addition to the terms defined elsewhere in the Consent Decree, the following terms when used herein shall have the following meanings:
A. "EEOC Settlement Class" shall mean all African-American employees of the Defendants working at their Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village facilities in the.dockworker, switcher, or janitor positions including seniority list, percenter, and casual positions, at any point between March 13, 2002 and the present, other than the Named Intervenors.
B. "§ 1981 Settlement Class" shall mean all African-American employees of the Defendants working at their Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village facilities as a dockworker including switcher, seniority list, percenter, and casual positions, at any point between April 9, 2003 and the present who have not opted-out of the §1981 litigation (1 0 CV 5304).
C. "Named Intervenors" shall mean William Bandy, Nerville Cox, Toby Lee, Antawon L. Marshal, Cleophus Marshall, Clarence Royster, Lushawn Smith, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, and Mark Williams.
D. "Named Intervenors' Counsel" refers to Kinoy, Taren, and Geraghty P.C.
4

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 5 of 71 PageID #:1876
E. "§ 1981 Named Plaintiffs" refers to William Bandy, Nerville Cox, Toby Lee, Antawon L. Marshal, Cleophus Marshall, Clarence Royster, Lushawn Smith, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, and Mark Williams.
F. "§1981 Class Counsel" refers to Kinoy, Taren, and Geraghty P.C. G. "Defendant" or "Company" shall mean YRC, Inc., and any of its predecessors or successors in interest including Roadway Express, Inc. H. "Parties" means the EEOC, Named Intervenors, §1981 Named Plaintiffs, and Defendant. I. "Plaintiffs" means the EEOC, Named Intervenors, and §1981 Named Plaintiffs. J. "Claimant" means each of the individuals identified by the EEOC other than the Named Intervenors, who is eligible to receive a monetary award pursuant to this Decree. K. "Preliminary Approval of the Consent Decree means the date when the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has granted conditional approval of the proposed Consent Decree, subject to notice and a fairness hearing with regard to the 1981 class settlement. L. "Final Approval of the Consent Decree" means the date when notice is received by the parties through the Court's ECF system that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division has
5

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 6 of 71 PageID #:1877
approved the EEOC's distribution ofthe EEOC Settlement Fund. M. "YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation" means (i) YRC's
existing Chicago Heights breakbulk facility located at 2000 East Lincoln Highway, Chicago Heights, IL 60411, and (ii) if the existing Chicago Heights breakbulk facility is closed down or substantially moved to another YRC breakbulk facility within fifty (50) miles of the existing Chicago Heights facility, then any additional YRC breakbulk facility where more than fifty (50) percent of the African-American workers at the YRC breakbulk facility are members of either the EEOC Settlement Class or the §1981 Settlement Class.
FINDINGS 8. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings, record, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following:
a. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties.
b. The Court has jurisdiction over the Guaranty (attached hereto as Exhibit C) and over the Guarantor (as defined in the Guaranty) for the sole purpose of enforcing the Guaranty or resolving any dispute arising thereunder.
c. The tenns ofthis Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just. The rights of the EEOC, YRC, the Named Intervenors, the EEOC Settlement Class, §1981 Settlement Class, and the public interest are adequately protected by this Decree.
6

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 7 of 71 PageID #:1878
d. This Decree conforms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title VII, §1981, and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The Entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and Section 1981 and will be in the best interests of EEOC, YRC, the Named Intervenors, the EEOC Settlement Class, §1981 Settlement Class, and the public.
e. The only monetary distributions are to be made out of the EEOC v. Roadway cases and not pursuant to the Bandy v. YRC, Inc. §1981 class litigation.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: INJUNCTION AGAINST RACE DTSCRTMINATION
9. YRC and its officers, agents, management (including supervisory employees), successors and assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with them, or any of them, are hereby enjoined from discriminating against Black employees at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation on the basis of their race, including harassment, work assignments, discipline, the movement from casual to permanent, and promotion to switcher (also known as spotter or hostler) positions.
INJUNCTION AGAINST RETALIATION 10. YRC, its officers, agents, management (including supervisory employees), successors, assigns and all persons acting in concert with it shall not engage in any form of retaliation against any person because such person has opposed any practice at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation made unlawful under Title VII, filed a Charge of Discrimination
7

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 8 of 71 PageID #:1879
under Title VII, testified or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII relating to YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation, or asserted any rights under this Decree.
MONETARY RELIEF 11. The gross total sum of ten million dollars ($1 0,000,000) shall be distributed to the Claimants, Named Intervenors and Named Intervenors' Counsel in accordance with the terms of this Decree. ESTABLISHMENT OP SETTLEMENT FUNDS & ALLOCATION OF MONETARY RELIEF 12. YRC shall deposit or cause to be deposited within five (5) business days ofthe Preliminary Approval of the Consent Decree, the aggregate sum of Eight Million Five Hundred Thousand dollars ($8,500,000.00) as follows: a. Six Million Five Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty dollars ($6,532,250.00) into an escrow account administered by the Claims Administrator designated in Paragraph 16 to establish a Settlement Fund (the "EEOC Settlement Fund") for the purpose of providing monetary awards to Claimants. The EEOC Settlement Fund shall accrue interest at no less than the T-Bill rate. Any interest accrued by the EEOC Settlement Fund will be used to pay expenses associated with the administration of the EEOC Settlement Fund. Other than withdrawal of accrued interest, all payments from this EEOC Settlement Fund shall go to Claimants only in accord with the distribution approved by the Court pursuant to Paragraphs 34 to 37, or pursuant to Paragraph 38
8

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 9 of 71 PageID #:1880
below. b. One Million Nine Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty dollars ($1 ,967,750.00) to an escrow account ("Intervenors' Escrow Account") controlled by Named Intervenors' Counsel with distribution of that fund to be exclusively handled by Named Intervenors' Counsel and all payments to be made upon Final Approval of the Consent Decree to Named Intervenors and Named Intervenors' Counsel as follows:
(i) One-million four hundred and sixty-seven thousand, seven hundred and fifty dollars ($1,467,750.00) shall be paid to Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty P.C. as costs and attorneys fees; (ii) Five-hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) shall be equally distributed to the ten (10) Named Intervenors. 13. In addition to the payments made pursuant to Paragraph 12, above, YRC or any successor or assign to YRC shall pay the gross aggregate sum of One Million Five Hundred Thousand dollars ($1,500,000) as follows: a. On or before November 1, 2011, YRC or any successor or assign shall deposit (i) Three Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty dollars ($384,250.00) into the EEOC Settlement Fund, and distribution will occur in accord with the distribution approved by the Court pursuant to Paragraph 34; and (ii) One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty dollars ($115,750.00) into Intervenors' Escrow Account for distribution by Intervenors' Counsel as follows:
9

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 10 of 71 PageID #:1881
(1) Thirty-two thousand two hundred and fifty dollars ($32,250.00) shall be paid to Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty P.C. as costs and attorneys fees; (2) Eighty-three thousand five hundred dollars ($83,500.00) shall be equally distributed to the ten (10) Named Intervenors. b. On or before November 1, 2012, YRC or any successor or assign shall deposit (i) Three Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty dollars ($384,250.00) into the EEOC Settlement Fund and distribution shall occur in accord with the distribution approved by the Court pursuant to Paragraph 34; and (ii) One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty dollars ($115,750.00) into Intervenors' Escrow Account for distribution by Intervenors' Counsel as follows: One hundred and fifteen thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($115,750.00) shall be equally distributed to the ten (1 0) Named Intervenors. c. On or before November 1, 2013, YRC or any successor or assign shall deposit (i) Three Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty dollars ($384,250.00) into the EEOC Settlement Fund and distribution shall occur in accord with the distribution approved by the Court pursuant to Paragraph 34; and (ii) One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty dollars ($115,750.00) into Intervenors' Escrow Account for distribution by Intervenors' Counsel as follows: One hundred and fifteen thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($115,750.00) shall be equally distributed to the ten (10) Named Intervenors.
10

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 11 of 71 PageID #:1882
d. IfYRC fails to make any ofthe payments as set forth in this paragraph, EEOC and Named Intervenors may pursue their rights as set forth in the Guaranty attached as Exhibit C. 14. All ofthe funds payable to the ten (10) Named Intervenors and Named Intervenors' Counsel will be distributed among Named Intervenors and Named Intervenors' Counsel in accordance with agreement between the Named Intervenors and Named Intervenors' Counsel and as outlined in Paragraphs 12(b) and 13. Named-Intervenors will provide a release of claims as set forth in Exhibit E. EEOC played no role in the allocation of these payments. All payments to the Named Intervenors and Named Intervenors' Counsel are to be paid in accordance with Paragraphs 12(b) and 13 and no amount shall be paid to either the Named Intervenors or Named Intervenors' Counsel out of the EEOC Settlement Fund. 15. All of the funds payable to the EEOC Settlement Class will be distributed in accord with the distribution process described in this Decree at Paragraphs 34-38. No amounts from the EEOC Settlement Fund shall be paid to Named Intervenors or Named Intervenors' Counsel.
CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR 16. Settlement Services, Inc., shall act as Claims Administrator who shall: (a) verify addresses using the national change of address database and mail notices and forms relating to the settlement, claims forms and claims notices; (b) receive objections, opt-outs and other communications from §1981 Settlement Class Members regarding the settlement ofthe §1981
11

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 12 of 71 PageID #:1883
Class Action; (c) receive claims forms for the EEOC Settlement Fund; (d) transmit notifications of monetary awards; (e) issue checks to eligible Claimants from the EEOC Settlement Fund; (f) issue related tax documents; and (g) perform such other administrative tasks as may facilitate the claims process.
17. Interest accrued by the EEOC Settlement Fund will be used to cover costs associated with the distribution of the above funds to Claimants. To the extent accrued interest does not cover these costs, all outstanding Claims Administrator costs shall be paid by YRC, including, without limitation, all costs associated with the creation of the EEOC Settlement Fund, all costs to be paid by the Claims Administrator, and all costs related to the issuance and mailing of notices and checks in accordance with this Decree, along with the Employer's portion of any required taxes.
FAIRNESS HEARING/APPROVAL OF §1981 SETTLEMENT CLASS 18. For the purposes of injunctive and declaratory relief provided in this Decree, the §1981 Settlement Class under 10 CV 5304, is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), with discretionary Notice and opt-out procedures, and consists of all African-American employees of the Defendant working as a dockworker including switcher, seniority list, perccnter, and casual positions at the Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village terminals, at any point between April 9, 2003 and the entry of this Decree. 19. Within five (5) business days ofthe Entry ofthe Preliminary Approval of the Consent Decree, YRC shall transmit to the Claims Administrator a computer-readable list
12

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 13 of 71 PageID #:1884
containing the full names, social security numbers, and last known addresses for all of individuals comprising the §1981 Settlement Class. Prior to submitting the list of names, addresses and known social security numbers of the §1981 Settlement Class to the Claims Administrator, YRC shall provide Class Counsel an opportunity to review the list.
20. Notice to § 1981 Settlement Class Members. Within fifteen (15) business days after the Preliminary Approval Date, the Claims Administrator shall provide notice via first class mail to all §1981 Class Members in a fonn approved by the Court: (a) stating that there is a proposed settlement of the claims in the §1981 Class Action; (b) describing the §1981 Class Action, the terms ofthe settlement, and that the§ 1981 class members may submit a Claim Form in the EEOC claims process for monetary relief; (c) indicating that the Court will hold a hearing at which time the Court will consider the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness ofthe proposed settlement; (d) indicating that §1981 Settlement Class Members may elect to opt-out ofthe proposed settlement; and (c) indicating that §1981 Settlement Class Members who do not opt-out may submit written comments regarding the settlement or appear at the fairness hearing. A copy of the Notice to be submitted to the Court for approval is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
21. YRC shall reasonably cooperate with the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel with respect to identifying and locating members ofthe §1981 Settlement Class. The Claims Administrator will perform a computer database trace for the current addresses of the §1981 Settlement Class Members formerly employed by the Company.
22. Fairness Hearing. A Fairness Hearing to consider the overall fairness, 13

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 14 of 71 PageID #:1885
reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement of the §1981 Class Action shall be held approximately thirty-five (35) days after the mailing of the notice described in Paragraph 20 above, on a date specified by the District Court.
23. Appearance By Class Members at Fairness Hearing. Any member ofthe §1981 Settlement Class may appear at the Fairness Hearing and be heard in opposition to the overall fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement of the §1981 Class Action. However, subject to the Court's discretion, no person shall be heard in opposition to the proposed settlement unless such person has provided to the Claims Administrator a notice of intention to appear and statement of position ofthe position to be asserted, at least ten (10) days prior to the Fairness Hearing. The Claims Administrator shall transmit any such notices and statements to the District Court and counsel no later than five (5) days prior to the Fairness Hearing.
24. Written Statements Regarding the Proposed Settlement. Members of the §1981 Settlement Class may also submit comments in writing regarding the overall fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement of §1981 Class Action. All written statements regarding the proposed settlement must be sent to and received by the Claims Administrator at least ten (1 0) days prior to the Fairness Hearing. In order for a written statement to be considered, the statement must include the individual's name and address. The Claims Administrator shall transmit any such written statements to the District Court no later than five (5) days prior to the Fairness Hearing and shall provide copies of such written
14

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 15 of 71 PageID #:1886
statements to all counsel. 25. Exclusions. Members of the§ 1981 Settlement Class may exclude themselves, or
opt out of the proposed settlement of the §1981 Class Action. Any request for exclusion must be in writing, must include the individual's name and address and must be sent to and received by the Claims Administrator at least ten (1 0) days prior to the Fairness Hearing. The Claims Administrator shall transmit any such requests for exclusion to the District Court and all counsel no later than five (5) days prior to the Fairness Hearing. YRC may file either a motion to void the settlement or a motion opposing Final Approval if the number of opt-outs is inconsistent with the purpose and goals of the Consent Decree.
26. Release of Claims by the 1981 Settlement Class. Upon Final Approval of the Decree, YRC, Inc. and Roadway Express, Inc. and its directors, officers, managers, agents, employees, attorneys, insurers, and for each of the foregoing, their respective parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns, shall be fully released and forever discharged from any and all individual and/or class-wide claims, demands, complaints, rights and causes of actions of any kind, known or unknown, by each member of the 1981 Settlement Class who has not opted-out, including their heirs, assigns and estates, whether seeking monetary and/or equitable relief of any sort, which arise out of or are related to the underlying operative facts in the intervening complaint filed by the Named Intervenors and the Section 1981 claims filed by Named Intervenors which were, or could have been asserted, all of which are released, extinguished and dismissed pursuant to this Consent Decree. This release is
15

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 16 of 71 PageID #:1887
final and shall survive the expiration of the Decree's term. This release is not applicable to any claim that has been raised or could be raised in EEOC v. Yellow Transp., 09 C 7693 (N.D. Ill.) or Brown et al v. Yellow Transp.,08 C 5908 (N.D. Ill.) regarding conduct or events occurring at YRC's former Chicago Ridge Facility.
PROCEDURE FOR NOTICE OF MONETARY SETTLEMENT 27. Within five (5) business days ofthe Entry of the Preliminary Approval ofthe Consent Decree, EEOC shall transmit to the Claims Administrator a computer-readable list containing the full names, social security numbers (where available to EEOC), and last known addresses for all of individuals comprising the EEOC Settlement Class. Prior to submitting the list of names, addresses and known social security numbers to the Claims Administrator, EEOC will verify with YRC that all persons covered by the EEOC Settlement Class definition are included on the list by providing YRC an opportunity to review and revise the list. EEOC has the discretion to identify the Claimants, provided that the list includes all persons covered by the EEOC Settlement Class definition. 28. Within fifteen (15) business days after the Entry of the Preliminary Approval of the Consent Decree, the Claims Administrator shall provide a notice (attached to this Decree as Exhibit F), via first class mail, to all persons in the EEOC Settlement Class in a form approved by the Court: (a) stating that there is a proposed settlement of the claims in this litigation; (b) describing the litigation and the terms of the settlement, including the factors that will be considered in distributing the settlement funds; and (c) enclosing a claims form and claims
16

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 17 of 71 PageID #:1888
instructions (attached to this Decree as Exhibit G). The Claims Administrator shall make reasonable efforts to locate persons in the EEOC Settlement Class whose Claim Packages are returned as undeliverable.
CLAIMS PROCESS 29. Claimants who seek to recover monetary compensation must complete a claim form (Exhibit F) and cause it to be filed with the Claims Administrator within sixty (60) days after the Preliminary Approval of the Consent Decree. The claim form must be postmarked on or before such date in order to be considered timely. All claim forms must be signed under penalty of perjury to be considered. All EEOC Settlement Class members who have given a deposition, provided a signed Affidavit, or returned an EEOC Questionnaire in this case shall be considered to have filed a timely claim. The EEOC, in its discretion, may require said claimant to provide additional information in support of said claim.
a. Late Claims. For claims received after the filing deadline, the Claims Administrator shall notify late-filing claimants that their claims are untimely and that they are not eligible for any monetary award. The EEOC may reverse the determination that a claim was not timely filed only if the claimant proves that the untimeliness determination is erroneous or there was good cause for the delay.
b. Claims of Deceased Persons. Claims may be filed by deceased claimants through representatives of their estate if appropriate documentation (letters testamentary or the
17
LI,, ______________________________________.

