Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 1 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and GLEN GREENWOOD,

SEP - 5 2006
JAMES ~30N:Ni) C1B(i(, CCLU~,.'~BUS,. DHIO

Plaintiffs, vs.

Case No. 2:05-CV-799 Judge Gregory L. Frost Magistrate Judge King

STATE OF OIDO, etai.,

Defendants.

U}ITTED STATES EQUALEM?LOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and GLEN GREENWOOD,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
OIDO CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME, LOCAL 11, AFLCIO, et ai.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:05-CV-881 Judge Gregory L. Frost Magistrate Judge King

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 2 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 2 of 25
CONSENTnECREE
The United States ofAmerica ("United States"), by the Department ofJustice, brought Case No. 2:05-cv-799 against the State of Ohio ("Ohio"), the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), and the Ohio Department of Administrative Services ("DAS") (collectively, "State Defendants") to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, ~ gg. ("Title VII"). The Ohio State Employment Relations Board ("SERB") and the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11, AFL-CIO ("OCSEA") were named as defendant parties pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") brought Case No. 2:05-cv-881 against OCSEA. Ohio, EPA, DAS, and SERB were named as defendant parties in the latter case pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court has jurisdiction over these consolidated cases under 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(I),(3); 42 U.S.C. §2000e-6; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1343; and 28 U.S.c. § 1345.
In its complaint, the United States alleges that the State Defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of employment discrimination based on religion, in violation of Title VII, by disparately treating on the basis of religion and failing to reasonably accommodate the religious observances, practices, and beliefs of certain State employees, and that Glen Greenwood ("Greenwood"), an EPA employee, has been subj ected to the State Defendants' unlawful discrimination. Specifically, the United States alleges that the State Defendants, by themselves and through SERB, have allowed State employees who are members and adherents' of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations such as OCSEA to redirect their representation service fees (hereinafter, "fair share
2

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 3 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 3 of 25
fees" or "fees") from their respective employee organizations to nonreligious charities, but that the State Defendants, by themselves and through SERB, have not allowed the same accommodation to State employees, including Greenwood, who are not members and adherents of such religions, but who nonetheless hold sincere religious objections to associating with and fmancially supporting employee organizations such as OCSEA.
In its complaint, the EEOC alleges that OCSEA has engaged in a pattern or practice of employment discrimination based on religion, in violation of TitIe VII, by disparately treating on the basis of religion and failing to reasonably accommodate the religious observances, practices, and beliefs of certain State employees who are subject to its collective bargaining agreement(s) with Ohio, and that Greenwood has been subjected to OCSEA's unlawful discrimination. Specifically, the EEOC alleges that OCSEA, by itself and in concert with the State Defendants and SERB, has allowed State employees who are subject to its collective bargaining agreement(s) with Ohio and are members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations such as OCSEA to redirect their fair share fees from OCSEA to nonreligious charities, but that OCSEA, by itself and in concert with the State Defendants and SERB, has not allowed the same accommodation to State employees, including Greenwood, who are not members and adherents of such religions, but who nonetheless hold sincere religious objections to associating with and fmancially supporting employee organizations such as OCSEA.
Greenwood has filed complaints in intervention in both Case No. 2:05-cv-799 and Case No. 2:05-cv-88 1.
3

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 4 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 4 of 25
The parties, desiring that this action be settled by an appropriate Consent Decree ("Decree"), and without the burden of protracted litigation, agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties and the subject matter of this action. Subject to the Court's approval of this Decree, the parties waive a hearing and findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues, and further agree to the entry of this Decree as [mal and binding among and between themselves as to the issues raised in the United States' complaint filed in Case No. 2:05-cv-799, the EEOC's complaint filed in Case No. 2:05-cv-881, Greenwood's complaints in intervention filed in Case No. 2:05-cv-799 and Case No. 2:05-cv-881, and the matters resolved in this Decree.
This Decree, being entered with the consent ofthe parties, shall in no way constitute an
adjUdication or finding on the merits of Case No. 2:05-cv-799 and Case No. 2:05-cv-881, nor be construed as an admission by any of the defendants or as a finding by the Court of any wrongdoing or violation of any applicable federal or state law or regulation.
In resolution of this action, the parties hereby AGREE to, and the Court expressly APPROVES, ENTERS and ORDERS, the following: I. PARTIES AND DEFINITIONS I. The parties to this Decree are the United States; the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission; Glen Greenwood; the State of Ohio; the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; the Ohio Department of Administrative Services; the Ohio State Employment Relations Board; and the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11, AFL-CIO. 2. "United States" refers to the United States of America, by the United States Department of Justice.
4

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 5 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 5 of 25
3. "EEOC" refers to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 4. The "State" refers to all executive branch agencies, departments, boards, and
commissions of the State of Ohio in its capacity as an employer that are represented by the Office of Collective Bargaining pursuant to OHIO REv. CODE § 4117.1 O(D), including the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Department of Administrative Services. 5. "Ohio EPA" or "EPA" refers to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 6_ "Ohio DAS" or "DAS" refers to the Ohio Department of Administrative Services. 7. "SERB" refers to the Ohio State EmploymentRelations Board. 8. "OCSEA" refers to the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local II, AFL-CIO. 9. "Office of Collective Bargaining" or "OCB" refers to Ohio DAS' Office of Collective Bargaining. 10. "Greenwood" refers to Glen Greenwood, the plaintiff-intervenor in Case No. 2:05-cv-799 and Case No. 2:05-cv-881, who filed EEOC Charge No. 221-A3-00203 against OCSEA and EEOC Charge No. 221-2004-01913 against Ohio EPA and Ohio DAS. 11. Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, ~ seq., is hereinafter referred to as "Title VII." 12. "Employee organization" refers to any labor or bona fide organization that represents State employees and that collectively bargains with the State, including OCSEA. 13. "State employee" refers to an employee of the State of Obia who is subject to a collective bargaining agreement between the State and an employee organization such as OCSEA.
5

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 6 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 6 of 25
14. "Union dues" or "dues" refers to the regular payments that State employees who are members of an employee organization must pay to that employee organization.
15. "Fair share fees" or "fees" refers to the representation service fees that State employees who choose not to become members of an employee organization such as OCSEA, but who nonetheless are subjectto a collective bargaining agreement between the State and OCSEA or another employee organization, are required to pay OCSEA or another employee organization as a condition oflheir employment with the State.
16. "Religious objector" or "objector" refers to a State employee who has a sincerely held religious objection to associating with andlor fmancially supporting an employee organization such as OCSEA.
17. "Substituted charity accommodation" refers to a religious acconunodation that allows a State employee to redirect all of his or her union dues or fair share fees from an employee organiiation such as OCSEA to a charity mutually agreeable to the State employee and the employee organization.
18. "Religion," for purposes oftlris Decree, refers to the tenn as defined in Section 2000e(j)
ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). 19. "Day" or "days," as used herein, refers to calendar, not business days. 20. "Date of entry" ofthe Decree refers to the date on which the Court orders entry of the
Decree. II. PURPOSES OF TIDS DECREE 21. The purposes ofthis Decree are to ensure that:
6