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 18 of 71 PageID #:1889
equivalent) is provided. Any claims paid to a deceased claimant shall be made payable to the estate ofthe deceased claimant.
30. The Claims Administrator shall forward claim forms and supporting documentation to the EEOC on a rolling basis.
DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS 31. Within ninety (90) days of the Preliminary Approval of the Consent Decree, EEOC shall make a determination as to whether the Claimants who filed timely claims are eligible to receive a monetary award and, if so, EEOC shall determine the amount of each monetary award. In making such determinations, EEOC may consider whatever evidence EEOC deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, evidence received by EEOC in its investigation of the charge of discrimination underlying this action, in connection with its litigation of this action, and in connection with the claims process provided by this Decree. If a claim form is determined to be incomplete by EEOC, EEOC shall request additional information from the Claimant, if it appears that such additional information would complete the Claim Form. The Claimant must provide the requested information, signed under penalty of perjury, to the EEOC by mail with a postmark no later than fourteen (14) days from the date ofthe mailed request for information. 32. YRC may be asked by EEOC to provide information and data that has not already been provided to EEOC that is necessary to make award determinations. EEOC shall make all such requests no later than sixty (60) days after the Preliminary Approval of the Consent Decree.
18

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 19 of 71 PageID #:1890
YRC will respond to all EEOC requests for information relating to the Claimants within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of the request, or as soon as practicable, by providing all responsive documents and information available to YRC. The information requested by EEOC of YRC pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to the Claimants' job duties and titles, work histories, dates of termination, dates of leave and any other information that is reasonably available to YRC relating to the Claimants.
33. EEOC will determine the amount of each Claimant's monetary award based on the following factors: (i) the severity of the alleged harassment or discrimination, (ii) whether the harassment or discrimination was personally directed at the Claimant, (iii) the duration of the alleged harassment or discrimination, (iv) the extent of the alleged harm, (v) whether the claimant claimed to have been actually or constructively discharged, (vi) the length of service of the employee, (vii) the managerial status of the persons involved, (viii) whether the claimant received more difficult work assignments because of race, (ix) whether the claimant received shorter breaks because of race, (x) whether the claimant received harsher or more frequent discipline because of race, (xi) whether the claimant complained of discrimination, and (x) the claimant's participation and cooperation with the EEOC's litigation in any ofthese cases. EEOC shall be the sole determiner ofthe amount of monetary relief to be received by any eligible Claimant under this Decree. YRC will not participate in or object to EEOC's determinations.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ALLOCATION OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT DECREE.
19

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 20 of 71 PageID #:1891
34. Upon the determination of all claims, EEOC shall file a motion with the District Court seeking approval of the allocation of the EEOC Settlement Fund among those eligible Claimants who have executed and timely returned the Release and Final Approval of this Consent Decree. In connection with this motion, EEOC shall file a proposed settlement distribution list, which shall contain the name and proposed gross settlement amount for each eligible Claimant. YRC shall not challenge the proposed settlement distribution list. After appropriate review, in connection with which EEOC shall provide any information within EEOC's possession which the Court requests, the Court will enter an Order Approving the Allocation of the Settlement Funds and the distribution thereof pursuant to this Consent Decree and an Order for Final Approval of the Consent Decree.
NOTIFICATION OF AWARDS. 35. Within seven (7) days of the Order Approving the Allocation of the EEOC Settlement Funds, EEOC shall cause the Claims Administrator to notify each Claimant (both Eligible Claimants as well as those not receiving a monetary award) via U.S. First Class Mail of the amount of his/her monetary award, if any. 36. Along with the Notification of Award, the Claims Administrator shall mail to each eligible Claimant a Release (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A). Each eligible Claimant will be notified that in order to receive monetary payments under this Decree, he/she must execute and deliver to the Claims Administrator a Release, which will become effective upon the Claimant's receipt of his or her distribution. The letter will inform each eligible
20

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 21 of 71 PageID #:1892
Claimant that such Release must be signed and mailed to the Claims Administrator so that it is actually received by the Claims Administrator within forty-five (45) days of the mailing of the Notification of Award. Any eligible Claimant whose executed Release is not actually received by the Claims Administrator within forty-five (45) days of the mailing of the Notification Award shall be ineligible for and forever barred from receiving any relief under this Decree. The Claims Administrator shall promptly provide all original signed Releases to YRC.
DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT FUND. 37. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of an executed Release from an eligible Claimant, the Claims Administrator shall issue and mail a check to the eligible Claimant in the amount reflected in the final settlement distribution list. For each payment, the Claims Administrator will issue an IRS form 1099 to each claimant reflecting the amount paid to that individual. Payments shall represent compensation for non-pecuniary damages and shall not be subject to any payroll deductions. As directed by the EEOC, the Claims Administrator shall take further steps in a timely manner to reach those Claimants who did not receive and/or deposit their settlement checks.
SURPLUS FUNDS FROM CONSENT DECREE 38. In the event that any portion of the EEOC Settlement Fund, including accrued interest, has not been distributed as required by this Consent Decree after a period of one hundred twenty (120) days has elapsed from the date on which the settlement checks were mailed by the Claims Administrator, then such remaining amounts from the EEOC Settlement
21

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 22 of 71 PageID #:1893
Fund shall be provided to the Aurora/Quad County Chapter of the Urban League, a non-profit organization jointly identified by the EEOC and YRC that serves the area ofthe YRC's Chicago breakbulk dock operation to further the job training and hiring of minority workers.
SPECIFIC INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS CONSENT DECREE MONITOR
39. Upon Final Approval of this Consent Decree by the Court, Preston Pugh of Pugh, Jones, Johnson & Quandt, P.C. shall be appointed as the Monitor to oversee the implementation by YRC of the terms of this Decree. For the term of this Consent Decree, the Monitor will have authority under Court supervision to assess and monitor YRC's compliance with the terms of this Decree at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation and to report to the EEOC, YRC, and to the Court regarding YRC's compliance.
40. In the event that Preston Pugh cannot serve as Monitor for the full term of the Decree, EEOC shall propose a replacement Monitor, subject to YRC's approval. YRC's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. lfthe EEOC and YRC agree on a replacement Monitor, they shall file a joint motion for an order from the Court appointing the replacement Monitor. If the parties are unable to agree on a replacement Monitor, the Court shall resolve the issue.
22

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 23 of 71 PageID #:1894
41. The scope of duties of the Monitor described in this Consent Decree pertains only to dockworkers, switchers (also known as spotters or hostlers), janitors, and clericals supporting the management of dock operations at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation. The programs and procedures at YRC's Chicago break bulk operation subject to oversight by the Monitor shall include the efficacy of YRC's complaint procedures; the quality of investigations undertaken in response to complaints; the status of all required training; implementation of changes in antiharassment and anti-discrimination policies; fairness in work assignments; fairness in disciplinary practices; fairness in breaks and downtime; fairness in training and qualification for the spotter position including, but not limited to, fair administration and scoring of the spotter qualifying exam; fairness in movement from casual to permanent status; and with regard to all employees working on the dock, including supervisory employees, the overall environment with regard to race harassment and/or race discrimination.
42. YRC shall fully cooperate with the Monitor in connection with his/her efforts to oversee and monitor the implementation of the terms of the Decree. The Monitor shall have reasonable and timely access to all employees and to relevant books, data (including databases), documents, and other sources of information necessary or appropriate to the exercise ofhis/her duties described herein. Except as provided in Paragraph 49 and communications with the EEOC and Intervening-Plaintiffs' counsel, the Monitor will maintain as confidential all YRC employee information and other Company information obtained through his or her duties under this Consent Decree. The Monitor, as he/she deems necessary and appropriate, with reasonable
23

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 24 of 71 PageID #:1895
notice to YRC, shall have access to YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation. 43. YRC shall compensate the Monitor at his/her reasonable and customary hourly
rate, or upon other tenns agreed upon by YRC and the Monitor. YRC shall pay reasonable costs and expenses incurred or caused to be incurred by the Monitor in connection with the perfonnance of his/her duties under this Consent Decree. YRC shall promptly, and within a period not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days, pay all reasonable fees and reasonable costs and expenses of the type contemplated by this paragraph which have been certified in writing by the Monitor to YRC to have been incurred by the Monitor in connection with the perfonnance of the Monitor's duties under this Consent Decree. In the event that YRC believes that the fees or expenses incurred by the Monitor are not reasonable, or that the fees or expenses relate to work beyond the scope of the Monitor's duties under the Consent Decree, YRC may invoke the dispute resolution procedure in Paragraph 85 and seek the Court's assistance if necessary to void payment of such fees or expenses. YRC shall indemnify, defend, and hold hannless the Monitor with respect to liability for any reasonable costs and expenses and for claims made against the Monitor or his/her agents by anyone arising out of or related to his/her duties or alleged failure of his/her duties herein and to the same extent and degree as the indemnification YRC provides to its officers and directors for claims or actions against them arising out of or relating to their duties.
24

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 25 of 71 PageID #:1896
44. The Monitor shall have the responsibility for monitoring the investigation of all complaints of discrimination based on race at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation and all complaints of retaliation based on opposition to such discrimination or retaliation for involvement or participation in the implementation or enforcement of the terms ofthis Decree including without limitation the investigation of complaints of incidents of race harassment or race discrimination at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation.
45. For the duration of the Decree, YRC shall notify the Monitor of all complaints of discrimination reported at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation within five (5) business days of receipt ofthe complaint, and with respect to complaints of retaliation, YRC shall notify the Monitor as soon as practicable and, in any event, no later than the close of the next business day after YRC receives any complaint of retaliation.
46. Upon completion of its investigation of complaints of discrimination or retaliation at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation, YRC shall promptly prepare and provide the Monitor with a copy of a written report summarizing the investigation undertaken and any remedial actions taken or proposed by YRC, and shall also promptly communicate to the complaining party the results of the investigation, the remedial actions taken or proposed, if any, and the Monitor's name, address, and telephone number.
25

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 26 of 71 PageID #:1897
47. The Monitor will review YRC's investigation and, where appropriate, may make recommendations to YRC regarding the investigation and resolution of complaints. The Monitor may interview the complaining party and other persons of interest with respect to any complaints, if the Monitor deems it appropriate.
48. If, upon reviewing information regarding a complaint of race discrimination or retaliation at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation or upon his own initiative, the Monitor believes that the remedial action proposed by YRC is inconsistent with YRC's antidiscrimination policy or the terms of this Decree, the Monitor shall first attempt to resolve the disagreement with YRC. IfYRC and the Monitor are unable to reach a resolution oftheir disagreement to the satisfaction of the Monitor, the Monitor shall report to EEOC any such inconsistency and EEOC may pursue the matter with the Court.
49. Eight (8) months after Final Approval of the Consent Decree and each year thereafter under this Decree, the Monitor shall submit a written report regarding the Company's compliance with the Decree to YRC and the EEOC and file a copy of the report publicly with the Court with the exception that the names and identifying information of any complainants or witnesses shall be redacted. The EEOC may seek to remedy any issues in compliance outlined in the Monitor's report through the dispute resolution procedure set forth in Paragraph 85 of this decree.
50. The report of the Monitor shall include the following:
26

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 27 of 71 PageID #:1898
a. an assessment of whether YRC has successfully complied with each specific non-monetary term of this Decree;
b. for each specific term of this Decree that has not been fully complied with, a statement discussing the reasons for YRC's failure to implement the required changes;
c. a discussion of barriers perceived by the Monitor, if any, to YRC's compliance with the Decree;
d. a description of the Monitor's recommendations to YRC to effectuate the purposes of this Decree and YRC's response to those recommendations;
e. recommendations for any changes to existing practices, policies, or programs or any additional polices, practices or programs that the Monitor deems necessary or appropriate for effectuating the purposes of the Decree;
f. a summary report of the number and nature of the complaints of race discrimination or harassment received, the nature of any investigations done, and the result;
g. report on the assignment of work and the issuance of discipline by race at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation;
h. report on whether any facilities other than the Chicago Heights facility at 2000 East Lincoln Highway, Chicago Heights, IL 60411 now fall within the Decree's definition ofYRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation and whether any such other facility is in compliance with the Decree; and
27

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 28 of 71 PageID #:1899

1.

report on any other matter falling within the scope of the Monitor's

authority. 51. The above-referenced report or other information in possession of the Monitor, and any testimony sought from the Monitor, shall be used solely for the purposes of this Consent

Decree. ANTI-HARASSMENT AND ANTI-DISCRIMTNATION POLICY
52. Within thirty (30) days of the Final Approval ofthe Decree, YRC will provide to the EEOC YRC's equal employment opportunity policies and procedures, including its antidiscrimination policies, its anti-harassment policies, and its policy for investigating complaints in

effect at YRC's Chicago breakbulk dock operation. 53. YRC shall maintain a policy against race discrimination and harassment, which
shall remain in effect for the duration of this Decree. YRC's policy against race discrimination

and harassment shall, at a minimum: (a) specifically prohibit all discrimination against employees on the basis ofrace. (b) inform employees that they may raise complaints with supervisors, managers, or
Human Resources representatives located on site, in addition to the other avenues currently stated in YRC's non-discrimination policy, including the EthicsPoint toll-free hotline or a similar provider, EthicsPoint internet website or a similar provider, or direct correspondence with YRC's

Office of General Counsel. (c) inform employees that complaints of discrimination will be investigated thoroughly

28

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 29 of 71 PageID #:1900
and promptly and shall provide that employees who violate the policy are subject to discipline up to and including discharge.
(d) designate the full-time Human Resources Coordinator at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation, with responsibility for promptly investigating complaints of discrimination and harassment and for implementing the terms of this Consent Decree.
(e) require that all supervisors and managers who receive performance reviews, will be evaluated, among other criteria, based upon their compliance with YRC's anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies.
54. Commencing no later than sixty (60) calendar days after the Final Approval of the Consent Decree, YRC shall distribute a copy of its anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy, to each employee at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation.
55. YRC shall develop and maintain a policy regarding internal investigation of all complaints concerning alleged race harassment, retaliation and/or discrimination. YRC's policy shall, at a minimum, require that:
a) YRC make all reasonable efforts to fully investigate all complaints of racial harassment, retaliation, and/or discrimination at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation within ten (1 0) business days of the date the allegation is brought to the attention of a supervisor, manager, or Human Resources department employee.
b) to the extent reasonable, all interviews be conducted in person. c) to the extent reasonable, all material witnesses to be interviewed.
29

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 30 of 71 PageID #:1901
d) to the extent reasonable, the Company photograph and preserve all evidence of racially offensive images or expressions in a manner that will facilitate further forensic investigation.
e) YRC will prepare written findings of the results of each investigation. t) the findings and any remedial actions taken will be communicated to the alleged victim of discrimination by Human Resources, orally or in writing. g) all results of harassment or discrimination investigations are sent to the responsible Human Resources manager.
RACE HARASSMENT I DISCRIMINATION TRAINING 56. Within ninety (90) days following the Final Approval of this Decree, and each year thereafter under this Decree, all of YRC's employees at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation including all YRC Chicago breakbulk dock operation employees who oversee any aspect of Human Resources at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation shall participate in a race harassment/discrimination training session or sessions regarding race discrimination and the duty to protect employees from unwelcome harassment. 57. The first training session, held within ninety (90) days following Final Approval of this Decree, shall be completed at YRC's expense by an outside trainer approved by the EEOC. Subsequent training sessions may be conducted by internal YRC Human Resources trainers, provided that the trainers complete a train-the-trainer program with a certified trainer and any trainer and presentation materials arc approved by the EEOC at least thirty (30) days
30

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 31 of 71 PageID #:1902
prior to the training program as set forth in Paragraph 58 below. Any person who is hired to work at or transfers to YRC's Chicago Heights facility or who will oversee any aspect of operations or human resources at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation shall view a videotaped version of such training during new employee orientation, within ten (1 0) business days of starting work. A registry of attendance shall be maintained.
58. YRC shall obtain approval from the EEOC of its proposed trainer prior to the commencement of the training session(s). YRC shall submit the name, address, telephone number, resume and training proposal of the proposed external or internal trainer, as applicable, to the EEOC at least thirty (30) business days prior to the proposed commencement date(s) of the training(s). The EEOC shall have ten (10) business days from the date of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the proposed trainer. In the event the EEOC does not approve YRC's designated trainer, YRC shall have ten (10) business days to identify an alternate trainer. The EEOC shall have ten (1 0) business days from the date of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the alternate trainer. If the parties cannot through this process agree on a trainer, then they may seek the Court's assistance under the dispute resolution procedure in Paragraph 85.
59. YRC shall certify to the Monitor, in writing, within five (5) business days after the ninetieth (90th) day following the Final Approval of this Decree, and again each year thereafter under this Decree, that group training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification(s) shall include: (i) the date, location and duration of the
31

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 32 of 71 PageID #:1903
training; and (ii) a copy of the registry of attendance, which shall include the name and position of each person in attendance. Prior to each anniversary date following the Final Approval of this Consent Decree, YRC shall certify in writing to the Monitor that all new employees have been provided the required training during new employee orientation, within ten (I 0) business days of starting work.
60. Upon the request of the EEOC and/or the Monitor, YRC shall provide them with copies of any and all pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written material(s) provided to the participants ofthe training session(s).
WORK ASSIGNMENT POLICY 61. Within thirty (30) days from the Final Approval of this Decree, YRC will engage a Work Assignment Consultant, mutually agreed upon by the parties, to assist it in reviewing and revising the company's work assignment policies and practices at YRC's Chicago Heights facility. Prior to the commencement of work by the Work Assignment Consultant, the EEOC, Intervening-Plaintiffs' counsel, and YRC shall meet with the Work Assignment Consultant to discuss the scope of work pursuant to this provision. The Work Assignment Consultant shall provide a budget to YRC and the EEOC for approval before commencing work. Ifthe parties are unable to agree upon a budget, they will first confer on the issue, and agree to use the dispute resolution procedure in Paragraph 85 only if necessary. 62. Within ninety (90) days from the Final Approval of this Decree, the Work Assignment Consultant will complete its review ofYRC's work assignment policies and
32

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 33 of 71 PageID #:1904
practices and issue a report (the "Work Assignment Consultant's Report") containing reasonable recommendations as to the methods by which YRC can modify its current procedures or adopt new procedures designed to ensure that the procedures are fair and do not have the intent or effect of discriminating against any employee on the basis of race. The Work Assignment Consultant shall provide copies of the report to the Monitor, the EEOC, and YRC.
63. Within sixty (60) days of receiving the Work Assignment Consultant's Report, YRC shall implement the Work Assignment Consultant's reasonable recommendations at its YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation, unless the recommendation would require a material change to the CBA, would impose a substantial hardship, or YRC otherwise determines that it is unable to implement a recommendation for good cause, provided however, YRC must provide an alternative recommendation that is consistent with the goals or objectives of the recommendations of the Work Assignment Consultant.
64. If YRC believes a recommendation requires a material change to the CBA, YRC will provide notice to the EEOC, the Monitor, and the union within fifteen (15) business days of receiving the report and seek to bargain in good faith necessary modifications of the CBA to implement the proposed provisions as soon as reasonably possible. If YRC is unable to bargain with the union or obtain the necessary modification(s) within sixty (60) days of receiving the Work Assignment Consultant's report, YRC shall report such to the EEOC and the Monitor and explain the reason for the delay or the circumstances surrounding the parties' inability to bargain for the modification. If the EEOC believes that there has been unreasonable delay in bargaining
33

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 34 of 71 PageID #:1905
or if either party to negotiations has unreasonably withheld agreement, the EEOC may seek the court's assistance pursuant to dispute resolution procedure in Paragraph 85.
65. If YRC elects not to implement any of the Work Assignment Consultant's recommendations, it shaH explain in writing the basis for its decision not to implement the specific recommendation. Such written explanation will be distributed to the EEOC and the Monitor. If the EEOC does not agree with YRC's decision not to implement a recommendation contained in the Work Assignment Consultant's Report or does not agree with YRC's alternative recommendation, the EEOC and the Monitor, and YRC shall meet and confer in an attempt to work out any disagreements. The Work Assignment Consultant may be included, at any party's request, in the meet and confer discussions. If no agreement is reached, the parties may seek relief from the Court pursuant to the dispute resolution procedure set forth in Paragraph 85.
66. The above-referenced report or other information in possession ofthe Work Assignment Consultant, and any testimony sought from the Work Assignment Consultant, shall be used solely for the purposes of this Consent Decree.
DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES 67. Within thirty (30) days from the Final Approval of this Decree, YRC will engage a Disciplinary Practice Consultant, mutually agreed upon by the Parties, to assist it in reviewing and revising YRC's disciplinary policies and practices at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation. Prior to the commencement of work by the Disciplinary Practice Consultant, the EEOC, Intervening-Plaintiffs' counsel, and YRC shall meet with the Disciplinary Practice
34

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 35 of 71 PageID #:1906
Consultant to discuss the scope of work pursuant to this provision. The Disciplinary Practice Consultant shall provide a budget to YRC and the EEOC for approval before commencing work. If the parties are unable to agree upon a budget, they will first confer on the issue, and agree to use the dispute resolution procedure in Paragraph 85 only if necessary.
68. Within ninety (90) days from the Final Approval of this Decree, the Disciplinary Practice Consultant will complete its review of YRC's disciplinary policies and practices and issue a report (the "Disciplinary Practice Report") containing reasonable recommendations as to the methods by which YRC can modify its current procedures or adopt new procedures designed to ensure that the disciplinary procedures are fair and do not have the intent or effect of discriminating against any employee on the basis of race. The Disciplinary Practice Consultant shall provide copies of the Report to the Monitor, the EEOC and YRC.
69. Within sixty (60) days of receiving the Disciplinary Practice Report, YRC shall implement the Disciplinary Practice Consultant's reasonable recommendations at its YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation, unless said recommendations would require a material change in the CBA, would impose a substantial hardship, or YRC otherwise determines that it is unable to implement a recommendation for good cause, provided however, YRC must provide an alternative recommendation that is consistent with the goals or objectives of the recommendations of the Disciplinary Practice Consultant.
70. If YRC believes a recommendation requires a material change to the CBA, YRC will provide notice to the EEOC, the Monitor, and the union within fifteen (15) business days of
35

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 36 of 71 PageID #:1907
receiving the report and seek to bargain in good faith necessary modifications of the CBA to implement the proposed provisions as soon as reasonably possible. If YRC is unable to bargain with the union or obtain the necessary modification(s) within sixty (60) days of receiving the Disciplinary Practice Consultant's report, YRC shall report such to the EEOC and the Monitor and explain the reason for the delay or the circumstances surrounding the parties' inability to bargain for the modification. If the EEOC believes that there has been unreasonable delay in bargaining or if either party to negotiations has unreasonably withheld agreement, the parties may seek the court's assistance pursuant to dispute resolution procedure in Paragraph 85.
71. If YRC elects not to implement any of the Disciplinary Practice Consultant's recommendations, it shall explain in writing the basis for its decision not to implement the specific recommendation. Such written explanation will be distributed to the EEOC and the Monitor. If the EEOC does not agree with YRC's decision not to implement a recommendation contained in the Disciplinary Practice Consultant's Report, or does not agree with YRC's alternative recommendation, the EEOC, the Monitor, and YRC shaH meet and confer in an attempt to work out any disagreements. The Disciplinary Practice Consultant may be included, at any party's request, in the meet and confer discussions. If no agreement is reached, the EEOC may seek relief from the Court pursuant to the dispute resolution procedure set forth in Paragraph 85.
72. The above-referenced report or other information in possession of the Disciplinary Practice Consultant, and any testimony sought from the Disciplinary Practice
36

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 37 of 71 PageID #:1908
Consultant, shall be used solely for the purposes of this Consent Decree.
SUPERVISOR ACCOUNTABILITY 73. YRC shall impose discipline up to and including suspension, demotion and termination upon any supervisor or manager, who: (i) engages in race harassment or discrimination; (ii) knowingly or recklessly tolerates any such conduct in his or her presence or among persons under his or her supervision; (iii) fails to report allegations of race harassment or discrimination to the appropriate YRC personnel; or (iv) retaliates against any person who complains or participates in any investigation or proceeding concerning any such conduct. YRC shall communicate this policy to all supervisors and managers.
POSTING OF NOTICE 74. Within ten (1 0) business days after Final Approval of this Decree, YRC shall post copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit B to this Decree at its YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation on the bulletin boards usually used by YRC for posting governmental notices directed to employees. The Notice shall remain posted for the duration of the Decree. YRC shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. YRC shall certify to the EEOC in writing within ten (10) business days after Final
37

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 38 of 71 PageID #:1909
Approval of the Decree that the Notice has been properly posted. YRC shall permit the Monitor to enter YRC's Chicago breakbulk dock operation premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during normal business hours.
RECORD KEEPING 75. During the duration of this Decree, YRC shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying by the EEOC and by the Monitor, records (including names, social security numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers) of each employee at YRC's Chicago breakbulk dock operation who complains of race discrimination, race harassment, or retaliation, the substance of the complaint, all documents pertaining to a resulting investigation, and all records of actions taken as a result ofthe investigation. In addition, YRC shall keep an electronic database of all discipline issued at its YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation. This database should include, at a minimum, the name and employee ID number of the employer disciplined, the type of discipline issued, the type of violation, the supervisor who issued the discipline, and the date. In addition, YRC shall also maintain electronic copies ofthe data collected that will indicate the freight handled by individual dockworkers at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation. 76. YRC shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 75 above, available for inspection and copying within ten (1 0) business days after EEOC and the Monitor so requests. In addition, YRC shall require personnel within its employ whom the EEOC and/or Monitor requests for purposes of verifying compliance with this Decree to cooperate reasonably
38

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 39 of 71 PageID #:1910
and to be interviewed, provided that YRC may have a representative present during interviews of management personnel.
REPORTING 77. YRC shall furnish to the Monitor and the EEOC the following written reports semi-annually for the duration of this Decree. The first report shall be due six (6) months after Final Approval of the Consent Decree. The final report shall be due one (1) month prior to the expiration of the Decree. Each such report shall contain (as applicable): (a) A summary of all complaints of race discrimination or retaliation received at YRC's Chicago breakbulk dock operation during the six (6) month period preceding the report, including the date the complaint was made, who made it, what was alleged, and what actions YRC took to resolve the matter. (b) A summary ofthe content of the data maintained by YRC showing the assignment of work and discipline by race at YRC's Chicago break bulk dock operation. The summary of work assignment data shall be in a form that, at a minimum includes summary information set forth in Exhibit H, along with the underlying compiled table or database and the underlying data. YRC may provide additional summary and analysis at its discretion. The existence of any such summary and analysis in the summary table does not constitute an admission by either side as to the relevance or significance ofthat measure of work assignment. If any ofthe Plaintiffs believe that the work assignment data demonstrate non-compliance with
39

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 40 of 71 PageID #:1911
the Decree, the Plaintiffs may invoke the Dispute Resolution provisions in Paragraph 85 at which time YRC will have an opportunity to either persuade the Plaintiffs that work assignments actually are in compliance or to propose to Plaintiffs a method ofremediating the problem. If the parties are not able to reach agreement after following the steps set forth in Paragraph 85, the matter will be referred to the Court for resolution.
(c) A certification by YRC that the Notice required to be posted in Paragraph 74, above, remained posted during the entire six (6) month period preceding the report.
(d) A summary of training provided during the six (6) month period preceding the report for workers to be qualified as spotters, including who expressed interest in training, who trained, when they trained, who was newly qualified as a spotter, and who, if anyone, failed the qualifying exam.
(e) A summary of all movement from casual status to the seniority list, including a list of all casuals employed during the six (6) month period preceding the report, all casuals that were terminated, the reasons any casual was terminated, the identity of all employees moved from casual status to the seniority list, and the date employee status was changed.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 78. Counterparts: This Consent Decree may be executed by the Parties in one or more counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. An executed photocopy shall be deemed an original.
40

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 41 of 71 PageID #:1912
79. Binding Upon Successors: The terms of this Consent Decree shall be binding upon the present and future directors, officers, managers, agents, successors and assigns ofYRC. YRC, and any successor(s) ofYRC, shall provide a copy of this Decree to any organization or person who proposes to acquire or merge with YRC, or any successor of YRC, prior to the effectiveness of any such acquisition or merger. This paragraph shall not be deemed to limit any remedies available in the event of any finding by the Court regarding a violation of this Decree.
80. Notices: Any notices to be given to the parties under this Consent Decree will be deemed sufficient if mailed by first class mail to:
Counsel for Plaintiffs The EEOC: Richard J. Mrizek, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, Illinois, 60661. And: Named Intervenors Counsel: Jeffrey L. Taren, Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty, 224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60604. Counsel for YRC: Grace E. Speights, Gregory R. Talbot, and Joyce E. Taber of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004. 81. This Consent Decree constitutes the entire agreement between YRC and Plaintiffs hereto with respect to the matters herein, and it supersedes all negotiations, representations, comments, contracts and writings prior to the date of this Consent Decree. 82. Whenever possible, each provision and term of this Consent Decree shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be valid and enforceable; provided, however, that in the event any provision or term of this Consent Decree should be determined to be or rendered invalid or
41

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 42 of 71 PageID #:1913
unenforceable (by an Act of Congress or otherwise), all other provisions and terms ofthis Consent Decree and the application thereof to all persons and circumstances subject thereto shall remain unaffected to the extent permitted by law.
83. YRC and EEOC may jointly agree to modify the Consent Decree with the approval ofthe Court with the exception ofParagraphs 12(b), 13(a), 13(b), 13(c), which govern the payment obligations to Named Intervenors and their counsel and which are subject to modification only by the agreement of Named Intervenors Counsel and YRC.
84. YRC and Plaintiffs' Counsel shall make a good faith effort to defend this Consent Decree from any legal challenge whether by appeal, collateral attack or objection.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 85. If during the term of this Decree any party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other parties of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within ten ( 10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATION OF THE DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 86. All provisions of this Decree shall be in effect and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree for a period of five (5) years immediately
42

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 43 of 71 PageID #:1914
following the Final Approval of the Decree, provided however, that after final payment by YRC pursuant to Paragraph 13, YRC may petition the Monitor for a recommendation that its obligations under this Consent Decree be terminated based on a pattern of compliance. If the Monitor issues such a recommendation, YRC may petition the Court for approval of the Monitor's recommendation.
43

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 44 of 71 PageID #:1915

ENTERED AND APPROVED FOR:
For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 131 M Street, NE Washington, DC 20507
P. DAVID LOPEZ General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
s/John C. Hendrickson JOHN C. HENDRICKSON Regional Attorney
sf Gregory Gochanour GREGORY GOCHANOUR Supervisory Trial Attorney
sf Ethan M. M. Cohen ETHAN M. M. COHEN Trial Attorney
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison, Suite 2000 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 869-8104

For YRC, INC.
sf Grace E. Speights (by consent) Grace E. Speights Joyce E. Taber MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20004 COUNSEL FOR YRC, INC.

44

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 45 of 71 PageID #:1916
For Named Intervenors s/ Jeffrey L. Taren (with Consent) JEFFREY L. TAREN Jeffrey L. Taren Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty P.C. 224 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 663-5210

ENTERED:

W----
United States District Court Magistrate Judge Susan Cox

Date:

45
~- ____________________________________________________.......

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 46 of 71 PageID #:1917

EXHIBIT A

RELEASE AGREEMENT

I,

, for and in consideration ofthe sum of$

payable to me

pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. YRC, No. 06 C

4805 (N.D. Ill.) and EEOC v. YRC, No. 08 C 5555 (N.D. Ill.) on behalfofmyself, my heirs,

assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby forever release, waive, remise, acquit, and discharge

YRC, Inc., and Roadway Express, Inc., and their directors, officers, managers, agents,

employees, attorneys, insurers, and for each of the foregoing, their respective parents,

affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns (collectively, the Releasees), from any and all

claims and causes of action of any kind, known or unknown, which I now have or ever have had

under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., arising

from or related to the underlying facts and claims which were asserted in EEOC and Bandy et a)

v. YRC, No. 06 C 4805 (N.D. Ill.) and EEOC v. YRC, No. 08 C 5555 (N.D. Ill.).

I understand that by executing this Agreement, the Releasees are not admitting any violation of my rights under statutory or common law. I also understand that this release is effective only so long as each of the payments due and owing under the Decree is paid to me. Should any payment fail to be made, the release is null and void.

This release is not applicable to any claim that has been raised or could be raised in EEOC v. Yellow Transp., 09 C 7693 (N.D. Ill.) or Brown et al v. Yellow Transp., 08 C 5908 (N.D. Ill.) regarding conduct or events occurring at YRC's former Chicago Ridge Facility.

Date

Signature

46

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 47 of 71 PageID #:1918

EXHIBITB NOTICE TO YRC EMPLOYEES

This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in the Northern District of Illinois in EEOC v. YRC, No. 06 C 4805 (N.D. Ill.), EEOC v. YRC, No. 08 C 5555 (N.D. Ill.), resolving litigation filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against YRC.

In its suit, the EEOC alleged that YRC discriminated against African-American dockworkers, switchers and janitors at YRC's Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village facilities on the basis of their race by subjecting them to a hostile work environment and discriminating against them in the terms and conditions of employment including by subjecting them to unequal discipline and unequal work assignments. The resolution by YRC of any and all claims or potential claims set forth under the Consent Decree is not an admission of liability on the part of the Company.

To resolve the case, YRC and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree which provides, among other things, monetary relief to eligible individuals, programmatic relief to include updated policies and training regarding laws prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on race, and a Consent Decree Monitor who has been appointed by the Court to monitor YRC's compliance with the Consent Decree. YRC will not discriminate against any employee on the basis of race or retaliate against any person because (s)he opposed any practice made unlawful by the Title VII, filed a charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree.

If you believe you have been discriminated against, you should contact the Chicago Heights Human Resources Coordinator (currently, Kendall Calhoun), any manager or supervisor, or file a report on EthicsPoint at 1-866-ETHICSP or www.ethicspoint.com immediately. The Company cannot respond to issues that are not brought to its attention.

If you believe that you have suffered discrimination at YRC, you may contact Preston Pugh (312-768-7800), who serves as the Consent Decree monitor to ensure that YRC is in compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree, which includes a prohibition on race discrimination and retaliation. You may also contact the EEOC at (312) 353-8195. The EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability. The EEOC charges no fees and has a TTD number.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE This Notice must remain posted for the duration of this Decree and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to: YRC Settlement, EEOC, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60661.