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 7 of 25 I '
Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 0910112006 Page 7 of 25
a, Greenwood is granted a substituted charity accommodation, and the fair share fees Greenwood has paid OCSEA, since it was notified by him, on or about June 17, 2002, of his religious objections to associating with it and paying it his fair share fees, are retroactively redirected to a charity mutually agreeable to Greenwood and OCSEA;
b. State employees who hold sincere religious objections to associating with andlor financially supporting an employee organization such as OCSEA, but who are not members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations, are provided a procedure by which they may obtain substituted charity accommodations; and
c, State employees, including Greenwood, who hold sincere religious objections to associating with andlor financially supporting an employee organization such as OCSEA, but who are not members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations, are not subjected to disparate treatment on the basis ofreligion.
III. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 22. The State and OCSEA, as weI! as their employees, supervisors, agents and all individuals
in active concert or participation with them, are enjoined from: a. establishing, maintaining, andlor implementing any policy or procedure (or
otherwise engaging in any act or practice) that denies substituted charity accommodations to State employees, including Greenwood, who hold sincere
7

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 8 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09101/2006 Page 8 of 25
religious objections to associating with and/or financially supporting an employee
organization such as OCSEA, whether or not they are members and adherents of
religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or
financially supporting employee organizations, pursuant to Title VII;
b. failing or refusing to afford relief to Greenwood as set forth in Paragraphs 21(a),
29, and 30 ofthis Decree and pursuant to Title VII; and
c. retaliating against, or in any way adversely affecting the terms and conditions of
employment of any person because that person has requested a religious
accommodation concerning the payment of his or her union dues or fair share
fees, or has engaged in other conduct protected by 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-3(a).
IV. RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION POLICY AND PROCEDURE
23. The State and OCSEA shall continue to abide by and implement the following religious
accommodation policy and prosedure ("Accommodation Procedure"), which they have
incorporated into their 2006-2009 collective bargaining agreement: An employee may file notice with the Union, at its Central Office, challenging the deduction ofdues or fair share fees On the basis ofbona fide, sincerely held religious beliefs under Title VII. The notice must contain a current mailing address and the social security number of the employee. Upon receipt of said notice, the Union shall notify the Office of Collective Bargaining (OCB), in writing, that the dues or fair share fees of the employee are to be withheld, but not remitted to the Union, until further notice. The Union shall forward an "Application for Religious Exemption" to the employee for completion.
The application shall be reviewed for approval within sixty (60) days ofreceipt. Should the parties be unahie, within this time period, to resolve the matter by either a written agreement or a withdrawal ofthe application, the matter shall be set for arbitration. Similarly situated applications may be scheduled for arbitration collectively. The employee(s) and the Union shall mutually agree upon an Arbitrator, and except as may otherwise be agreed upon, in writing, between the employee and the Union, the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with this agreement. Ifthe parties cannot agree to an Arbitrator, then they shall
8

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 9 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 9 of 25
secure a list of seven (7) Arbitrators from FMCS and use the alternate strike method to determine the Arbitrator. The expense of the arbitration shall be borne by the Union. The Arbitrator shall analyze the claim in accordance with the standards of Title VII and all applicable case law. Ifthe Arbitrator determines that the employee is entitled to reliefunder Title VII, the Arbitrator shall direct that the appropriate portion of the dues or fair share fee attributable to the employee be directed to a charitable organization mutually agreed upon between the employee and the Union. If the Arbitrator determines that the employee is not entitled to reli~funderTitle VII, then the application shall be dismissed. Any accommodation shall comply with Title VII. The Union shall forward a copy of the arbitration decision to OCB in order to direct the payment of funds that have been withheld but not remitted to the Union, and any future dues orfair share fees ofthe affected employee in compliance with the decision and this section. 24. The arbitration process described in the Accommodation Procedure set forth in Paragraph 23, above, shall not be construed as, and shall not operate as, a waiver of a religious objector's right to pursue his or her statutory rights under Title VII by filing a charge of religious discrimination with the EEOC and filing suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. Furthermore, a religious objector may file a charge of religious discrimination with the EEOC without submitting to the Accommodation Procedure's arbitration process. Finally, if a religious objector decides not to pursue arbitration under the Accommodation Procedure, then the State shall continue to withhold the objector's dues or fair share fees from the relevant employee organization until the State determines that the objector's religious accommodation request has been resolved (such as by a resolution reached before the EEOC or a court of competent jurisdiction), at which point the State shall disburse the objector's dues or fees pursuant to that resolution. However, notwithstanding the State's determination, the objector shall retain the right to pursue all available remedies under Title VII, ifhe or she has not alteady done so.
9

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 10 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 10 of 25
25. The State shall exercise its best efforts to incorporate the Accommodation Procedure set forth in Paragraph 23, above, and as additionally described in Paragraph 24, above, into all of its prospective collective bargaining agreements with employee organizations, including its 2006-2009 collective bargaining agreements.
26. Beginning on the date of entry of this Decree, if a State employee notifies OCB in writing that he or s.he holds a bona fide, sincerely held religious objection to paying dues or fair share fees to an employee organization that is a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the State that applies to the employee, and provides his or her current mailing address and social security number, and if the State has not yet entered into a collective bargaining agreement with that employee organization that incorporates the Accommodation Procedure set forth in Paragraph 23, above, and as additionally described in Paragraph 24, above, then the State shall continue to deduct the religious objector's dues or fees but shall cease to remit those dues or fees to that employee organization, beginning the pay period immediately following OCB's receipt ofthe objector" notification letter, and shall forward to the employee organization a copy ofthe objector's notification letter. The State shall continue to withhold the religious objector's dues or fees from that employee organization until the employee organization enters into a collective bargaining agreement with the State that incorporates the Accommodation Procedure set forth in Paragraph 23, above, and as additionally described in Paragraph 24, above, at which point the objector's dues or fees shall be administered pursuant to the· Accommodation Procedure. If, however, after exercising its best efforts, the State is unable to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with the employee organization
10