Date

Magistrate Judge Susan Cox

United States District Court

47

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 48 of 71 PageID #:1919
EXHIBITC
GUARANTY
The undersigned, Federal Insurance Company, an Indiana corporation ("Guarantor"), in consideration of the settlement ofthe claims alleged by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") and by William Bandy, Nerville Cox, Toby Lee, Antawon L. Marshal, Cleophus Marshall, Clarence Royster, Lushawn Smith, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, and Mark Williams ("Named Intervenors") in the matter of EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc and YRC, Case Numbers 06-cv-4805 and 06-cv-5555 and William Bandy et al. v. YRC, Inc. formerly known as Roadway Express severed and renumbered 10 CV 5304 (collectively, the "Lawsuit"), for which it has obligations under an insurance agreement relating to the Lawsuit, does hereby unconditionally guarantee YRC, Inc.'s payment of monetary relief (a total of $1,500,000 in three yearly installments of $500,000 each), as detailed in the Consent Decree entered into as part of the Lawsuit (the "Consent Decree"). In no event shall Guarantor's obligations under this Guaranty include any liability to the EEOC or the Named Intervenors for any special, indirect, consequential or punitive damages (including any Joss of profits, business or anticipated savings) due to non-payment by Guarantor or YRC, Inc.
Guarantor acknowledges, represents, and warrants that YRC, Inc.'s and Roadway Express, Inc.'s agreement to the Consent Decree with Guarantor's guaranty of payment is in the best interest of Guarantor, and that the EEOC's and Named Intervenors' agreement to the Consent Decree with the guaranty of payment by Guarantor constitutes good and sufficient consideration for such Guaranty by Guarantor.
It is recognized and agreed that this Guaranty is a substantial part of the consideration for the signing of the Consent Decree by the EEOC and the Named Intervenors and that the EEOC and the Named Intervenors would not agree to any deferred payment under the Consent Decree without the agreement of Guarantor to execute this Guaranty.
In the event that YRC, Inc., for any reason whatsoever, including bankruptcy, reorganization, or dissolution, does not pay or cause to be paid any of the installment payments described in Paragraph 13 of Consent Decree, or any part thereof, on the date said payment is scheduled to be made and such non-payment continues for fourteen (14) days (a "Default"), then, within seven (7) days after either the EEOC or the Named Intervenors provides written notice of Default, Guarantor agrees to pay all amounts then due and owing under Paragraph 13 of the Consent Decree, without further act or deed by any person, and without further notice to or order of the Court. Any bankruptcy, reorganization or dissolution of YRC, Inc. or any successor or assign shall have no effect on the obligation of Guarantor to make all payments due and owing under this Guaranty. Nothing herein shall obligate Guarantor to make any payment before such payment would otherwise be due and owing under the Consent Decree.
Guarantor also agrees that the EEOC or the Named Intervenors are not required to first enforce against any other person or entity any liability, obligation or duty guaranteed by this Guaranty before seeking enforcement thereof against Guarantor; Guarantor acknowledges that
48

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 49 of 71 PageID #:1920
this is a guarantee of payment and not a guaranty of collection. Guarantor acknowledges and agrees that an action may be brought and maintained
against Guarantor by the EEOC or the Named Intervenors to enforce any liability, obligation or duty guaranteed by this Guaranty without the necessity of joining Roadway Express, Inc. or YRC, Inc. or any other person or entity in such action. Guarantor agrees to pay all costs and fees reasonably and necessarily incurred by the EEOC or Plaintiff Intervenors in enforcing the Guaranty.
All notice hereunder shall be sent by overnight delivery to Specialty Claims Manager, Chubb & Son, a division of Federal Insurance Company, 15 Mountain View Road, Warren, NJ 07059. Notice shall be deemed provided on the date after notice is deposited with the overnight delivery service.
Guarantor hereby agrees to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the Consent Decree for the limited purpose of enforcing this Guaranty, or resolving any dispute arising hereunder. EXECUTED to be effective as ofthis _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2010. GUARANTOR:
On behalf of Federal Insurance Company: By signing this document, I declare under the penalty of perjury that I am authorized by Federal Insurance Company to enter into this Guaranty.
NAME (printed):
SIGNATURE:
TITLE:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
49

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 50 of 71 PageID #:1921

EXHIBITD

THIS IS A NOTICE OF A PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

)

WILLIAM BANDY, TOBY LEE, LUSHAWN SMITH,)

MARK WILLIAMS CLARENCE STOKES,

)

FRED THOMPSON, CLARENCE ROYSTER,

)

ANTAWON L. MARSHAL, NERVILLE COX

)

and CLEOPHUS MARSHALL,

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

~

)

) YRC, Inc. formerly known as ROADWAY EXPRESS, )

INC.

)

)

Defendants.

)

10 cv 5304
Magistrate Judge Cox

THIS IS NOT A SUMMONS NOR AN ORDER TO COME TO COURT
This Notice is being sent to you, as ordered by the Court, to advise you of the preliminary approval of the settlement of two employment discrimination cases against the company formerly known as Roadway Express and now known as YRC, Inc. or the "Company" with regard to its terminal in Chicago Heights, Illinois and its former terminal in Elk Grove Village, lllinois. The original case was brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of dockworkers, switchers, and janitors and is entitled EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc. and YRC, Case Numbers 06-cv-4805 and 06-cv-5555 ("EEOC case"). A class action complaint in intervention was also filed seeking only injunctive relief and punitive damages on behalf of a class of dockworkers and switchers. That case is entitled William Bandy eta!. v. YRC, Inc. formerly known as Roadway Express and is now renumbered 10-cv-5304. ("Bandy case"). These cases are now consolidated for Settlement Purposes.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU MUST NOW DECIDE WHAT ACTION YOU WILL TAKE IN RESPONSE TO THE PROI>OSED SETTLEMENT OF THE CLASS ACTION.

50

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 51 of 71 PageID #:1922

If you want to make a claim for money from the settlement, you can only do so in the EEOC

case. You must submit a CLAIM FORM (enclosed) postmarked by

m

order for you to receive money from the settlement.

You may object to the class settlement in Bandy eta/. v. YRC by submitting a written statement

and appearing at a hearing on

at 1:30 p.m., at which the Court will consider the

fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed settlement in the Bandy case; or

You may decide to be excluded from the Bandy case ("opt out") for any reason by _ _ __ If you opt out of the Bandy case, then you will not be bound by the release provisions with regard to claims that were asserted in that case. Please note, however, that you will not be allowed to receive any money from the settlement fund in the EEOC v. Roadway case without signing a release of your Title VII claims.

All class members in the Bandy case and the EEOC case are entitled to seek monetary compensation from the Settlement Fund established in the EEOC v. Roadway case. To do so, you must file the enclosed CLAIM FORM by the above stated deadline.

I. SUMMARY OF LITIGATION

This litigation began in September 2006 when EEOC filed a race discrimination case (Case No. 06 C 4805) on behalf of a class of African-American dockworkers, switchers, and janitors employed by Defendant Roadway Express at its Chicago Heights facility. The EEOC's complaint alleges that Roadway violated Title VII by creating a racially hostile work environment for these African-American workers, and subjecting these African-American workers to racially discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, including discrimination in discipline, breaks, and work assignments. A group of ten class members represented by Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty intervened in that action and also alleged discrimination at the Elk Grove Village facility and added claims under Section 1981 based upon the same operative facts on behalf of a class of Roadway dockworkers and switchers. In their complaint, the ten named class members sought injunctive relief and punitive damages.

In 2008, the EEOC filed an additional complaint (Case No. 08 C 5555) alleging Roadway similarly violated Title VII at its Elk Grove Village facility by creating a racially hostile work environment for its African-American dockworkers, switchers, and janitors and subjected them to the same racially discriminatory terms and conditions of employment.

Between 2006 and the present, the parties to the litigation exchanged almost a million documents and took over 100 depositions. The parties also engaged in private mediation on two occasions and then in a court-supervised mediation process. This process enabled the parties to better understand each other's positions and, ultimately, to reach an agreement to settle the Bandy case as well as the consolidated litigation brought by the EEOC.

The proposed settlements would resolve all claims brought against Roadway Express, now known as YRC, Inc., on behalf of the African-American dockworkers and switchers in the Bandy

51

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 52 of 71 PageID #:1923
case and the African-American dockworkers, switchers, and janitors in the EEOC case, including claims for both money and equitable relief.
IT. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED BANDY SETTLEMENT
The provisions of the proposed Consent Decree are summarized below.
EQUITABLE RELIEF: SUMMARY OF EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT
The settlement, which is contained in a type of court order known as a "Consent Decree," provides for the following equitable measures to ensure fair, nondiscriminatory treatment of all of company members and to prevent discriminatory employment practices adversely affecting African Americans who work at the Chicago Heights terminal of YRC. YRC will agree to be bound by the Consent Decree for up to 5 years. As described below, the Consent Decree will obligate YRC to implement a number of steps that affect the way it handles complaints of discrimination and harassment, the way it disciplines its employees and the manner in which it hands out job assignments to dock workers. The Consent Decree will obligate YRC to undertake various other activities related to equal employment opportunity.
1. Court Appointed Monitor. Upon Final Approval of this Consent Decree, the Court will appoint a Monitor to oversee the implementation by YRC of the terms of this Decree. The Monitor will have authority under Court supervision to assess and monitor YRC's compliance with the terms of this Decree and to report to the EEOC, YRC, and to the Court regarding YRC's compliance. The programs and procedures subject to oversight by the Monitor will include the efficacy ofYRC's complaint procedures; the quality of investigations undertaken in response to complaints; the status of all required training; implementation of changes in anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies; fairness in work assignments; fairness in disciplinary practices; fairness in breaks and downtime; and the overall environment with regard to race harassment and/or race discrimination.
2. Revised EEO Policies. Within (60) days of Final Approval of the Decree, YRC will distribute equal employment opportunity policies and procedures, including its antidiscrimination policies, its anti-harassment policies, and its policy for investigating complaints, which will meet minimum standards set forth it the Decree.
3. Race Harassment/Discrimination Training. Within (90) days of Final Approval ofthe Decree, YRC will require all of its employees who implement human resources policies at Chicago Heights to undergo new racial harassment training, to be approved by the EEOC.
4. Nondiscriminatory Work Assignments and Discipline Procedures. Within thirty (30) days from the Final Approval ofthis Decree, YRC will engage consultants, approved by the EEOC, to assist it in reviewing and revising the company's work assignment policies and practices and its disciplinary practices at YRC's Chicago Heights facility. The
52

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 53 of 71 PageID #:1924
consultants will make recommendations as to the methods by which YRC can modify its current procedures or adopt new procedures designed to ensure that the procedures are fair and do not have the intent or effect of discriminating against any employee on the basis of race. The recommendations will be implemented unless it would require a material change to the CBA, would impose a substantial hardship, or YRC otherwise determines that it is unable to implement a recommendation for good cause, subject to oversight by the Court.
5. Supervisor Accountability. YRC agrees that it will impose discipline up to and including suspension, demotion and termination upon any supervisor or manager who is found to have engaged in race harassment or discrimination.
6. Maintaining Records and Reports. YRC will maintain records of all matters related to the implementation of this Consent Decree and will make those records available to the EEOC upon reasonable request. YRC will furnish to the monitor and parties, on a semiannual basis, a report with regard to compliance with the Consent Decree.
MONETARY RELIEF IN THE EEOC CASE
All monetary relief, including the payment of attorneys' fees and costs to private counsel, will be provided solely through the procedures set forth in the EEOC settlement. In addition to the equitable relief set forth above, YRC, Inc., and its insurance carrier, has agreed to pay $10,000,000.00, for any and all claims for damages. Claimants in the EEOC case will be compensated, in amounts to be determined in its discretion by the EEOC, upon the timely submission and approval of a valid claim form. YRC, Inc. will cause its insurer, Federal Insurance Company, to make the initial payment of$8,500,000.00 ofthe monetary settlement to be paid five (5) business days after Final Approval. The remaining $1,500,000.00 will be paid into the Settlement Fund by YRC, Inc., in three equal installments over a 36 month period, with the first payment being made 12 months after final court approval of the Consent Decree. YRC, Inc.'s insurer, Federal Insurance Company, has agreed to guarantee payment ofthese installment amounts in the event YRC, Inc. is for any reason unable to satisfy its obligations.
ATTORNEYS' FEES TO PRIVATE COUNSEL
The parties have agreed, subject to Court approval, that class counsel's attorneys' fees and outof-pocket costs, for work done on these cases since 2006, of $1,500,000.00 will be paid out of a
separate escrow fund established for intervenors and their counsel in the EEOC v. YRC case.
THE CLAIMS PROCESS
To participate in the monetary settlement, you must comply with the EEOC Claims Process. Documents describing that claims process are included in this packet of materials. NO ADDITIONAL MONEY IS BEING PAID AS PART OF THE BANDY SETTLEMENT.
B. CLASS MEMBERSHIP
53

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 54 of 71 PageID #:1925

If you are African-American, and were employed at the Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village terminals of Roadway Express, as a dockworker, switcher, or janitor, at any time from March 13, 2002 to the present, then you are a member of the EEOC class.

If you are African-American, and were employed at the Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village terminals of Roadway Express, as a dockworker or switcher, at any time from April 9, 2003 to the present, then you are a member of the Bandy class.

If you choose to opt-out of the Bandy settlement and do not file a claim with the EEOC's settlement process, you will not receive any money from the settlement of these two cases and you will not be releasing any claims for monetary damages pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or 42 U.S.C. § 1981. However, you may be able to bring your own claims for employment discrimination. If you start your own lawsuit against YRC after you exclude yourself, you will have to represent yourself or hire your own lawyer for that lawsuit and you will have to prove your claims. If you decide to do this, you should talk to your own lawyer
soon, because your claims may be subject to a statute of limitations.

TO RECEIVE ANY MONEY AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THESE TWO CASES, YOU MUST FILE A CLAIM WITH THE EEOC.

How do I ask the Court to exclude me from the Bandy class? To ask to be excluded, you must send a request for exclusion that contains the following language:

I understand that I am requesting to be excluded from the Bandy class settlement. I understand that if I have not filed a timely claim with the EEOC, I will receive no money from the EEOC Settlement Fund. I understand that if I bring a separate legal action seeking damages I may receive nothing or less than what I would have received if I had filed a claim in the EEOC case.

You must mail your request for exclusion postmarked by ______to the YRC
Claims Administrator at-------------------------
C. NOTIFICATION OF AWARDS IN THE EEOC SETTLEMENT

After receiving the claim forms, the EEOC will determine the awards, as set forth above, and will cause the Claims Administrator to send notice of the awards to each class member on or
about- - - - - - - - - - -
D. THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS AND FAIRNESS HEARING

Every class action settlement must be approved by the Court. So far, Magistrate Judge Susan

Cox has only preliminarily decided that the process may go forward as proposed. ln order to

decide whether to give final approval to the settlement, Judge Cox will hold a fairness hearing in

open court on

. You may attend this hearing. If you wish to object to the

settlement, you must send to the Claims Administrator a written statement of your objection

postmarked by

and must also appear at the fairness hearing. IF YOU ARE

54

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 55 of 71 PageID #:1926
SATISFlED WITH THE SETTLEMENT, YOU DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING AND YOU DO NOT NEED TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS. III. NON-ADMISSION By entering into this Consent Decree, no party makes any admission regarding any claims or potential clams or any defenses thereto. IV. INSPECTION OF THE COURT FILE AND QUESTIONS The foregoing explanation of this case and the settlement papers are only summaries. Complete copies of all pleadings in this litigation are available for inspection and copying at the Office of the Clerk for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 S. Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois, during regular business hours. If you have questions relating to the settlement, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Jeffrey L. Taren, Kinoy, Taren & Geraghty, 224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 663-5210. If you have questions for the Claims
Administrator, call them Toll-Free at - - - - - - -
OTHER THAN TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT INSPECTING THE COURT FILE, PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. DO NOT WRITE OR CALL THE COURT DIRECTLY. By Order ofthe United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Dated:
Is/
Judge Susan Cox
55
J

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 56 of 71 PageID #:1927

EXHIBITE

NAMED INTERVENOR RELEASE AGREEMENT

I,

, for and in consideration of the sum of $81,500 payable to me, plus

payment of my attorneys' fees pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree entered by the Court

in EEOC v. YRC, No. 06 C 4805 (N.D. Ill.) and EEOC v. YRC, No. 08 C 5555 (N.D. Ill.), on

behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby forever release, waive,

remise, acquit, and discharge YRC, Inc., and Roadway Express, Inc., and their directors,

officers, managers, agents, employees, attorneys, insurers, and for each of the foregoing,

their respective parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns (collectively, the

Releasees), from any and all claims and causes of action of any kind, known or unknown,

including all claims for attorneys' fees and costs, which I now have or ever have had under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. or under 42 U.S.C. §

1981, arising from or related to the underlying facts and claims which were asserted in EEOC

and Bandy et al v. YRC, No. 06 C 4805 (N.D. Ill.) and EEOC v. YRC, No. 08 C 5555 (N.D.

Ill.).

I understand that by executing this Agreement, the Releasees are not admitting any violation of my rights under statutory or common law. I also understand that this release is effective only so long as each of the payments due and owing under the Consent Decree is paid to the Intervenors' Escrow Account by YRC or its insurer. Should any payment fail to be made, the release is null and void.

This release is not applicable to any claim that has been raised or could be raised in
EEOC v. Yellow Transp., 09 C 7693 (N.D. Ill.) or Brown eta! v. Yellow Transp. 08 C 5908
(N.D. Ill.) regarding conduct or events occurring at YRC's former Chicago Ridge Facility.