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 11 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 11 of 25
that incorporates the Accommodation Procedure set forth in Paragraph 23, above, and as additionally described in Paragraph 24, above, then the State nonetheless shall continue to withhold the religious obj ector's dues or fees from the employee organization until it determines that the matter has been resolved (such as by an agreement reached between the obj ector and the employee organization, or by a resolution reached before the EEOC or a court of competent jurisdiction), at which point the State shall disburse the objector's dues or fees pursuant to that resolution. However, notwithstanding the State's determination, the objector shall retain the right to pursue all available remedies under Title VU, ifhe or she has not already done so. 27. Within twenty-one (21) days after the date of entry ofthis Decree, the State shall provide notice ofthe Accommodation Procedure set forth in Paragraph 23, above, and as additionally described in Paragraph 24, above, and of the terms set forth in Paragraphs 25 and 26, above, by: a. Posting the Notice of Settlement and ofNew Religious Accommodation
Procedure Concerning Payment of Union Dues or Fair Share Fees ("Notice of Settlement"), attached hereto at Appendix A, on Ohio DAS' Internet subsite devoted to equal employment opportunity information, and on Ohio DAS' Internet subsite devoted to information regarding collective bargaining agreements administered by OCB. In addition, the State shall post the Notice of Settlement in the annotations to the online versions of those provisions in each of the collective bargaining agreements administered by OCB that relate to dues deductions or substituted charity accommodations. The Notice ofSettlement shall remain
11

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 12 of 25 I '
Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 12 of 25
posted on Ohio DAS' Internet subsites, as set forth in this Paragraph 27(a), throughout the term ofthis Decree; and b, Posting the Notice of Settlement, for a period of sixty (60) days, on any bulletin boards used by the State's constituent agencies for posting equal employment opportunity information. The State also shall provide a copy of the Notice of Settlement to any State employee who notifies OCB that he or she has a religious objection to paying union dues or fair share fees to an employee organization that is a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the State that applies to the employee. 28. Within twenty-one (21) days after the date of entry of this Decree, OCSEA shall post the Notice of Settlement in a section of its Internet website that provides labor-related news and is available to the public, such as its home page or the section of its website entitled "News Center," The Notice of Settlement shall remain posted on OCSEA's website throughout the term ofthis Decree. V. REMEDIAL RELIEF FOR GLEN GREENWOOD 29. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of entry of this Decree, the State and OCSEA shall grant Greenwood a religious accommodation that redirects his dues or fair share fees to a charitable organization he designates, excluding any organization in which he has a financial interest or is an officer,' agent or employee, and excluding any organization that does not or will not accept an electronic transfer of funds from the State. Going forward, the State shall effectuate this accommodation by forwarding the dues or fair share fees taken from Greenwood's pay directly to the charitable organization he designates.
12

, .

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 13 of 25

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 0910112006 Page 13 of 25

30. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of entry of this Decree, OCSEA shall ensure that the dues or fair share fees Greenwood has paid OCSEA since June 17, 2002 are retroactively redirected to a mutually agreed upon charitable organization, excluding any organization in which he has a financial interest or is an officer, agent, or employee. The amount of dues or fair share fees retroactively redirected, however, shall not exceed three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500.00).
VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 31. The parties shall attempt to resolve informally any dispute that may arise under this
Decree. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute expeditiously, any party may move the Court for a resolution of the disputed issue. VD. REPORTING, RECORD RETENTION, AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING 32. . For purposes of this Decree, a reporting period shall run from January 1 through June 30, and from July 1 through December 31, for each year. Within thirty (30) days from the close of each reporting period, the State shall provide the United States and the EEOC with a senti-annual report that contains a summary of each religious accommodation request made by a State employee pursuant to the Accommodation Procedure set forth in Paragraph 23, above, and as additionally described in Paragraph 24, above, or pursuant to the alternative procedure described in Paragraph 26, above, including: (1) the date on which OCB was notified of the State employee's religious objection to paying his or her union dues or fair share fees to an employee organization that is a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the State that applies to the employee, and, if the employee organization at issue is OCSEA, the date on which OCSEA was notified of the State
13

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 14 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 14 of 25
employee's religious objection; (2) a brief description ofthe State employee's religious objection; (3) a statement as to whether the State, after being notified of the State employee's religious objection, ceased to remit the State employee's union dues or fait share fees to that employee organization and, ifnot, a statement of the reason(s) therefor; (4) a statement as to whether a resolution has been reached with respect to the State employee's accommodation request; and (5) if the State has determined that a resolution has been reached regarding the State employee's accommodation request, the date on which the matter was resolved and a brief description ofthe accommodation the State employee received and a statement ofthe reason(s) therefor (or, if the State employee ultimately was required to continue paying union dues or fair share fees to the employee organization, a statement of the reason(s) therefor). To the extent that the semi-annual report involves a State employee who is subject to the State's collective bargaining agreement with OCSEA, OCSEA shall assist the State, as needed, in preparing the report. Each semi-annual report also shall contain the contact information of the person or persons responsible for preparing the report. 33. The semi-annual reports the State produces pursuant to Paragraph 32, above, will not include the names, home addresses, or telephone numbers of any religious objectors referred to in those reports. If the United States or the EEOC separately requests the name, home address, and telephone number of a specific religious objector referred to in any of the semi-annual reports, however, then the State shall provide the United States or the EEOC with the requested information pursuant to this Paragraph 33.
14

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 15 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 15 of 25
34. The State shall provide the information described in Paragraphs 32 and 33, above, for thirty (30) months following the date of entry of this Decree.
35. One (1) year from the date of entry ofthis Decree, the State shall provide the United States with a brief report that identifies each employee organization with which it has a collective bargaining agreement that does not incorporate the Accommodation Procedure set forth in Paragraph 23, above, and as additionally described in Paragraph 24, above, if any. The report shall summarize the State's efforts to incorporate the Accommodation Procedure into its collective bargaining agreement with each employee organization the report identifies, and the reasons the State was prevented from obtaining the incorporation ofthe Accommodation Procedure into its collective bargaining agreement with each such employee organization.
36. During the term of this Decree, the State and OCSEA shall maintain and retain all documents and information in their possession that are relevant to any religious accommodation request made pursuant to the Accommodation Procedure set forth in Paragraph 23, above, and as additionally described in Paragraph 24, above. In addition, the State shall maintain and retain all documents and information in its possession that are relevant to its efforts to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 25, above, or relevant to any religious accommodation request made to the State under the alternative procedure described in Paragraph 26, above.
37. The United States and the EEOC may review compliance with this Decree at any time, and shall have the right to inspect and copy any documents that are relevant and necessary to monitor the State's and OCSEA's compliance with this Decree, upon thirty (30) days
15