SIGNATURE

Date

56

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 57 of 71 PageID #:1928
EXHIBITF
Re: EEOC v. Roadway Express and YRC, Inc.
Dear Claimant:
EEOC has reached an agreement to settle the Title VII race harassment and discrimination case brought by the EEOC against Roadway Express and YRC on behalf of a group of African-American dockworkers, switchers, and janitors who worked at the Chicago Heights and Elk Grove Village facilities.
To settle the EEOC case, YRC agreed to a type of court order known as a "Consent Decree," which requires YRC to pay money into a settlement fund for distribution to claimants and requires YRC to take certain actions to prevent discrimination from occurring in the future at its Chicago Heights facility. The Court-approved Consent Decree does the following:
1) Prohibits YRC from discriminating against employees on the basis of race and from retaliating against any employee who makes a complaint;
2) Requires that YRC implement a revised anti-discrimination policy and investigation procedure at its Chicago Heights facility;
3) Requires YRC to provide all employees at the Chicago Heights facility with training approved by the EEOC on the laws and company policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment;
4) Requires a Court-approved monitor be in place to ensure that YRC's complaint procedure is working and that YRC is complying with the Consent Decree;
5) Requires YRC to report all complaints of racial harassment or discrimination it receives for employees covered by the Consent Decree to the monitor and the EEOC;
6) Requires YRC to hire consultants, approved by the EEOC, to assist it in reviewing and revising the Company's work assignment and discipline policies and practices at the Chicago Heights facility. The consultants will make recommendations as to the methods by which YRC can modify its current procedures or adopt new procedures designed to ensure that the procedures are fair and do not have the intent or effect of discriminating against any employee on the basis of race. The recommendations will be implemented unless it would require a material change to the collective bargaining agreement, would impose a substantial hardship, or YRC otherwise determines that it is unable to implement a recommendation for good cause, subject to oversight by the Court; and
57

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 58 of 71 PageID #:1929
7) Requires YRC to pay a total of$7,685,000.00 into the EEOC settlement fund. An initial payment of $6,532,250.00 has been made into settlement fund. The Consent Decree requires three additional payments of $384,250.00 (for a total of $1,152,750) over the next three years. These payments are secured by a guaranty from YRC's insurer.
To receive money under this settlement fund, you must submit the attached claim form postmarked by
This letter is accompanied by a claim form and a return envelope. In order for the EEOC to consider whether you are entitled to a share of the monetary relief as part of the settlement of this case, the enclosed form must be completed and postmarked for return to the Claims Administrator by
EEOC will determine the amount of each monetary award. In making such determinations, EEOC may consider whatever evidence EEOC deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, evidence received by EEOC in its investigation of the charge of discrimination underlying this action, in connection with its litigation of this action, and in connection with the claims process provided by this Decree.
EEOC will determine the amount of each Claimant's monetary award based on the following factors: (i) the severity of the alleged harassment or discrimination, (ii) whether the harassment or discrimination was personally directed at the Claimant; (iii) the duration of the alleged harassment or discrimination, (iv) the extent of the alleged harm, (v) whether the claimant claimed to have been actually or constructively discharged, (vi) the length of service of the employee, (vii) the managerial status of the persons involved, (viii) whether the claimant received more difficult work assignments because of race, (ix) whether the claimant received shorter breaks because of race, (x) whether the claimant received harsher or more frequent discipline because of race, (xi) whether the claimant complained of discrimination, and (x) the claimant's participation and cooperation with the EEOC's litigation against YRC.
It is critical that you understand that a large number of claimants will share in the settlement fund and there is likely to be a range of awards. It is expected that some claimants will receive awards of as little as $2,000.00. Accordingly, you should not expect to receive a large sum as result of the settlement ofthis case. The EEOC will keep none ofthe money and the entire settlement fund will be designated for individuals who have returned claim forms.
Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree, payments will be made to eligible claimants in installments over a three-year period. In order to obtain any monetary award, a claimant will be required to execute a release of any race discrimination claim arising under Title VII against Roadway or YRC relating to this case.
If you have questions about how or whether your receipt of any monetary relief pursuant to this settlement may ultimately affect your tax liability you should consult with your own attorney. The EEOC cannot advise you on these topics. Further, if you have filed a bankruptcy proceeding or are considering filling for bankruptcy, you should consult with your personal bankruptcy attorney regarding such matters as EEOC cannot advise you on these topics.
58

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 59 of 71 PageID #:1930
The only way that you will be considered for a share of monetary relief in this case is by completing a claim form and providing it to the Claims Administrator postmarked by ___,and then subsequently executing a release of claims. If your claim form is postmarked by the above deadline, the EEOC will review your claim and make a determination as to whether you are an eligible claimant who is entitled to a share of the monetary relief in this case. The EEOC will make a determination regarding the eligibility of all claimants by_. Claimants will then be informed by letter of the amount of monetary relief (if any) to which each is entitled. Claim Forms received by the EEOC shall be treated as confidential and not disclosed to YRC or any other person or entity, except that such Claim Forms may be submitted confidentially to the Court if requested by the Court.
We look forward to working with you during the claims process. Sincerely,
Richard J. Mrizek Ethan M. M. Cohen Trial Attorneys
59

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 60 of 71 PageID #:1931
EXHIBIT G
CLAIM FORM
IMPORTANT: Your Claim Form MUST be returned to the Claims Administrator POSTMARKED by DATE. INSTRUCTIONS
1. It is important to read and follow these instructions carefully, as well as those contained in the letter that accompanied this Claim Form. Failure to follow these instructions may result in your losing benefits to which you might otherwise be entitled.
2. If you do not return this Claim Form postmarked by DATE, your claim will be rejected and you will lose all rights to receive any money from this settlement. You must mail your Claim Form to: Claims Administrator Address
3. You must sign, under penalty of perjury, and date the Claim Form on page_. 4. Only claims submitted on an original, non-photocopied Claim Form will be accepted.
Claims submitted on photocopied Claim Forms will not be accepted. 5. If you have insufficient space to answer a question, you may continue your answer on
additional sheets of paper. Please write your name, social security number, and the appropriate question number on any additional sheets of paper you include. 6. Answer all questions as fully and completely as you can, even if you have provided the same or similar information to the EEOC in the past. If you are uncertain or cannot fully recall certain information, you may indicate that fact in your answers. 7. You must fill out this form, even if you have sat for a deposition or if you have been previously interviewed by the EEOC. 8. Please update us if any of your contact information changes.
60

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 61 of 71 PageID #:1932

PERSONAL INFORMATION

1. Name (First, Middle, Last)

2.
Street Address (including Apartment Number, if applicable)

3. City

State

Zip Code

4. Social Security Number

5.
Race

6.
E-mail address

7. Home Phone Number

Best Time to Call This Number

8. Work Phone Number

Best Time to Call This Number

9.
Cell Phone Number

Best Time to Call This Number

10. Phone Number of Relative or Other Person Who Knows How to Contact You

11. Date of Birth

12. Please list any other name you used while employed at Roadway:

Name

Dates You Used This Name

Name

Dates You Used This Name

EMPLOYMENT WITH ROADWAY

13. Job titles you worked under while at Roadway (for example "dockworker" "switcher"):

14. Brief description ofjob duties for each position:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 61

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 62 of 71 PageID #:1933
15. Dates of employment at Roadway: ~~~----~~---~ 16. List any extended periods (more than 2 weeks) you were on lay off: _ _ _ _ _ __ CLAIMS OF RACIAL HARASSMENT 17. Did you ever personally see racist graffiti at Roadway's facilities in either Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village, IL? Yes __ No __
If"yes", describe what you saw, when you saw it, where in the facility you saw it, and how often
you saw it:
62 l ____________________________________________________________________________________.

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 63 of 71 PageID #:1934
18. Did you ever hear about any racist graffiti at Roadway's facilities in either Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village, IL? Yes __ No __ If "yes", describe what you heard and when you heard about it: _ _ __
19. Did you ever personally see or hear about any racist drawings or cartoons at Roadway's facilities in either Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village, IL? Yes __ No __ If"yes", describe the drawings or cartoons, whether you personally saw them, whether you heard about them, when they occurred, and where they were located: - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20. Did you ever personally see a noose or rope you believed to be a noose at Roadway's facilities in either Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village, IL that you believe was displayed to either intimidate or offend Black employees? Yes __ No __ lf"yes", describe what you saw, when you saw it, where in the facility you saw it, and on how many occasions. If you saw such a noose or slip knot more than once describe each occurrence. _
21. Did you ever hear about a noose or rope you believed to be a noose at Roadway's facilities in either Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village, IL that you believe was displayed to either intimidate or offend Black employees? Yes __ No __ If"yes", describe what you heard, when you heard about it, where in the facility you were told it was displayed; if you heard about such a noose or slip knot more than once, describe each
63

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 64 of 71 PageID #:1935 occurrence:

22. Have you ever personally heard anyone at Roadway's facilities in either Chicago Heights

or Elk Grove Village, IL, either a coworker or supervisor, make any kind of racist remark?

Yes

No

If"yes", describe what you heard, who said it, whether it was a supervisor or coworker, whether

it was directed at you or overheard by you, and when you heard it, on how many occasions, and

whether you reported it to the Company, to whom, and the Company's response. Please; if you

heard more than one racist remark, describe each occurrence: - - - - - - - - - - - - -

23. Did any Roadway employee at Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village, IL, whether a supervisor or coworker, ever refuse to work with you because of your race? Yes _ _ No _ _ If"yes", please provide details of the incident, including who refused to work with you and when the incident occurred; if this occurred more than once, describe each occurrence:

CLAIMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

24. At Roadway's facilities in Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village, did you ever observe

any differences in the way Black and White employees were treated in regard to discipline?

Yes

No

If"yes", please describe:

64

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 65 of 71 PageID #:1936

25. Do you believe that you ever received discipline for conduct for which a White employee

was not, or would not have been, disciplined? Yes

No

If "yes", please describe this incident:

26. At Roadway's facilities in Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village, did you observe any

differences between Black and White employees regarding access to and privileges of using the

break room and restrooms? Yes

No

If "yes", please describe what you observed:

65

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 66 of 71 PageID #:1937

27. At Roadway's facilities in Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village, did you observe any

differences between how Black and White employees were treated by Roadway regarding behavior on the dock such as talking, smoking, use of cell phones, etc.?

Yes

No

If"yes", please describe what you observed:

28. At Roadway's facilities in Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village, did you ever observe any differences between the type or amount of work assigned to Black and White employees?

Yes

No

If"yes", please describe what you observed, including whether these differences changed over

time:

29. Do you believe that you ever received a less desirable type work assignment because of yourrace? Yes __ No __ Tf"yes", please describe:

66

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 67 of 71 PageID #:1938
COMPLAINTS 30. Did you ever complain in writing to Roadway about any racial harassment or discrimination that you experienced, witnessed, or heard about at either the Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village facilities? Yes __ No __ If"yes", please state what you complained about, to whom you complained and when, also describe any response you received from Roadway:
31. Did you ever make a verbal complaint to any supervisors, managers, or human resources personnel at Roadway about any racial harassment or discrimination that you experienced, witnessed, or heard about at either the Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village facilities? Yes
No If"yes", please state what you complained about, to whom you complained and when, also describe any response you received from Roadway.:
32. Did you ever file a Charge of Discrimination regarding Roadway's Chicago Heights or Elk Grove Village facilities with the EEOC, the Illinois Department of Human Rights, or any other local government fair employment agency? Yes __ No __ If"yes", please state with what agency you filed your Charge, the Charge number of your complaint, whether your case went to court (and if so, the name of the court where you filed and your case number) and any relief you received as a result of your Charge:
67

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 68 of 71 PageID #:1939
EFFECT OF THE DISCRIMINATION 33. Describe how the claims of racial harassment or discrimination described above affected you or made you feel (including any emotional pain or suffering).
PARTICIPATION IN THIS LITIGATION 34. Describe any effort that you made to participate in this litigation including time spent looking for documents, or communicating with the EEOC.
68

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 69 of 71 PageID #:1940

I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ declare under penalty of perjury that all of the information
(Print Name)
on this Claim Form is true and correct.

Signature of Claimant

Date

Your Claim Form must be postmarked on or before

. A self-addressed envelope

has been enclosed for returning the Claim Form. A Claim Form postmarked later than

_ _ _ _will not be accepted. The Claim Form must be mailed to:

Claims Administrator Address

69

Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 70 of 71 PageID #:1941

EXHIBITH Work Assignment Summary Report
YRC Comp1r1ance Reportmg Table: 5 uperv1sor DI'fferences

Supervisor Name 1 2 3 etc

.....

0

.2!m!:l

Q)
m u

c.[(

e:n:l

Black Employees

Jg
iii
z

<!l...-
0)£
~ .2l
~~
<(

<&ll ~"'
<>ll "<-ll
<(c...

~"rE n~
o~..eu.c lnl! ~0

White Employees

Jg
iii
z

<!l...-
0)£
t!!.~
~~
<(

<&ll ~"'
<>ll ·<-ll
<(c...

?"Ern~
~ u2~0 en

Mean Differences

<!l...Ol.C !UCl
~~
<(

<~0)ll~"'
>< ! l <· i-l
<(c...

?"E~

~
e{.c lngl! ~0

70

--
Case: 1:06-cv-04805 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/27/12 Page 71 of 71 PageID #:1942

YRCCompur ance Reportmg T ahie: 0 veraII ResuIts

Black

White

N Mean SD N Mean SD

Overall

Average Weight per Bill

Average Pieces per Bill

Average Standard Work per Bill

Average Number of Bills per Trailer

Average Number of Bills per Hour

t-Statistic

Stripping Only Average Weight per Bill Avcrage Pieces per Bill Average Standard Work per Bill Average Number of Bills per Trailer Average Number ofBills per Hour

Stacking Only Average Weight per Bill Average Pieces per Bill Average Standard Work per Bill Average Number of Bills per Trailer Average Number ofBills per Hour

Hand-Moved Loads Only Average Weight per Bill Average Pieces per Bill Average Standard Work per Dill Average Number of Bills per Trailer Average Number of Bills per Hour

Fork-Moved Loads Only Average Weight per Bill Average Pieces per Bill Average Standard Work per Bill Average Number ofBiiis per Trailer Average Number of Bills per Hour

71

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 1 of 24
COX,PROTO,TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−04805

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. YRC, Inc. Assigned to: Honorable Susan E. Cox Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/06/2006 Date Terminated: 12/16/2015 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Richard John Mrizek U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8117 Fax: (312) 869−8124 Email: richard.mrizek@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah Lois Hamilton Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8110 Email: deborah.hamilton@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ethan M.M. Cohen United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8104 Fax: 312−353−8555 Email: ethan.cohen@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory M. Gochanour United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 886−9124 Email: gregory.gochanour@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Hendrickson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8099 Fax: (312) 869−8124

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 2 of 24

Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Nerville Cox TERMINATED: 08/23/2010

represented by Jeffrey Lynn Taren Kinoy, Taren &Geraghty, P.C. 224 South Michigan Avenue Suite 490 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 663−5210 Email: jtaren@ktglawyer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joanne Kinoy Kinoy, Taren &Geraghty, P.C. 224 South Michigan Avenue Suite 490 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 663−5210 Email: jkinoy@ktglawyer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
YRC, Inc. formerly known as Roadway Express, Inc.

represented by Sari M. Alamuddin Morgan Lewis &Bockius, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive 5th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 324− 1158 Email: salamuddin@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grace E. Speights Morgan, Lewis &Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 739−3000 Email: gspeights@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Talbot Morgan, Lewis &Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20004 (202) 739−5686 Email: gtalbot@morganlewis.com TERMINATED: 10/03/2011
Joyce E Taber Morgan, Lewis &Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 (202)739−3000 Email: jtaber@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lexer I. Quamie Morgan Lewis &Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 3 of 24

Washington, DC 20004 202 739 3000 Email: lquamie@morganlewis.com TERMINATED: 03/05/2009 PRO HAC VICE

Marianne Hogan Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 739−3000 Email: mhogan@morganlewis.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Kenneth Comer TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

represented by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Joanne Kinoy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2007

Intervenor Plaintiff
William Bandy TERMINATED: 08/23/2010

represented by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joanne Kinoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miriam N. Geraghty Kinoy, Taren &Geraghty, P.C. 224 South Michigan Avenue Suite 490 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 663−5210 Email: mgeraghty@ktglawyer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Toby Lee TERMINATED: 08/23/2010

represented by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joanne Kinoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miriam N. Geraghty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
LuShawn Smith TERMINATED: 08/23/2010

represented by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 4 of 24

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joanne Kinoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miriam N. Geraghty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Mark Williams TERMINATED: 08/23/2010

represented by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joanne Kinoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miriam N. Geraghty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Clarence Stokes TERMINATED: 08/23/2010

represented by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joanne Kinoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miriam N. Geraghty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Fred Thompson TERMINATED: 08/23/2010

represented by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joanne Kinoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miriam N. Geraghty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Clarence Royster TERMINATED: 08/23/2010

represented by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joanne Kinoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 5 of 24

Miriam N. Geraghty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Antawon L. Marshal TERMINATED: 08/23/2010

represented by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joanne Kinoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Cleophus Marshall individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 08/23/2010

represented by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joanne Kinoy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miriam N. Geraghty (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Service List

represented by Preston L Pugh Pugh, Jones &Johnson, P.C. 180 N. Lasalle Street Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601−2807 312 768 7800 Email: ppugh@pjjlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/06/2006 09/06/2006 09/06/2006 09/06/2006 09/06/2006 09/15/2006
09/19/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Jury Demand.(vmj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (vmj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Gregory M. Gochanour (vmj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Richard John Mrizek (vmj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by John C. Hendrickson (vmj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
6 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing set for 11/14/2006 at 09:30 AM. The Court orders the parties to appear for an initial appearance and status hearing. All parties shall refer to and comply with Judge Guzman's requirements for the initial appearance as outlined in Judge Guzman's case management procedures, which can be found at: www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
7 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Roadway Express, Inc. waiver sent on 9/6/2006, answer due 11/6/2006. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 09/19/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 6 of 24