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 16 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 16 of 25
Mitten notice to the party whose compliance is being reviewed, without further order of this Court. VIII. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT 38. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this Decree for the purpose of resolving any disputes or entering any orders that may be necessary to implement the Decree. 39. The parties to this Decree expect that the remedial relief called for under this Decree will be fully effectuated within thirty (30) months from the date of entry of this Decree. Accordingly, this Decree shall dissolve and this action shall be dismissed without further order of the Court at the end ofthirty (30) months from the date of entry of this Decree, unless both of the following elements are present: (a) the remedial relief called for by this Decree has not been fully effectuated; and (b) the United States or the EEOC move, and the Court grants the motion, to extend the life of this Decree and this action for the sole purpose of effectuating the remedial relief called for by this Decree. IX. EFFECT 40. To the extent that any of the provisions of this Decree, or any actions taken pursuarit to such provisions, may be inconsistent with any state or local statute, law, or regulation, or with any provision of a collective bargaining agreement between the State and an employee organization such as OCSEA, the provisions of this Decree shall prevail in accordance with the constitutional supremacy offederal law. X. GENERAL PROVISIONS 41. Greenwood shall be eligible to recover from the State and OCSEA reasonable costs and attorney's fees, upon submission of proper supporting documentation, except that the
16

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 17 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01i2006 Page 17 of 25
reasonable costs and attorney's fees Greenwood may recover from the State shall not exceed eighty-three thousand three hundred seventeen dollars and fifteen cents ($83,317.15), and the reasonable costs and attorney's fees Greenwood may recover from OCSEA shall not exceed eighty-three thousand three hundred seventeen dollars and fifteen cents ($83,317.15), excluding any additional costs and attorney's fees Greenwood may incur if required to file a fee petition with the Court. All other parties to these cases shall bear their own costs in this action, including attorney's fees. All parties, however, shall retain the right to seek costs for any matter which, in the future, may arise under this Decree and require resolution by the Court. 42. Paragraph 41, above, shall not operate as, nor be construed as; a waiver of any right of indemnification from OCSEA the State may have. 43. All documents required to be delivered to the United States and the EEOC under this Decree shall be sent to the attention of:
David J. Palmer, Chief Employment Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Patrick Henry Building, Room 4040 Washington, D.C. 20530 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cleveland Field Office The Anthony J. Celebrezze Federal Office Building 1240 East 9th Street, Room 3001 Cleveland, Ohio 44199 Attn: C. Larry Watson, Associate Regional Attorney
17

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 18 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Documenl66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 18 of 25

Sep-k:nJaor APPROVED and ORDERED this 5ili day of

,2006.

Agreed and consented to on behalf ofplaintiff United States of America:
WANJ.KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
DAVID J. PALMER [D.C. Bar Number: 417834] Chief, Employment Litigation Section
#~
P~l~
~rAM B. FENTON [D.C. Bar Number: 414990]
JEAN CHRISTIAN KANYlXI TSHIBAKA [D.C. Bar Number: 482863] SARAH C. BLUTTER [D.C. Bar Number: 487723] Attorneys United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section, Room 4040 Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3831 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005 E-mail: Niki.Tshibaka@usdoj.gov
18

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 19 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 19 of 25
Agreed and consented to on behalf ofplaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR Regional Attorney
r2~t~.,-
C.LARR W(011i;Bar Number: 0031443] Associate Regional Attorney
b.fIh1 )!Vl~
LAWRENCE MAYS [Ohio Bar Num er: 0038288] Supervisory Trial Attorney
~
JE
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cleveland Field Office The Anthony J. Celebrezze Federal Office Building 1240 East 9th Street, Room 3001 Cleveland, OR 44199 Telephone: (216) 522-7458 Facsimile: (216) 522-7430 E-mail: Jeffrey.Stern@eeoc.gov
.-A~~IiiiilG w~~t¢,d 0 on behalf of plaintiff Glen Greenwood:
B EN. CAMERON D.C. Bar Number: 380850] c/o National Right to Wo k Legal Defense Foundation 8001 Braddock Road Springfield, VA 22160 Telephone: (703) 321-8510 Facsimile: (703) 321-9319 E-mail: bnc@nrtw.org
, 19

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 20 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Documenl66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 20 of 25
Agreed and consented to on behalf ofdefendants State of Ohio and Ohio Department of Administrative Services:
aJd7~~~
CAROL NOLAN DRAKE Director Ohio Department ofAdministrative Services Rhodes State Office Tower 30 East Broad Street, 40th Floor Columbus, OR 43215 Telephone: (614) 466-6511
JACK. W. DECKER [Ohio Bar Number: 0021285J Principal Assistant Attorney General State of Ohio, Office ofthe Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor Columbus, OR 43215 Telephone: (614)644-7257 Facsimile: (614) 644-7253 E-mail: jdecker@ag.state.oh.us
Agreed and consented to on behalf of defendants State of Ohio and Ohio Department of Administrative Services' Office of Collective Bargaining:
~~ , - 1, .
JACK W. DECKER [Ohio Bar Nmnber: 0021285]
Principal Assistant Attorney General State of Ohio, Office ofthe Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor Columbus, OR 43215 Telephone: (614) 644-7257 Facsimile: (614) 644-7253 E-mail: jdecker@ag.state.oh.us
20

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 21 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 21 of 25
I
fendant Ohio Environmental Protection Agency:
JACK W. DECKER [Ohio Bar Number: 0021285J
Principal Assistant Attorney General State of Ohio, Office of the Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor CollJlIlbus, OR 43215 Telephone: (614) 644-7257 Facsimile: (614) 644-7253 E-mail: jdecker@ag.state.oh.us
21

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 22 of 25 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 22 of 25

Agreed and consented to on behalf of defendant Ohio State Employment Relations Board:
[Ob~0228751
"SSELL KEITH
eneral COWlsel State Employment Relations Board 65 East State Street, 12th Floor Columbus, OR 43215-4213 Telephone: (614) 466-3014 Facsimile: (614) 466-3074 E-mail: rkeith@serb.state.oh.us
MICHAEL D. ALLEN [Ohio Bar Nwnber: 00.20.693] Principal Assistant Attorney General State of Ohio, Office of the Attorney General Executive Agencies Section Labor Relations Unit 3D East Broad Street, 26th Floor Columbus, OR 43215 Telephone: (614) 644-8462 Facsimile: (614) 728-9470. E-mail: mallen@ag.state.oh.us

Agreed?J'lid consented to on behalf of defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association,

AFSC I, Lal I
I

L-CrO:

viir' RA F. BELL [ hio Bar Number: 0.0.33740.]
General Counsel Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11, AFt-cra 390. Worthington Road Suite A Westerville, OH 430.82 Telephone: (614) 865-4720. Facsimile: (614) 865-4777 E-mail: sbell@ocsea.org

22

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 23 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 23 of 25
Appendix A
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND OF NEW RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION PROCEDURE CONCERNING PAYMENT OF UNION DUES OR FAIR SHARE FEES
TO ALL STATE OF OHIO EMPLOYEES WHO HAVB A SINCERE RELIGIOUS OBJECTION TO ASSOCIATING WITH AND/OR FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING A UNION THATIS A PARTY TO A COLLECTIVEBARGAlNlNG AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF OHIO THAT APPLIES TO THEM:
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.
On August 26, 2005, the United States filed a lawsuit claiming that the State of Ohio ("State'") violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. § 2000e, ~ ~., as amended ("Title VII'") by engaging in religious discrimination against State employees who hold sincere religious objections to associating with and financially supporting a union to which they are required to pay fair share fees pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the union and the State, but who are not members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting unions.
On September 23, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC'") filed a similar lawsuit against the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11, AFL-CIO ("OCSEA"), which subsequently was consolidated with the United States' lawsuit. The EEOC claimed that OCSEA also violated Title VII by engaging in religious discrimination against State employees who are required to pay it fair share fees, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between OCSEA and the State, and who hold sincere religious objections to associating with and financially supporting OCSEA, but who are not members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting unions.
The State and OCSEA have denied the allegations made against them. In the interest of avoiding contested litigation, the United States, the EEOC, the State, and OCSEA have reached a settlement, which has been memorialized in a Consent Decree. The Consent Decree was approved and entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Eastern Division), on [decree date]. The cases are called United States of America v. State of Ohio, et ai., Case No. 2:05-cv-799 (S.D. Ohio) and Equal Emplovment Opportunity Commission v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local1!' AFL-CIO, et ai., Case No. 2:05-cv-881 (S.D. Ohio). This notice is being provided under the terms of the Consent Decree.
Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the State and OCSEA are to abide by and implement the following religious accommodation procedure ("Accommodation Procedure'") which has been incorporated into their 2006-2009 collective bargaining agreement, and the State must exercise its best efforts to incorporate the Accommodation Procedure into all of its other
1

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 24 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 24 of 25
prospective collective bargaining agreements, including its 2006-2009 collective bargaining agreements:
An employee may file notice with the Union, at its Central Office, challenging the deduction of dues or fair share fees Oil the basis afbona fide, sincerely held religious beliefs under Title VII. The notice must contain a currentmaiHng address and the social security number ofthe employee. Upon receipt ofsaid notice, the Union shall notify the Office of Collective Bargaining (OCB), in writing, that the dues or fair share fees of the employee are to be withheld, but not remitted to the Union, until further notice. The Union shall forward an "Application for Religious Exemption" to the employee for completion.
The application shaII be reviewed for approval within sixty (60) days of receipt. Should the parties be unable, within this time period, to resolve the matter by either a written agreement or a withdrawal of the application, the matter shall be set for arbitration. Similarly situated applications may be scheduled for arbitration collectively. The employee(s) and the Union shall mutually agree upon an Arbitrator, and except as may otherwise be agreed upon, in writing, between the employee and the Union, the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with this agreement. If the parties,eannot agree to an Arbitrator, then they shall secure a list of seven (7) Arbitrators fromFMCS and use the alternate strike method to determine the Arbitrator, The expense of the arbitration shall be borne by the Union.
The Arbitrator shall analyze the claim in accordance with the standards ofTitle VII and all applieable case law. Ifthe Arbitrator determines that the employee is entitled to reliefunder Title VII, the Arbitrator shall direct that the appropriate portion of the dues or fair share fee attributable to the employee be directed to a charitable organization mutually agreed upon between the employee and the Union. If the Arbitrator determines that the employee is not entitled to reliefunder Title VII, then the application shan be dismissed. Any accommodation shall comply with'Title VII. The Union shall fonvard a copy of the arbitration deeision to OCB in order to direct the payment of funds that have been withheld but not remitted to the Union, and any future dues or fair share fees of the affected employee in compliance with the decision and this section.
As explained in the Consent Decree, the arbitration process set forth in the above Accommodation Procedure does not prevent a State employee from pursuing his or her statutory rights under Title VII by filing a charge of religious discrimination with the EEOC and filing suit in court. Furthermore, a State employee may file a charge of religious discrimination with tbe EEOC witbout SUbmitting to the above Accommodation Procedure's arbitration process. If a State employee chooses not to submit to the above Accommodation Procedure's arbitration process, then tbe State will continue to withhold the employee's dues or fair share fees from the relevant union until it determines that tbe employee's request for a religious accommodation has been resolved (such as by a resolution reached before tbe EEOC or a court), at which point tbe State will disburse the employee's dues or fees pursuant to tbat resolution. However, notwitbstanding tbe State's determination, tbe employee still will have the right to pursue all available remedies under Title VII, ifhe or she has not already done so.
Also, please note that a State employee need not be a member of a specific church or religious body in order to be entitled to tbe religious accommodation described in tbe above Accommodation Procedure. Rather, if a State employee holds to sincere, personal religious observances, practices, or beliefs that prohibit the State employee from paying dues or fair share fees to the union to which he or she is required to pay such dues or fees, tbe State employee may be entitled to tbe religious accommodation described in tbe above Accommodation Procedure.
2