10/25/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/07/2006 11/07/2006
11/07/2006
11/08/2006 11/08/2006 11/08/2006 11/08/2006 11/14/2006 11/21/2006 11/27/2006 11/28/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006

8 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing set for 11/14/06 is reset to 11/29/2006 at 09:30 AM. on request of parties. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
9 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Roadway Express, Inc. by Sari M. Alamuddin (Alamuddin, Sari) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
10 ANSWER to Complaint by Roadway Express, Inc.(Alamuddin, Sari) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
15 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Roadway Express, Inc. by Joyce E Taber; Order entered granting leave by Judge Ronald A. Guzman. Filing fee $ 100 paid, receipt number 10644561 (eav, ) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
16 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Roadway Express, Inc. by Grace E. Speights; Order entered granting leave by Judge Ronald A. Guzman. Filing fee $ 100 paid, receipt number 10644561 (eav, ) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
17 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Roadway Express, Inc. by Gregory R. Talbot; Order entered granting leave by Judge Ronald A. Guzman. Filing fee $ 100 paid, receipt number 10644561 (eav, ) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
11 MOTION to intervene (Attachments: # 1)(Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
12 NOTICE of Motion by Jeffrey Lynn Taren for presentment of motion to intervene 11 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 11/30/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Plaintiff Kenneth Comer by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
14 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Plaintiff Kenneth Comer by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
18 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Ethan M.M. Cohen (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
19 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Plaintiff Kenneth Comer by Joanne Kinoy (Kinoy, Joanne) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
20 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
21 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing set for 11/29/06 is reset to 12/1/2006 at 09:30 AM. on Court's own motion. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
22 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Roadway Express, Inc. by Grace E. Speights (Speights, Grace) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
23 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Roadway Express, Inc. by Gregory R. Talbot (Talbot, Gregory) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
24 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Roadway Express, Inc. by Joyce E Taber (Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
25 Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan for the purpose of holding proceedings related to settlement conference.(cjg, )Mailed notice. (Entered: 12/01/2006)
26 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing held on 12/1/2006. Motion to intervene by Kenneth Comer 11 is granted. Intervenor to answre or otherwise plead on or before 12/22/06. Count adopts proposed discovery schedule Rule 26 disclosures by 12/15/06. Amendment of pleadings and joinder of parties by 1/8/07. Plaintiff's expert disclosed by 1/31/07. Defendant's experts disclosed by 8/30/07. Plaintiff's rebuttal experts disclosed by 9/30/07. All expert discovery shall be completed by 10/15/07. Dispositive motions to be filed by 11/15/07. Status hearing st for 7/9/07 at 9:30 a.m. Party Kenneth Comer added.

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 7 of 24

12/04/2006 12/05/2006
12/06/2006 12/07/2006 12/13/2006
12/13/2006 12/20/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 01/25/2007 03/07/2007 03/12/2007
03/28/2007 03/29/2007

Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
27 INTERVENOR complaint filed by Kenneth Comer against Roadway Express, Inc.(Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
28 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Initial status hearing set for 12/13/2006 at 09:00 AM. before Magistrate Judge Nolan in courtroom 1858 for the purpose of scheduling a settlement conference. Parties shall deliver a copy of an initial status report to chambers, room 1870, at least three business days before the initial status hearing. If the parties have recently prepared and filed an initial status report, the submission of the previously filed initial status report is sufficient. Magistrate Judge Nolan requires compliance with the enclosed standing order before conducting a settlement conference. Parties are to bring dates when both clients and counsel will be available for a settlement conference, which regularly begin at 10:30 a.m. or 1:30 p.m. For further details visit the Court's website at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
29 CERTIFICATE of Service by Jeffrey Lynn Taren on behalf of Kenneth Comer regarding intervenor complaint 27 (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
30 STATUS Report Joint Status Report by Kenneth Comer (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: EEOC Complaint# 2 Exhibit B: Comer Complaint in Intervention# 3 Exhibit C: Roadway Answer to Complaint# 4 Exhibit D: Rule 26 Discovery)(Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
31 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 12/13/2006. Settlement Conference set for 1/25/2007 at 10:00 AM. Parties are reminded that Magistrate Judge Nolan requires compliance with her Standing Order Setting Settlement Conference, which is available on the court's website at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
32 JOINT CONSENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Kenneth Comer, Roadway Express, Inc. to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (eav, ) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
33 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan from Judge Ronald A. Guzman pursuant to Local Rule 73.1 for all further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge James F. Holderman, Executive Committee on 12/20/06. (eav, ) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
34 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Roadway Express, Inc.(Talbot, Gregory) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
35 Corporate Disclosure STATEMENT by Roadway Express, Inc. (Talbot, Gregory) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
36 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Settlement conference held on 1/25/2007 and continued to 3/12/2007 at 10:00 AM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
37 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Kenneth Comer (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
38 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :At counsel's request, Settlement Conference set for 03/12/07 is stricken and reset to 5/9/07 at 10:30 AM. Prior to the settlement conference, counsel shall review the following Seventh Circuit cases which discuss the retention of federal jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement: Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n v. American Express Co., 467 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2006) and Shapo v. Engle, 463 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2006). Parties are reminded that Magistrate Judge Nolan requires compliance with her Standing Order Setting Settlement Conference, which is available on the courts website at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
39 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Status hearing set for 3/29/2007 at 09:00 AM.Telephoned notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
40 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Status hearing held. Plaintiff−Intervener Kenneth Comer's Stipulation to voluntarily dismiss complaint

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 8 of 24

03/29/2007 04/03/2007 04/03/2007 04/03/2007 04/03/2007 04/03/2007 04/10/2007 04/10/2007 04/10/2007 04/25/2007
05/01/2007 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 05/17/2007

in intervention 37 is granted. Plaintiff−Intervener Kenneth Comer is hereby dismissed as a party in this civil action. Entered Agreed Order. The Clerk's Office is hereby directed to reinstate this case. Case reopened. (cem, ) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
41 AGREED ORDER Signed by Judge Nan R. Nolan on 3/29/2007.(cem, ) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
42 MOTION to intervene (Attachments: # 1)(Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
43 NOTICE of Motion by Jeffrey Lynn Taren for presentment of motion to intervene 42 before Honorable Nan R. Nolan on 4/10/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
44 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Plaintiffs William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Cleophus Marshall, Plaintiffs Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox by Jeffrey Lynn Taren (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
45 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Plaintiffs William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Cleophus Marshall by Miriam N. Geraghty (Geraghty, Miriam) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
46 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Plaintiffs William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Cleophus Marshall, Plaintiffs Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox by Joanne Kinoy (Kinoy, Joanne) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
47 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Motion hearing held. Putative Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Intervene 42 is granted. Settlement conference set for 05/09/07 is stricken.Status hearing set for 5/31/2007 at 09:30 AM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
48 INTERVENOR complaint filed by William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox, Cleophus Marshall against Roadway Express, Inc.(Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
49 CERTIFICATE of Service and Notice of Filing by Jeffrey Lynn Taren on behalf of William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox, Cleophus Marshall regarding intervenor complaint 48 (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
50 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Minute order dated 04/10/07 (docket entry 47 ) is amended as follows: Motion hearing held. Putative Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Intervene 42 is granted. Defendant's Answer to Interveners' Complaint is due by 05/01/07. Reply brief is due by 05/22/07. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is due by 05/01/07. Response is due by 05/22/07. Reply brief is due by 06/05/07. Settlement conference set for 05/09/07 is stricken. Status hearing set for 05/31/07 at 9:30 a.m.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
51 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Roadway Express, Inc.(Speights, Grace) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
52 MOTION by Defendant Roadway Express, Inc. to dismiss In Part Intervening−Plaintiffs' Class Complaint (Speights, Grace) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
53 MEMORANDUM by Roadway Express, Inc. in support of motion to dismiss 52 in Part Intervening−Plaintiffs' Class Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Speights, Grace) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
54 MOTION by Intervenor Plaintiffs William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Cleophus Marshall, Plaintiffs Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to dismiss 52 Unopposed (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/17/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 9 of 24

05/17/2007 05/22/2007
05/29/2007
05/31/2007 06/12/2007 06/20/2007 06/26/2007 07/17/2007 07/31/2007
07/31/2007 08/08/2007 08/14/2007 08/27/2007 08/28/2007 09/04/2007

55 Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Jeffrey Lynn Taren for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply, motion for relief,, 54 before Honorable Nan R. Nolan on 5/22/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
56 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Intervening Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Partial Motion to Dismiss 54 is granted. Motion hearing date set for 05/22/07 is stricken. Status hearing set for 05/31/07 at 9:30 a.m. to stand. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
57 RESPONSE by William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox, Cleophus Marshallin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Roadway Express, Inc. to dismiss In Part Intervening−Plaintiffs' Class Complaint 52 (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
58 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 5/31/2007 and continued to 7/18/2007 at 09:30 AM. Intervenor's sur−reply to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 52 is due by 06/20/07.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
59 REPLY memorandum by defendant Roadway Express, Inc. in support of its motion in part intervening−plaintiffs' class complaint 57 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Speights, Grace) Modified on 6/15/2007 (smm). (Entered: 06/12/2007)
60 SUR−REPLY by Intervenor Plaintiffs William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Cleophus Marshall, Plaintiffs Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox to motion to dismiss 52 (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
61 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Status hearing set for 07/18/2007 is stricken and reset to 7/17/2007 at 09:30 AM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
62 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 7/17/2007 and continued to 8/28/2007 at 09:45 AM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 07/18/2007)
63 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered this day, Roadways Motion to Dismiss in Part Intervening−Plaintiffs Class Complaint 52 is granted in part and denied in part.Mailed notice (lxs, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/31/2007 (lxs, ). (Entered: 07/31/2007)
64 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge Nan R. Nolan on 7/31/2007.Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
65 JOINT CONSENT by William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox, Cleophus Marshall to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
66 AMENDED ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Roadway Express, Inc.(Speights, Grace) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
67 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to Judge Susan E. Cox for all further proceedings. (See order for details). Signed by Judge Executive Committee on 8/27/07. Mailed notice (emd, ) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
68 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 8/28/2007. Counsel advised parties discussing possibly proceeding with discovery or settlement talks.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
69 MINUTE entry before Judge Susan E. Cox : Initial status hearing set for 10/24/07 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1342. The parties are directed to review and to comply with Judge Cox's Order Setting Initial Status Report for Cases Assigned to Judge Cox. Copies are available in chambers or through Judge Cox's web page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 09/04/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 10 of 24

10/19/2007 10/24/2007 12/12/2007 01/29/2008 02/07/2008
02/07/2008 03/27/2008 03/31/2008
04/17/2008 04/21/2008 06/09/2008 06/19/2008 06/30/2008

70 Initial Status Report by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of all parties (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
71 MINUTE entry before Judge Susan E. Cox :Status hearing held. The Parties have retained a mediator and have scheduled mediation sessions. Informal discovery is being exchanged. The Parties have agreed to stay discovery pending mediation. Status hearing set for 12/12/07 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
72 MINUTE entry before Judge Susan E. Cox :Magistrate Judge Status hearing held and continued to 1/29/2008 at 09:30 AM to set a discovery schsedule.Advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
73 MINUTE entry before Judge Susan E. Cox :Magistrate Judge Status hearing held. The parties are to submit a joint proposed discovery schedule.Advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
74 MINUTE entry before Judge Susan E. Cox :Enter agreed scheduling order. All fact discovery shall be completed by 1/30/08. All plaintiffs shall comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) by 3/16/08. Depositions of plaintiffs' experts shall be completed by 4/30/08. Defendants shall comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) by 6/15/08. Depositions of defendants' experts shall be completed by 7/30/08. Rebuttal expert opinions shall be disclosed by 8/31/08. All expert discovery shall be completed by 9/30/08. All motions for class certification and supporting memoranda shall be filed by 3/16/2008. Response shall be filed by 6/15/2008. Reply is due by 8/31/2008. Any Daubert motions and supporting memoranda shall be filed by 10/30/08.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
75 AGREED Scheduling ORDER Signed by Judge Susan E. Cox on 2/7/2008.(smm) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
76 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Deborah Lois Hamilton (Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
77 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: This Court's order of 2/7/08 is stricken. Status hearing set for 6/9/08 at 9:30 a.m. Scheduling order is entered as follows: All fact discovery shall be completed by 1/30/09. All plaintiffs shall comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) by 3/16/09. Depositions of plaintiffs' experts shall be completed by 4/30/09. Defendants shall comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) by 6/15/09. Depositions of defendants' experts shall be completed by 7/30/09. Rebuttal expert opinions shall be disclosed by 8/31/09. All expert discovery shall be completed by 9/30/09. All motions for class certification and supporting memoranda shall be filed by 3/16/09. Response shall be filed by 6/15/09. Reply is due by 8/31/09. Any Daubert motions and supporting memoranda shall be filed by 10/30/09. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
78 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Roadway Express, Inc. by Lexer I. Quamie. (smm) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
79 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Roadway Express, Inc. by Lexer I. Quamie; Order entered granting leave by Judge Honorable Susan E. Cox. Filing fee $ 50.00 paid, receipt number 4624001112. (smm) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
80 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: On the Court's own motion, status hearing set for 6/9/08 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken. Status hearing reset to 6/19/08 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
81 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. Parties advised the Court of their progress in discovery. Parties to submit their agreed protective order to this Court's proposed order box. Status hearing set for 9/22/08 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
82 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Enter Agreed Protective Order. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/30/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 11 of 24

06/30/2008 07/16/2008 09/22/2008 10/23/2008 12/04/2008
12/09/2008
12/09/2008 12/31/2008 12/31/2008 01/08/2009

83 AGREED PROTECTIVE Order. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 6/30/08:(vkd, ) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
84 NOTICE by Ethan M.M. Cohen of Change of Address (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
85 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held 9/22/08. The Court was advised of the status of discovery. The Parties are urged to bring potential discovery disputes to the Court's attention as soon as possible. Status hearing set for 10/23/08 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
86 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. The Court was advised of the progress of discovery. Status hearing set for 12/4/08 at 9:30 a.m. for a discussion of the deposition scheduling. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
87 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. Joint oral motion for extension of the discovery schedule is granted. Scheduling order is entered as follows: All fact discovery shall be completed by 3/31/09. All plaintiffs shall comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) by 5/15/09. Depositions of plaintiffs' experts shall be completed by 6/30/09. Defendants shall comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) by 8/17/09. Depositions of defendants' experts shall be completed by 9/30/09. Rebuttal expert opinions shall be disclosed by 10/30/09. All expert discovery shall be completed by 11/30/09. All motions for class certification and supporting memoranda shall be filed by 5/18/09. Response shall be filed by 8/20/09. Reply is due by 10/30/09. Any Daubert motions and supporting memoranda shall be filed by 12/31/09. Status hearing set for 4/7/09 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
88 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: The discovery schedule entered 12/4/08 is vacated. Enter Amended Agreed Scheduling Order. All fact discovery will be completed by 6/30/09. Plaintiff and Intervening−Plaintiffs will designate expert witnesses and provide the disclosure required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), and Intervening−Plaintiffs will submit their motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 by 8/14/09. Defendant will take the depositions of Plaintiff and Intervening−Plaintiffs' experts by 9/28/09. Defendant will designate expert witnesses, provide the disclosure required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), and file its opposition to Intervening− Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by 11/12/09. Plaintiff and the Intervening−Plaintiffs will take the deposition of Defendant's expert witnesses by 12/28/09. Plaintiff and the Intervening−Plaintiffs will disclose any expert rebuttal opinions, and Intervening−Plaintiffs will file their reply to Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification, by 1/27/10. Defendant will take the deposition of Plaintiff and Intervening−Plaintiffs experts related to the rebuttal expert reports by 2/26/10. The parties shall file any Daubert motions and dispositive motions by 3/29/10. Status hearing set for 4/7/09 at 9:30 a.m. to stand. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
89 AMENDED AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 12/9/08.(vkd, ) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
90 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to consolidate cases Agreed (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
91 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of motion to consolidate cases 90 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 1/8/2009 at 09:30 AM. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
92 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox:Plaintiff's agreed motion for consolidation 90 is granted. EEOC v. roadway Express, 08 CV 5555 is a related case pending before Magistrate Judge Nolan and is consolidated for all purposes with 06 CV 4805 currently pending before this Court. The parties need not appear for presentment of said motion on 1/8/09 at 9:30 a.m. Status hearing set for 4/7/09 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken. Status hearing set for 1/29/2009 at 9:30 A.M.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 12 of 24

01/29/2009 02/11/2009 03/05/2009 04/07/2009 05/07/2009 05/14/2009
05/19/2009
06/30/2009 07/16/2009 07/16/2009 07/20/2009