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 68 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 25 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 66 Filed 09/0112006 Page 25 of 25
If you pay dues or fair share fees to a union other than OCSEA and would like to find out whether the above Accommodation Procedure has been incorporated into the State's collective bargaining agreement with the union to which you pay dues or fair share fees, please contact the union or your State employer's Equal Employment Opportunity Office, or visit the following Internet website: htto://www.das.ohio.gov/ocb/OCBcontracts.html.
If the State has not incorporated the above Accommodation Procedure into its collective bargaining agreement with the union to which you pay dues or fair share fees, and if you have a sincere religious objection to associating with and/or fmancially supporting tbat union, you still may request a religious accommodation redirecting all of your dues or fees to a charity mutually agreeable to you and the union. To make such a request to the State, you must notify the Ohio Department ofAdministrative Services' Office of Collective Bargaining ("OCB"), in writing, that you have a sincere religious objection to associating with and/or financially supporting the union and therefore object to paying dues or fair share fees to the union. Your notification letter also must provide your current mailing address and your social security number, and must be mailed to the following address:
Office of Collective Bargaining 100 E. Broad Street, 18th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attn: David Simpson
After OCB receives your notification letter, the State will continue to deduct your dues or fees, but will forward to the union a copy of your letter and will withhold your dues or fees from the union until the above Accommodation Procedure is incorporated into the State's collective bargaining agreement with the union, at which point your dues or fees will be administered pursuant to the above Accommodation Procedure. If, however, the State is unable to incorporate the above Accommodation Procedure into its collective bargaining agreement with the union, the State will continue to withhold your dues or fees from the union until it determines that your request for a religious accommodation has been resolved (such as by an agreement reached between you and the union, or by a resolution reached before the EEOC or a court), at which point the State will disburse your dues or fees pursuant to that resolution. However, notwithstanding the State's determination, if you ilisagree with how your accommodation request has been resolved, you still will have the right to pursue any and all remedies available to you under Title VII, if you have not already done so.
Should you have any questions about this notice, please contact your State employer's Equal Employment Opportunity Office, or contact OCB at (614) 466-0570.
3

 
 United States v. Ohio EPA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
______________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
)
STATE OF OHIO; OHIO )
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION )
AGENCY; OHIO DEPARTMENT OF )
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, )
)
Defendants, )
)
and )
)
OHIO STATE EMPLOYMENT )
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/OhioEPAcompl.htm

Page 1 of 6 8/16/2007

United States v. Ohio EPA

Page 2 of 6

RELATIONS BOARD; and OHIO CIVIL )
SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, )
AFSCME, LOCAL 11, AFL-CIO, )
)
FRCP 19(a) Defendants. )
______________________________________
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff United States of America ("United States") alleges:
1. This action is brought on behalf of the United States to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), and stems in part from a referral made to the United States Department of Justice by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f) (3), 2000e-6(a),(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3); and 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
3. Defendant State of Ohio ("State" or "Ohio") is a State of the United States of America.
4. Defendant Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("Ohio EPA" or "EPA") is a state governmental agency, created pursuant to the laws of Ohio.
5. Defendant Ohio Department of Administrative Services ("Ohio DAS" or "DAS") is a state governmental agency, created pursuant to the laws of Ohio.
6. Defendant Ohio State Employment Relations Board ("SERB") is a state executive agency created under Ohio's Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act ("Collective Bargaining Act" or "Act"). Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4117.02.SERB is named as a party pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
7. Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11, AFL-CIO ("OCSEA") is an employee organization that represents State employees. OCSEA is named as a party pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8. Defendants Ohio, EPA, DAS, and SERB are "person[s]" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a), and are "employer[s]," or agents of an employer, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
9. Defendant OCSEA is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a), and is a "labor organization" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(d).

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/OhioEPAcompl.htm

8/16/2007

United States v. Ohio EPA

Page 3 of 6

10.Since March 1, 2000, Ohio has been a party to two collective bargaining agreements with OCSEA; the earlier agreement was effective from March 1, 2000 to February 28, 2003, while the current agreement became effective on March 1, 2003 and runs through February 28, 2006.
11. Both agreements contain a provision requiring that State employees who are subject to them, but choose not to become OCSEA members, pay OCSEA a representation service fee ("fair share fee" or "fee").
12. In its capacity as an employer, Ohio, through its EPA and DAS, has declared that State employees who seek a religious accommodation allowing them to redirect their fair share fees to nonreligious charities must apply to SERB.
13. The Collective Bargaining Act provides in part:
Any public employee who is a member of and adheres to established and traditional tenets or teachings of a bona fide religion or religious body which has historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization and which is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code shall not be required to join or financially support any employee organization as a condition of employment. Upon submission of proper proof of religious conviction to [SERB], [SERB] shall declare the employee exempt from becoming a member of or financially supporting an employee organization. The employee shall be required, in lieu of the fair share fee, to pay an amount of money equal to the fair share fee to a nonreligious charitable fund exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code mutually agreed upon by the employee and the representative of the employee organization to which the employee would otherwise be required to pay the fair share fee.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4117.09(C). SERB has declared that it will not grant the religious accommodation with respect to the payment of fair share fees provided for in the Collective Bargaining Act to public employees who hold sincere religious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization but are not members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations.
14. Glen A. Greenwood ("Greenwood") is employed by the Ohio EPA as an Environmental Specialist III. Greenwood was subject to Ohio's 2000-2003 collective bargaining agreement with OCSEA, and currently is subject to the State's and OCSEA's 2003-2006 collective bargaining agreement.
15. In June 2002, Greenwood notified OCSEA that he holds sincere religious objections to associating with it, and therefore to paying it his fair share fees. Greenwood's religious objections are based on his understanding that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, a larger union with which OCSEA is affiliated, supports and promotes same-sex unions and abortion. Greenwood requested that, as a religious accommodation under Title VII, OCSEA redirect his fees to a mutually agreeable charity. OCSEA failed to grant Greenwood's request, responding that he should make his request to SERB and that this was the proper procedure for pursuing the accommodation he sought.
16. In July 2002, Greenwood submitted to SERB an application for a religious exemption that would allow him to redirect his fair share fees from OCSEA to a nonreligious charity. On the SERB application form, Greenwood stated he was a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Lancaster, Ohio. In an attachment to the application form, Greenwood explained that while the Presbyterian Church

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/OhioEPAcompl.htm

8/16/2007

United States v. Ohio EPA

Page 4 of 6

has no historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization, Greenwood's personal religious observances, practices, and beliefs prohibit him from associating with or financially supporting an employee organization such as OCSEA. SERB denied Greenwood's request for a religious exemption. In its ruling, SERB observed that Greenwood had stated that the basis of his request for a religious exemption was personal and that he had failed to file verification of his Church's historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization. 17. Subsequently, Greenwood, through an attorney, notified the EPA and DAS that he holds sincere religious objections to joining or financially supporting OCSEA, and requested that, as a religious accommodation, his fair share fees not be directed to OCSEA.
18. The EPA and DAS both declared that they did not have the authority to grant Greenwood's requested accommodation, and that the proper procedure for obtaining the religious accommodation Greenwood sought was through application to SERB. Greenwood did not reapply to SERB, however, because SERB previously had denied him this religious accommodation.
19. Defendants Ohio, EPA, and DAS (collectively, "State Defendants") have continued to require that Greenwood pay to OCSEA his fair share fees, while, upon information and belief, State employees who are members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations such as OCSEA are granted an accommodation allowing them to redirect their fees to nonreligious charities.
20. State Defendants, by themselves and through SERB, have pursued and continue to pursue policies and practices that discriminate against employees on the basis of religion, in violation of Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, among other ways, by:
a. failing or refusing to reasonably accommodate the religious observances,tices, and beliefs of those State employees who hold sincere religious objections to associating with and financially supporting employee organizations such as OCSEA, but who are not members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations; and
b. subjecting State employees to disparate treatment on the basis of religion by allowing employees who are members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations to redirect their fair share fees to nonreligious charities, but denying the same accommodation to employees who are not members and adherents of such religions, even if they hold sincere religious objections to associating with and financially supporting employee organizations such as OCSEA.
21. State Defendants, by themselves and through SERB, have discriminated against Greenwood on the basis of his religion in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), among other ways, by:
a. failing or refusing to reasonably accommodate Greenwood's religious observances, practices, and beliefs; and
b. subjecting Greenwood to disparate treatment on the basis of his religious observances, practices, and beliefs by allowing employees who are members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations to redirect their fair share fees to nonreligious charities, but denying Greenwood the same accommodation because he is not a member and adherent of such a religion, even though he holds sincere religious objections to

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/OhioEPAcompl.htm

8/16/2007

United States v. Ohio EPA

Page 5 of 6

associating with and financially supporting OCSEA.
22. The policies and practices of State Defendants, described in paragraphs 16-21 above, constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of the rights of certain State employees to equal employment opportunities without discrimination based on religion, in violation of Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6. This pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights secured by Title VII. Unless enjoined by this Court, State Defendants will continue to pursue policies and practices that are the same as, or similar to, those alleged in this Complaint.
23. The EEOC received a timely charge filed by Greenwood against the EPA and DAS (Charge No. 221-2004-01913), in which he alleged those respondents had discriminated against him on the basis of his religion. The EEOC investigated the charge, pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, found reasonable cause to believe the allegations of discrimination were true, attempted to achieve through conciliation a voluntary resolution of the charge, and, when conciliation efforts proved unsuccessful, subsequently referred the matter to the United States Department of Justice.
24. In accordance with Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, the United States, through the Department of Justice, has investigated State Defendants' policies and practices, has notified State Defendants of the investigation and of the policies and practices described in paragraphs 16-21 above, and has attempted to resolve this matter through negotiation and settlement.
25. All conditions precedent to the filing of this suit have been satisfied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff United States prays that this Court grant the following relief:
Enjoin State Defendants (and Defendants SERB and OCSEA, as appropriate), their
officers, agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from:
a. subjecting any State employee to a policy or practice that discriminates on the basis of religion in providing religious accommodations with regard to a collective bargaining agreement's fair share fees requirement;
b. engaging in any policy or practice that denies religious accommodations to State employees who are not members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations, but who nonetheless hold sincere religious objections to associating with and financially supporting employee organizations such as OCSEA;
c. failing or refusing to provide make whole relief, including, but not limited to, redirecting to a mutually agreeable, nonreligious charity an amount equal to the fair share fees Greenwood has been required to pay OCSEA, as a result of the discrimination alleged in this Complaint; and
d. failing or refusing to provide make whole relief to any other State employees who, like Greenwood, have been denied a religious accommodation with respect to the payment of fair share fees, despite having sincere, personal religious objections to associating with and financially supporting an employee organization such as OCSEA.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/OhioEPAcompl.htm

8/16/2007

United States v. Ohio EPA

Page 6 of 6

Plaintiff United States prays for such further relief as the Court may deem just, together with its costs and disbursements in this action.
BRADLEY J. SCHLOZMAN Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
By: _________________________________ DAVID J. PALMER [D.C. Bar No. 417834] Chief, Employment Litigation Section
_________________________________
CHRISTINE ROTH [D.C. Bar No. 464815] Deputy Chief JEAN CHRISTIAN K. TSHIBAKA [D.C. Bar No. 482863] Trial Attorney Employment Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Patrick Henry Building, Fourth Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-1324 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005
GREGORY G. LOCKHART United States Attorney Southern District of Ohio
By: _________________________________ MARK D'ALESSANDRO [Ohio Bar No. 0019877] Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Ohio 303 Marconi Boulevard, Suite 200 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 469-5715 Facsimile:(614) 469-5240 Mark.DAlessandro@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff United States

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/OhioEPAcompl.htm

8/16/2007

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 7 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
GLEN GREENWOOD,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
STATE OF OHIO, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
Defendants,
and
OHIO EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, OHIO CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO,
Rule 19 Defendants.

Civil No. 2:05-cv-00799GLF-NMK
Judge Frost Magistrate Judge King

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR GREENWOOD’S COMPLAINT Glen Greenwood, through counsel, files his Intervenor’s complaint against the abovenamed Defendants and alleges: I. Nature of the Case. 1. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., to correct unlawful employment practices. Glen Greenwood has sincerely held religious
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's Complaint, page 1.

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 7 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 2 of 9
beliefs which prohibit him from joining or paying the required fees to the Rule 19 Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO (“OCSEA” or “Union”) and its affiliates. Mr. Greenwood requested an accommodation of his sincere religious beliefs from the defendants. He offered to pay his union fees to a mutually agreed-upon charity. All defendants refused to accommodate him. II. Jurisdiction:
2. This Court has jurisdiction and venue over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1343, 1345 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 2000e-5(f)(1)&(3). Plaintiff-Intervenor also seeks a declaration of his rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
3. On or about December 9, 2002, the Mr. Greenwood filed charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the OCSEA. The EEOC, on April 30, 2003, issued a Determination finding a violation of law by both the OCSEA and the Ohio State Employment Relations Board.
4. Mr. Greenwood filed additional charges with the EEOC against the State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the State of Ohio Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”) (collectively, “Employer”) on or about May 10, 2004. The EEOC, on June 30, 2004, issued a Determination finding a violation of law by both the EPA and the DAS.
5. On, August 26, 2005, the United States of America ("United States"), the original plaintiff, filed suit against the State of Ohio, EPA and DAS to correct unlawful employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Title VII). The complaint filed by the United States against the Defendants is premised upon charges filed
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's Complaint, page 2.