93 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. The Court was advised of the status of discovery. Parties to submit a motion for reinstatement of a related case to this Court's Proposed Order Box. Said motion will not require a notice of motion. Status hearing set for 4/7/09 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
94 MOTION by counsel for Defendant Roadway Express, Inc. to withdraw as attorney Lexer Quamie (Speights, Grace) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
95 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Defendant's motion to withdraw as attorney 94 is granted; Attorney Lexer I. Quamie terminated. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
96 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. The parties advised the Court of their participation in outside mediation during the month of April, 2009. Status hearing set for 5/7/09 at 9:30 a.m. for a report on mediation. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
97 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. The Court was advised of the status of outside mediation. The Court was advised by the parties that they may need some assistance with the completion of settlement talks. Status hearing set for 5/14/09 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
98 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. The parties' oral motion to extend fact discovery deadline is granted. Fact discovery cut−off set for 10/30/09. Parties to submit a proposed scheduling order. Settlement conference set for 6/26/09 at 1:30 p.m. Parties are to review and to comply with this Court's Standing Order Setting Settlement Conference. Plaintiff's counsel to submit a written itemization of damages and settlement demand to defendant's counsel with a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate on or before 6/12/09. A courtesy copy of this submission must be sent to the Court at the same time. Defendant's counsel shall submit a written offer to plaintiff's counsel and the Court with a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate on or before 6/19/09. Plaintiff's counsel shall deliver or fax copies of updated correspondence between the parties to the Court by 6/23/09. The settlement conference date may only be changed by the granting of a motion. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
99 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox:Pursuant to a request by defendant's counsel, settlement conference set for 6/26/09 at 1:30 p.m. is stricken. Settlement conference set for 6/30/09 at 1:30 p.m. Parties are to review and to comply with this Court's Standing Order Setting Settlement Conference. Plaintiff's counsel to submit a written itemization of damages and settlement demand to defendant's counsel with a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate on or before 6/16/09. A courtesy copy of this submission must be sent to the Court at the same time. Defendant's counsel shall submit a written offer to plaintiff's counsel and the Court with a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate on or before 6/23/09. Plaintiff's counsel shall deliver or fax copies of updated correspondence between the parties to the Court by 6/26/09. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
100 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox:Settlement conference held on 6/30/09. Settlement Conference set for 7/20/09 at 01:30 p.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
101 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel Determine the Sufficiency of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's Requests to Admit and to Deem Admitted Certain Requests (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hamilton, Deborah) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
102 NOTICE of Motion by Deborah Lois Hamilton for presentment of motion to compel, 101 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 7/23/2009 at 09:30 AM. (Hamilton, Deborah) Modified on 7/22/2009 (vcf, ). (Entered: 07/16/2009)
103 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Pursuant to a request by the parties, settlement conference set for 7/20/09 at 1:30 p.m. is stricken. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 13 of 24

07/23/2009
08/10/2009
09/22/2009 09/22/2009 09/23/2009 09/29/2009 09/29/2009 09/29/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009

104 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff EEOC's motion to compel (101) is granted in part as outlined in open court. Defendant to supplement its responses on or before 8/2/09. Parties to meet and confer and submit discovery schedule and proposed amended briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to this Court's proposed order box by 7/28/09. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
105 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Intervenors and the EEOC will disclose their experts and file expert reports on or before 11/16/09. Intervenors will file their motion for class certification with supporting memoranda on or before 11/23/09. Defendant will depose Intervenors' and the EEOC's disclosed experts on or before 12/23/09. All responses to the motion for class certification will be filed on or before 1/22/10. Defendant will disclose its experts and file its expert reports on or before 1/22/10. Intervenors and the EEOC will depose Defendant's experts on or before 2/22/10. Intervenors will file their reply memorandum in support of class certification on or before 2/22/10. Intervenors and the EEOC will disclose any rebuttal experts and file rebuttal expert reports, if any, on or before 3/5/10. Defendant will depose any rebuttal experts on or before 3/19/10. The parties will file any Daubert motions or dispositive motions on or before 4/9/10. Status hearing set for 11/24/09 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 08/11/2009)
106 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 07520000000004119596. (Hogan, Marianne) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
107 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for leave to file First Amended Complaint, and for Status Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing, # 2 Exhibit First Amended Complaint)(Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
108 NOTICE of Motion by Ethan M.M. Cohen for presentment of motion for leave to file 107 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 9/29/2009 at 09:30 AM. (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
109 AMENDED complaint by William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox, Cleophus Marshall against Roadway Express, Inc. (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
110 NOTICE by William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox, Cleophus Marshall re amended complaint 109 (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
111 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file first amended complaint, to file first amended complaint instanter, and for status hearing 107 is granted. Oral motion by intervening plaintiffs to file an amended complaint is granted. Status hearing set for 10/29/09 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
112 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion by Marianne Hogan for leave to appear pro hac vice as additional counsel for defendant 106 is granted. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
113 ANSWER to Complaint First Amended Complaint of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by YRC, Inc.(Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
114 ANSWER to amended complaint of William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Antawon Marshall, Nerville Cox, and Cleophus Marshall by YRC, Inc.(Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
115 Corporate Disclosure STATEMENT by YRC, Inc. (Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
116 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant YRC, Inc. by Marianne Hogan (Hogan, Marianne) (Entered: 10/14/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 14 of 24

10/28/2009 10/28/2009 10/29/2009
10/30/2009 12/09/2009 12/09/2009 12/09/2009 12/10/2009 12/11/2009 12/11/2009
01/20/2010

117 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for discovery, MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for sanctions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−11)(Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
118 NOTICE of Motion by Ethan M.M. Cohen for presentment of motion for discovery, motion for sanctions 117 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 11/3/2009 at 09:30 AM. (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
119 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Case called for motion hearing. Plaintiff's motion for discovery and sanctions 117 is entered and continued. Parties need not appear on 11/3/09 at 9:30 a.m. for presentment of said motion. Expert reports due 12/15/09. Plaintiff to prepare a summary of the impact of delayed discovery responses on its case and a proposal for ameliorating prejudice in the form of a letter to defendant with a copy delivered to the Court. Parties to meet and confer no later than 11/20/09. Defendant to respond formally to Plaintiff's letter by 12/4/09, with a copy to the Court. Status hearing set for 11/24/09 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken. Status hearing set for 12/11/09 at 9:30 a.m. to discuss these issues further. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
120 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Order entered 10/29/09 is amended to reflect Plaintiff to prepare a summary of the impact of delayed discovery responses on its case and a proposal for ameliorating prejudice in the form of a letter to defendant by 11/13/09 with a copy delivered to the Court. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
121 MOTION by Defendant YRC, Inc. for discovery, MOTION by Defendant YRC, Inc. for sanctions (Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
122 MEMORANDUM by YRC, Inc. in support of motion for discovery, motion for sanctions 121 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1, # 2 Exhibit A2, # 3 Exhibit A3, # 4 Exhibit A4, # 5 Exhibit A5, # 6 Exhibit A6, # 7 Exhibit A7, # 8 Exhibit A8, # 9 Exhibit B1, # 10 Exhibit B2, # 11 Exhibit B3, # 12 Exhibit B4, # 13 Exhibit B5, # 14 Exhibit B6, # 15 Exhibit B7, # 16 Text of Proposed Order)(Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
123 NOTICE of Motion by Joyce E Taber for presentment of motion for discovery, motion for sanctions 121 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 12/11/2009 at 09:30 AM. (Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
124 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for extension of time to Complete Expert Discovery −− Agreed (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
125 RESPONSE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant YRC, Inc. for discoveryMOTION by Defendant YRC, Inc. for sanctions 121 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
126 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's Rule 37(c) motion for adverse inference that defendants were aware of certain complaints of race discrimination and for other relief 117 is denied in part and granted in part. Plaintiff allowed to take the requested depositions. Defendant to pay for the court reporter but each side to bear its own costs. Plaintiff's motion is denied as to the destroyed work assignment data. Defendant's Rule 37(c) motion to preclude plaintiff from using new allegations that certain claimants reported their complaints and to reopen discovery 121 is denied in part and granted in part. Defendant allowed to depose the eight (8) additional individuals. Plaintiff to pay for the court reporter but each side to bear its own costs. Fact discovery deadline extended to 2/5/10. Plaintiff's agreed motion to extend deadline for expert discovery and for filing of plaintiff's expert reports 124 is denied. Status hearing set for 2/8/10 at 9:30 a.m. to set further scheduling. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
127 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Settlement conference set for 3/11/10 at 1:30 p.m. Parties are to review and to comply with this Court's Standing Order Setting Settlement Conference which is available through the Court's web page or chambers. Plaintiffs' counsel to submit a written itemization of damages and settlement demand to defendant's counsel with a brief explanation of why such

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 15 of 24

02/02/2010 02/09/2010
03/11/2010 03/12/2010 03/31/2010 04/01/2010 04/14/2010 04/16/2010 04/19/2010 04/28/2010
05/12/2010 05/12/2010

a settlement is appropriate on or before 2/18/10. A courtesy copy of this submission must be sent to the Court at the same time. Defendant's counsel shall submit a written offer to plaintiffs' counsel and the Court with a brief explanation of why such a settlement is appropriate on or before 2/25/10. Plaintiffs' counsel shall deliver or fax copies of these letters to Judge Cox's chambers no later than 3/4/10. The settlement conference date may only be changed by the granting of a motion. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
128 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: On the Court's own motion, status hearing set for 2/8/10 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken. Status hearing set for 2/9/10 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
129 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. Work on database issues to be completed and submitted to plaintiffs by 3/2/2010. Plaintiffs' expert report due on or before 3/31/10. Defendants to file their responding expert report by 4/21/10. Motion for class certification due 4/14/10. Response to class certification motion due 5/5/10. Reply to class certification motion due 5/19/10. Status set 4/28/10 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
130 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Settlement conference held on 3/11/10. Settlement Conference set for 3/12/10 at 1:00 p.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
131 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Settlement conference held on 3/12/10. Parties are engaged in settlement negotiations. Expert discovery stayed until 4/2/10. Status hearing set for 4/6/10 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
132 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Telephone conference held. The Court initiated a call to the parties to inquire regarding the progress of settlement negotiations. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
133 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Pursuant to a request by the parties and to allow more time for negotiations, status hearing set for 4/6/10 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken. Settlement conference set for 4/16/10 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
134 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Each party to provide the court, via letter, an updated status on the settlement negotiations by 4/15/10 at 3:00 p.m., in preparation for the settlement conference set for 4/16/10 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
135 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Settlement conference held on 4/16/10. Settlement Conference set for 4/19/10 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
136 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Settlement conference held on 4/19/10. Case did not settle. Status hearing set for 4/28/10 at 9:30 a.m. to stand. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
137 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Status hearing held. Parties to resolve expert data issues and execute stipulations by 5/12/10. Roadway's motion for partial summary judgment to be filed on or before 5/12/10. Plaintiffs' expert reports and production of expert data/documents due on or before 5/28/10. Intervening−Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due on or before 6/11/2010. Defendant's expert reports and production of expert data/documents due on or before 6/18/10. Status hearing set for 6/23/2010 at 9:30 A.M. Defendant's opposition to Intervening−Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due by 7/2/10. Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert reports due on or before 7/9/10. Intervening plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification due on or before 7/16/10. Jury Trial set for 10/12/2010 at 10:00 A.M. Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
138 MOTION by Defendant YRC, Inc. for partial summary judgment (Speights, Grace) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
139 NOTICE of Motion by Grace E. Speights for presentment of motion for partial summary judgment 138 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 5/18/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Speights, Grace) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 16 of 24

05/12/2010 05/12/2010 05/12/2010
05/12/2010 05/12/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/17/2010
05/19/2010 05/19/2010 05/19/2010 05/20/2010
05/25/2010

140 MEMORANDUM by YRC, Inc. in support of motion for partial summary judgment 138 (Speights, Grace) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
141 RULE 56.1(a)(3) Statement by YRC, Inc. regarding motion for partial summary judgment 138 (Speights, Grace) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
142 APPENDIX Rule 56 statement 141 , motion for partial summary judgment 138 (Attachments: # 1 Attachments 1−2, # 2 Declaration Attachment 3, # 3 Attachment 3 − Ex. A, # 4 Attachment 3 − Ex. B Part 1, # 5 Attachment 3 − Ex. B Part 2, # 6 Attachment 3 − Ex. C, # 7 Attachment 3 − Exs. D−E, # 8 Attachment 3 − Ex. F Part 1, # 9 Attachment 3 − Ex. F Part 2, # 10 Attachment 3 − Exs. G−J, # 11 Attachment 3 − Exs. K−N, # 12 Attachment 3 − Exs. O−R, # 13 Attachments 4−12)(Speights, Grace) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
143 MOTION by Defendant YRC, Inc. to seal document appendix,, 142 (Attachment 3, Exhibits E, Q, and R) (Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
144 NOTICE of Motion by Joyce E Taber for presentment of motion to seal document, motion for relief 143 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 5/18/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
145 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to strike Late Work Assignment Discovery Responses (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
146 NOTICE of Motion by Ethan M.M. Cohen for presentment of motion to strike 145 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 5/18/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
147 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: This Court's standing order requires "All motions must be filed no later than the third business day preceding the day the motion is to be heard." Hearing on plaintiff's motion to strike 145 set for 5/18/10 at 9:30 a.m is stricken and reset to 5/20/10 at 9:30 a.m. Hearing on defendant's motion for partial summary judgment 138 , and defendant's motion to seal 143 set for 5/18/10 at 9:30 a.m. are stricken and reset to 5/20/10 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
148 SUBMISSION by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in support to MOTION by Defendant YRC, Inc. for partial summary judgment 138 and for summary denial (Mrizek, Richard) (Text edited by Clerk's Office to reflect correct title of document). Modified on 5/20/2010 (smm). (Entered: 05/19/2010)
149 MOTION by Defendant YRC, Inc. to seal Portions of Exhibits 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 to the EEOC's Motion to Strike (Docket No. 145) (Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
150 NOTICE of Motion by Joyce E Taber for presentment of motion to seal 149 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 5/25/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
151 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion hearing held. Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Exhibits E, Q &R to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under seal 143 is granted. Defendant YRC, Inc's Motion to Seal Portions of Exhibits 3, 5, 9, 10, 13,14 and 16 to the EEOC's Motion to Strike 149 is granted. Motion hearing set for 5/25/10 at 9:30 a.m is stricken. Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 138 is entered and continued to 5/27/10 at 9:30 a.m. Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Late Work Assignment Discovery Responses 145 to be filed on or before 5/25/10. To be included in the response are the parties discussions regarding the work required to analyze defendants' most recent document production, including the time that would be necessary to do so. The deadline for plaintiffs' expert reports and production of expert data/documents is extended to 6/4/10. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
152 RESPONSE by YRC, Inc.in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to strike Late Work Assignment Discovery Responses 145 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit C.1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit N, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit O)(Taber,

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 17 of 24

05/25/2010 05/25/2010 05/27/2010
06/10/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010 06/11/2010
06/15/2010 06/18/2010 06/29/2010 07/12/2010 07/19/2010 07/27/2010

Joyce) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
153 MOTION by Defendant YRC, Inc. to seal Exhibits A, C.2, D, E, G, J, K, P, Q, and R to Docket No. 152 (Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
154 NOTICE of Motion by Joyce E Taber for presentment of motion to seal 153 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 6/1/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Taber, Joyce) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
155 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion hearing held. Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment 138 is denied for the reasons stated in open court. Plaintiff's motion to strike 145 is denied for the reasons stated in open court. The Court will grant the EEOC's request to hire a neutral expert to review the data that has been most recently produced by defendant. The neutral expert will be paid for by both parties. The neutral expert will report back on findings regarding the statistical evidence produced by 6/30/10. Expert reports to be simultaneously exchanged on 7/30/10. Defendant YRC's motion to seal Exhibits A, C.2, D, E, G, J, K, P, Q and R to its opposition to the EEOC's motion to strike assignment data 153 is granted. Parties need not appear on 6/1/10 at 9:30 a.m for presentment of motion. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
156 MOTION by Intervenor Plaintiffs William Bandy, Toby Lee, Antawon L. Marshal, Cleophus Marshall, Clarence Royster, LuShawn Smith, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Mark Williams, Plaintiff Nerville Cox, Defendant YRC, Inc. to stay pending finalization of settlement (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
157 NOTICE of Motion by Jeffrey Lynn Taren for presentment of motion to stay, 156 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 6/15/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
158 MOTION by Intervenor Plaintiffs William Bandy, Toby Lee, Antawon L. Marshal, Cleophus Marshall, Clarence Royster, LuShawn Smith, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Mark Williams, Plaintiff Nerville Cox, Defendant YRC, Inc. to stay (CORRECTED VERSION) (Taren, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
159 RESPONSE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to MOTION by Intervenor Plaintiffs William Bandy, Toby Lee, Antawon L. Marshal, Cleophus Marshall, Clarence Royster, LuShawn Smith, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Mark Williams, Plaintiff Nerville Cox, Defendant YRC, Inc. to stay (CORRECTED VERSION) (CORRECTED VERSION)158 (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
160 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Case called for motion hearing. Motion by intervenors and defendant to stay proceedings pending finalization of settlement 158 is entered and continued. Motion to stay 156 is termed as it is a duplicate of 158 . Settlement Conference set for 6/18/10 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
161 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Settlement conference held. Plaintiffs to provide the proposed terms, to effectuate settlement, to defendant on or before 6/23/10. Status hearing set for 6/23/10 at 9:30 a.m is stricken. Status hearing set for 6/29/10 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
162 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Settlement conference held. Settlement conference set for 7/12/10 at 11:00 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
163 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Settlement conference held on 7/12/10. Settlement Conference set for 7/19/10 at 10:15 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
164 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Settlement conference held on 7/19/10. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
165 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion of Interveners and Defendant to Stay Proceedings 158 is terminated as moot. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 07/28/2010)

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 18 of 24

07/29/2010 08/19/2010 08/23/2010
09/03/2010

166 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to sever 1981 Claims (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
167 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Agreed Motion by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Sever Section 1981 Claims 166 is granted. This case is referred to the Executive Committee for further action. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
168 ORDER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: It appearing that Magistrate Judge Susan B. Cox is presiding over 6 C 4805, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. YRC, Inc.; and It further appearing that Nerville Cox, William Bandy, Toby Lee, LuShawn Smith, Mark Williams, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Clarence Royster, Anatawon Marshal and Cleophus Marshall are intervenor plaintiffs in 06 C 4805; and It further appearing that it is in the interest of efficient judicial administration for the above named intervenor plaintiffs to proceed under a separate civil case number; therefore It is hereby ordered that the Clerk shall reserve case number 10 c 5304 for further proceedings involving the above−named intervenor plaintiffs, that the above−named intervenor plaintiffs shall each be listed as a plaintiff in 10 C 5304, and that YRC, Inc. shall be identified as the defendant in that case; It is further ordered that 10 C 5304 shall be assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan B. Cox, that no filing fee is to be charged for 10 C 5304, and that each of the above−named intervenor plaintiffs is to be terminated as a participant in 6 C 4805. Signed by the Executive Committee on 8/23/2010(ca, ). (Entered: 08/24/2010)
169 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 12/11/2009 before the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Court Reporter Contact Information: Riki Schatell, 773−728−7281, Schatell@sbcglobal.net.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

09/09/2010
09/09/2010 09/14/2010
09/14/2010 10/06/2010 11/10/2010 12/14/2010

Redaction Request due 9/24/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/4/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/2/2010. (td, ) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
170 MOTION by Intervenor Plaintiffs William Bandy, Kenneth Comer, Toby Lee, Antawon L. Marshal, Cleophus Marshall, Clarence Royster, LuShawn Smith, Clarence Stokes, Fred Thompson, Mark Williams, Plaintiffs Nerville Cox, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to approve consent judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Consent Decree)(Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
171 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of motion to approve consent judgment, 170 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 9/14/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
172 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion hearing held. Intervenor Plaintiffs motion for preliminary approval of Consent Decree 170 is granted. Enter Preliminary Approval Order. Fairness hearing set for 11/10/10 at 1:30 p.m. (For further details see separate order). Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
173 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 9/14/10: (vkd, ) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
174 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Jury trial set for 10/12/10 at 10:00 a.m. is stricken. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
175 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Fairness Hearing held. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
176 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for disbursement of funds and approval of settlement allocation (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 12/14/2010)

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 19 of 24

12/14/2010 12/16/2010
12/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/20/2010 12/23/2010
06/14/2011
06/14/2011 08/17/2011 08/17/2011 08/18/2011 09/28/2011 10/03/2011 06/22/2012 06/22/2012 06/26/2012

177 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of motion for disbursement of funds 176 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 12/16/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
178 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff EEOC's motion for for disbursement of funds and approval of settlement allocation 176 is granted. Parties to submit a revised Order of Allocation of Settlement Funds including Exhibit A which will summarize the tiers and amounts in aggregate. Parties are given leave to File Exhibit B which lists the names of the recipients under seal. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
179 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Enter Consent Decree. The Court appoints Preston Pugh, of Pugh, Jones, Johnson &Quandt, P.C. to act as Consent Decree Monitor. Civil case terminated. (For further details, see separate order). Mailed notice(vkd, ) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
180 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 12/20/10: (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
181 NOTICE TO YRC EMPLOYEES. (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
182 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:The Clerk of Court is directed to add Attorney Preston L. Pugh of Pugh, Jones, Johnson &Quandt, PC, 180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3400, Chicago, IL 60601−2807, (312) 768−7800 to the service list for this case so that he may receive notices as the Consent Decree Monitor.Mailed notice(smm) (smm, ). (Entered: 12/23/2010)
183 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion hearing held. Monitor Preston L. Pugh's Unopposed Motion to Amend Paragraph 49 of the Parties' Consent Decree is granted. The parties agree that Paragraph 49 of the December 20, 2010 Consent Decree will be amended. Enter Order. On or before August 17, 2011, the parties are to submit to this Court's Proposed Order Box, an amendment to the consent decree as outlined in open court. (For further details, see order). Mailed notice(vkd, ) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
184 ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 6/14/2011:(vkd, ) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
186 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox:Enter First Amended Consent Decree. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 08/19/2011)
187 FIRST AMENDED CONSENT DECREE 186 Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 8/17/2011.Mailed notice(smm) (Entered: 08/19/2011)
185 Monitor Report by Service List (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
188 MOTION by counsel for Defendant YRC, Inc. to withdraw as attorney Gregory R. Talbot (Hogan, Marianne) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
189 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion by Defendant Roadway Express, Inc. and YRC, Inc. to withdraw the appearance of Gregory R. Talbot 188 is granted. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
190 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to amend/correct Joint Motion to Modify Consent Decree (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
191 NOTICE of Motion by Ethan M.M. Cohen for presentment of motion to amend/correct 190 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 6/26/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
192 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Plaintiff's motion to amend/correct 190 is taken under advisement. Motion hearing set for 6/26/12 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/26/2012)

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 20 of 24

06/27/2012 06/27/2012 08/16/2012 08/16/2012 08/20/2012
09/05/2012 09/05/2012 09/07/2012
09/19/2012 09/19/2012 09/24/2012
09/28/2012
09/28/2012 12/12/2012 12/12/2012 12/14/2012
08/16/2013

193 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Plaintiff's Joint Motion to Modify Consent Decree 190 is granted. Enter Second Amended Consent Decree. (For further details see separate order). Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
194 SECOND AMENDED CONSENT DECREE. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 6/27/12:(vkd, ) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
195 MOTION by Service List for extension of time to file monitor report (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
196 NOTICE of Motion by Preston L Pugh for presentment of extension of time 195 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 8/21/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
197 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Monitor Preston L. Pugh's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File his Monitor Report 195 is granted. The Monitor's report to the court and the parties, as required by 49 of the Consent Decree to be filed on or before 9/7/12. Parties need not appear on 8/21/12 at 9:30 a.m. for presentment of motion. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
198 MOTION by Service List for extension of time to file monitor report (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
199 NOTICE of Motion by Preston L Pugh for presentment of extension of time 198 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 9/11/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
200 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Monitor Preston L. Pugh's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file His Monitor Report 198 is granted. The Monitor's Report to the Court and the parties as required by 49 of the Consent Decree is to be filed on or before 9/21/12. Parties need not appear on 9/11/12 at 9:30 a.m for presentment of said motion. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
201 MOTION by Service List for extension of time to file Monitor Report. (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
202 NOTICE of Motion by Preston L Pugh for presentment of extension of time 201 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 9/25/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
203 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Monitor's unopposed motion for extension of time to file his monitor report 201 is granted. Monitor's Report to be filed on or before 9/28/12. Parties need not appear on 9/25/12 at 9:30 a.m for presentment of said motion. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
204 Report by Service List Monitor Report for the Second Reporting Period Under the Consent Decree (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P)(Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
205 APPENDIX other, 204 Amended (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
206 MOTION by Defendant YRC, Inc. for extension of time for Defendants to Submit Semi−annual Report to Consent Decree Monitor (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hogan, Marianne) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
207 NOTICE of Motion by Marianne Hogan for presentment of extension of time 206 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 12/18/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Hogan, Marianne) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
208 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Consent Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants to Submit Semi−Annual Report to Consent Decree Monitor 206 is granted. Parties need not appear on 12/18/12 at 9:30 a.m. for presentment of motion. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
209 MOTION by Service List for extension of time Monitor Preston L. Pugh's Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time to File His Monitor Report (Pugh,

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 21 of 24

08/19/2013
08/19/2013 08/20/2013
08/21/2013 08/22/2013
08/26/2013 09/30/2013
10/01/2013 10/01/2013 10/03/2013 05/27/2014 06/03/2014

Preston) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
210 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: The Court is currently overseeing a Consent Decree resolving the underlying litigation in this case. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and Defendant YRC, Inc., formerly known as Roadway Express, Inc. agree that they have an issue to be resolved under the Consent Decree. To resolve this issue, the parties have agreed to permit counsel for YRC to disclose confidential information ex parte to the Court on a future date to be scheduled by the Court and the parties. Mailed notice(vkd, ) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
211 ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 8/19/13: (vkd, ) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
212 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Unopposed Motion by Monitor Preston L. Pugh for Extension of Time to File His Monitor Report 209 is granted. The Monitor is given until 60 days after the parties report to the Monitor regarding work assignment data, to file and submit his report to the Court and the Parties, as required by paragraph 49 of the Consent Decree. Parties need not appear on 8/22/13 at 9:30 a.m. for presentment of motion. Mailed notice(vkd, ) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
213 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing to be held by telephone on 8/26/13 at 3:00 p.m. Parties to initiate the call. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
214 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: The Court is currently overseeing a Consent Decree resolving the underlying litigation in this case. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Defendant YRC Inc., formerly known as Roadway Express, Inc., agree that they have an issue to be resolved under the Consent Decree. To resolve this issue, the parties have agreed to permit counsel for YRC to disclose confidential information ex parte to the Court. That telephone call is scheduled for 8/26/13 at 3:00 p.m. Counsel for YRC to initiate the call. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 08/22/2013)
215 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Counsel for YRC contacted the Court on 8/26/13 at 3:00 p.m. Status hearing held off the record per this Court's order entered 8/22/13. Counsel is to follow−up with the Court regarding the additional information discussed on the call on or before 9/13/13. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
216 ORDER: Pursuant to the administration of the Consent Decree, YRC is ordered to disclose to the Monitor the information related to the departure of former YRC Freight Human Resources Manager, Kendall Calhoun, on or before 10/4/13. However, once that information is turned over, the Court does not believe further inquiry into Mr. Calhouns resignation is warranted or necessary under the Decree. (For further details see order) Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 9/30/2013. Mailed notice. (np, ) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
217 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to continue (Mrizek, Richard) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
218 NOTICE of Filing by Richard John Mrizek of Motion to continue. (Mrizek, Richard) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office) (ym, ). (Entered: 10/01/2013)
219 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Motion 217 by Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for continuance due to government shutdown is granted. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
220 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: At the request of the parties, status hearing set for 6/3/2014 at 09:30 a.m. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
221 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held to report on the status of the consent decree. All cases called together. (06cv4805, 08cv555,&10cv5304) The parties report that 3.5 years into the 5 year term of the decree they have not reached full compliance, but are working towards that goal. Parties report that due to ongoing miscommunication between certain individuals,

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 22 of 24

06/10/2014 08/26/2014 09/16/2014
10/20/2014
11/03/2014
12/02/2014 12/02/2014 12/02/2014 12/03/2014 12/03/2014

it has been difficult to effectuate the goals of the decree. Court recommends a conciliatory process with the assistance of the Court. In the interim, the monitor agrees to conduct meetings with YRC's HR manager via phone where possible. The Court will offer the parties potential dates for the conference via email. Once dates are received parties are to contact the Court by the close of business 6/6/2014 to confirm a conference date. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
222 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Settlement Conference set for 8/26/2014 at 01:00 p.m. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
223 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Settlement conference held. The EEOC is to meet with YRC regarding the concerns discussed at the conference. Further status set for 9/16/2014 at 10:45 AM. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
224 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held to report on settlement. (All cases called together: 06cv4805, 08cv5555 and 10cv5307). Parties provided the Court with a status of the consent decree and the outstanding issues. Since the last hearing, the parties report that relationships have improved. EEOC, however, reports that there are inconsistencies with the reporting data. Pursuant to the in−court discussions, the parties are willing to work together to determine how data should be reported out in the future. As stated in open court, the parties have a conference call scheduled for 10/7/2014 to discuss issues arising from the report and missing data. The Monitors are to provide their report to the parties 60 days after 10/7/2014, which is 12/8/2014. Status hearing set for 10/27/2014 at 10:30 a.m. to report on settlement issues. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
225 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: The parties having called to indicate that their planned meet and confer is now scheduled for 10/29/14, the parties have requested the status date of 10/27/14 be stricken and moved to a date after their meet and confer. The Court grants this request and strikes the 10/27/14 status date, resetting the matter to 11/3/14 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
226 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. (Cases called together: 06cv4805, 08cv5555, 10cv5304) Parties provided the Court with a status of the consent decree and outstanding issues. Parties had a productive meet and confer last week regarding the work assignments and data points. There remain inconsistencies that the parties are working through. Parties' next report is due early December. Status hearing set for 12/3/2014 at 9:45 a.m. If parties need to participate via phone they are to contact the Court. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
227 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing set 12/3/2014 at 9:45 a.m. is stricken and reset to 12/3/2014 at 11:30 a.m. Please note the time change only. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
228 MOTION by Service List for extension of time to file His Monitor Report (Unopposed) (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
229 NOTICE of Motion by Preston L Pugh for presentment of motion for extension of time to file 228 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 12/9/2014 at 09:30 AM. (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
ORAL MOTION by Defendant YRC, Inc. for extension of time to file bi−annual report (np, ) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
230 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held and continued to 1/21/2015 at 10:00 a.m. (Cases called together: 06cv4805, 08cv5555, 10cv5304) Parties provided the Court with a status of the consent decree and outstanding concerns. Monitor's unopposed motion for extension of time to file his monitor report 228 is granted. No appearance necessary on 12/9/2014 at 9:30 a.m. Monitor's report is due by 12/22/2014. YRC's oral motion for an extension of time to file bi−annual report on or before 1/9/2015 is granted. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 23 of 24

12/23/2014 12/23/2014 01/12/2015 01/21/2015
01/22/2015 02/25/2015 03/11/2015
05/20/2015
07/14/2015 08/10/2015
08/21/2015
10/08/2015 10/08/2015 10/14/2015 10/20/2015 11/03/2015

231 Document removed per 01/12/2015 court order (as, ). (Entered: 12/23/2014)
232 Amended Monitor Report by Service List for the Third and Fourth Reporting Periods Under the Consent Decree (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
233 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Pursuant to the parties' request, entry 231 was entered in error, therefore the Clerk is directed to remove the document from the docket. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
234 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. (Cases called together: 06cv4805, 08cv5555, 10cv5304) Parties provided the Court with a status of the consent decree and outstanding concerns. Status hearing set for 3/10/2015 at 10:00 a.m. to report on continued progress. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
235 ORDER: Due to the Court's increase participation in the ongoing progress of the consent decree this case is hereby reinstated. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 1/22/2015. Mailed notice. (as, ) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
236 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Pursuant to a request by the parties, the status hearing set for 3/10/2015 is stricken and reset to 3/11/2015 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
237 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. (Case called together with 08cv5555 and 10cv5304) Parties provided the Court with a status of the consent decree and outstanding concerns. Status hearing set for 5/20/2015 at 10:00 a.m. to report on continued progress. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 03/12/2015)
238 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. (Cases called together: 06cv4805, 08cv5555, and 10cv5304) Parties provided the Court with a status of the consent decree and outstanding concerns. Status hearing set for 7/15/2015 at 10:00 a.m. to report on continued progress. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 05/20/2015)
239 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Due to a scheduling conflict with the Monitor team, status hearing set for 7/15/2015 is stricken and reset to 8/10/2015 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
240 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. (Case called together: 06cv4805, 08cv5555 and 10cv5204) Parties provided the Court with a status of the consent decree. Progress is being made. Monitor's report is due on 10/14/2015. Status hearing set for 11/3/2015 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
241 MAIL RETURNED, for document # 240 sent to Kenneth Comer returned as undeliverable, return to sender. No new contact information received; therefore future mailings will not be sent until a new address is provided to the Clerk's Office using a Notification of Change of Address or Pro Se Appearance form. (ph, ) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
242 MOTION by Service List for extension of time to file his Monitor Report (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
243 NOTICE of Motion by Preston L Pugh for presentment of extension of time 242 before Honorable Susan E. Cox on 10/14/2015 at 10:00 AM. (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
244 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Monitor's unopposed motion for extension of time to file his monitor report 242 is granted. The Monitor's report is to be submitted by 10/20/2015. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
245 Monitor Report by Service List for the Fifth Reporting Period Under the Consent Decree (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, # 2 Appendix A, B, C, D)(Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
246 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. (Case called together: 06cv4805, 08cv5555 and 10cv5204) Parties provided the Court with a status of the consent decree. Progress is being made, and YRC

Case: 1:06-cv-4805 As of: 02/07/2016 12:37 PM CST 24 of 24

12/14/2015 12/16/2015
12/31/2015

representatives will be meeting with management team to seek feedback from supervisors regarding First−In−First−Out system implementation. YRC represented in open court that it intends to continue all components of the consent decree, including statistical analysis going forward. Monitor's final report is due on 12/14/2015. Status hearing set for 12/16/2015 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
247 Final Monitor Report Under The Consent Decree by Service List (Pugh, Preston) (Entered: 12/14/2015)
248 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing held. (Cases called together: 06cv4805, 08cv5555 and 10cv5204) Parties provided the Court with a final status of the consent decree. This Court has reviewed the monitor's final report and finds that the defendants have complied with the consent decree, which is hereby terminated. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
249 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 12/16/15 before the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Court Reporter Contact Information: Lisa Breiter lisa_breiter@ilnd.uscourts.gov (312) 818−6683.
IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.
Redaction Request due 1/21/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/1/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/30/2016. (Breiter, Lisa) (Entered: 12/31/2015)