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 7 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 3 of 9
by Mr. Greenwood against the Employer for refusing to accommodate his sincerely held religious beliefs which prohibit him from joining or paying fees to the union. III. Original Plaintiffs:
6. Plaintiff United States is charged with, among other responsibilities, the enforcement of Title VII against state defendants. IV. Plaintiff-Intervenor:
7. Glen Greenwood is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f). Mr. Greenwood intervenes in this litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). V. Defendants:
8. Rule 19 Defendant OSCEA is a "labor organization" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(d) and (e). It is the exclusive bargaining representative of Mr. Greenwood.
9. Defendants EPA, DAS and Rule 19 Defendant SERB are all agencies of the Defendant State of Ohio. All are "employers" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (b). VI. Facts:
10. Mr. Greenwood is an employee of the State of Ohio working in the EPA. He is part of a bargaining unit represented by the OCSEA. Mr. Greenwood is obliged to join the OCSEA or pay a fee to it if he continues his employment with the EPA.
11. Mr. Greenwood is a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Lancaster, Ohio (PCUSA). He is an Elder of the Church and has been a member for more than 25 years. As a Christian, he believes that God is the Authority for his life and the Bible is the framework for his beliefs. Everything he does and believes comes from his religious faith which forms his world. view.
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's Complaint, page 3.

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 7 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 4 of 9
12. Mr. Greenwood believes that the Bible teaches that an abortion constitutes the taking of a human life and that homosexual practice is contrary to the law of God.
13. Mr. Greenwood believes that the Defendant Union and its affiliates are a unified organization, all of which receive some portion of his compulsory union fees. Mr. Greenwood understands that this unified organization takes a position in support of the pro-choice position on abortion and in favor of homosexual rights. For Mr. Greenwood to join or financially support the Defendant Union and its affiliates would be contrary to his sincerely held religious beliefs as formed by his understanding of the teachings of the Bible.
14. On June 17, 2002, Mr. Greenwood sent a letter to the Union informing it of the conflict between his religious beliefs and the requirement that he join or financially support the OCSEA and its affiliates.
15. The General Counsel of the OCSEA responded on June 26, 2002, informed him that there was a procedure for obtaining a religious accommodation, and that procedure required him to go to the Ohio State Employee Relations Board (“SERB”) to obtain a religious accommodation.
16. Mr. Greenwood followed the instructions of the Union and filed a religious accommodation request with SERB.
17. SERB denied Mr. Greenwood’s request for religious accommodation on September 19, 2002. The basis for that denial was that Mr. Greenwood’s religious beliefs about supporting the Union were based on his personal understanding of the Bible, and he could not verify that he was a member of a church with “historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization.”
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's Complaint, page 4.

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 7 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 5 of 9
18. On or about December 9, 2002, the Mr. Greenwood filed charges with the EEOC against the Union. The EEOC, on April 30, 2003, issued a Determination finding a violation of law by both the Union and SERB and invited each to enter into conciliation.
19. After a little more than a year had passed, with no agreement on his accommodation request, Mr. Greenwood retained a lawyer. On January 29, 2004, the lawyer sent a letter to the EPA, informing it of the EEOC Determination against the Union and SERB and requesting that the EPA enter into an interim accommodation by holding the deducted union fees in escrow until the issue was resolved with the Union.
20. The EPA responded on February 6, 2004, suggesting that the matter should be taken up with DAS. Mr. Greenwood’s lawyer sent a letter to the General Counsel of DAS on February 12, 2004, informing it of the EEOC Determination against the Union and SERB and requesting an interim accommodation in which Mr. Greenwood’s deducted union fees would be held in escrow until the issue was resolved with the Union.
21. On March 10, 2004, the General Counsel for DAS responded and refused to hold Mr. Greenwood’s union fees in escrow because SERB had refused to grant him a religious accommodation. The Employer’s position was that Mr. Greenwood would not be accommodated, even on an interim basis, unless SERB granted a religious exemption or the Union entered into a written agreement allowing the accommodation or a court order required an accommodation.
22. Mr. Greenwood filed EEOC charges against EPA and DAS on May 10, 2004. 23. The EEOC, on June 30, 2004, issued a Determination finding a violation of law by both the EPA and DAS.
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's Complaint, page 5.

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 7 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 6 of 9
24. Mr. Greenwood fulfilled all conditions precedent to intervening into this lawsuit. VII. Claims For Relief:
25. By the forgoing, the Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) by failing to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of Mr. Greenwood.
26. By the forgoing, and pursuant to the authority of state law, the Defendants violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by depriving Mr. Greenwood of a reasonable accommodation of his religious beliefs because he was not a member of a church with doctrines approved by the State of Ohio. VIII. Prayer For Relief:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Glen Greenwood, prays that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants State of Ohio and its agencies, EPA, DAS, their officers, successors, assigns, affiliates and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of religion against Mr. Greenwood. B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants to inform all employees of the State of Ohio that those with conscientious objections to the payment of union fees are entitled to pay those fees to a charity. C. Declare that Glen Greenwood has the right to an accommodation of his sincere religious beliefs that requires the entire Union fee collected from Mr. Greenwood (including the fees for the OCSEA’s affiliates) be redirected to a mutually agreed upon charity.
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's Complaint, page 6.

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 7 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 7 of 9
D. Declare that Ohio Revised Code § 4117.09(C) is unconstitutional as applied by SERB and the other Defendants in this case.
E. Grant a permanent injunction requiring the Defendants State of Ohio and its agencies, EPA and DAS to pay all fees collected from Mr. Greenwood since June 17, 2002, until present to a charity mutually agreed upon by the Defendants and Mr. Greenwood and enjoining Defendants from demanding or collecting any union fees from Mr. Greenwood in the future. The injunction is not intended to prohibit the Union from requiring that Mr. Greenwood provide the Union with proof that he has paid the amount of the objecting nonmember’s fee to a mutually agreed upon charity.
F. Award Mr. Greenwood his costs in this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. H. To retain jurisdiction of this action for a reasonable period after entering a final judgment to ensure that Defendants comply with the Orders of this Court and with the requirements of Title VII.
/s/ Donald C. Brey (Ohio Bar No. 0021965) Chester, Willcox & Saxbe. LLP 65 E. State Street Suite 1000 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4000 Facsimile: (614) 221-4012 dbrey@cwslaw.com Trial Attorney
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's Complaint, page 7.

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 7 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 8 of 9
/s/ Bruce N. Cameron (D.C. Bar No. 380850) c/o National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600 Springfield, Virginia 22160 Telephone: (703) 321-8510 Facsimile: (703) 321-9319 bnc@nrtw.org (Pending Local Rule 83.5(h) Motion) Attorneys for Plaintiff Glen Greenwood
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's Complaint, page 8.

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 7 Filed 09/21/2005 Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true copy of the foregoing Plaintiff-Intervenor Glen Greenwood's Complaint was
served upon the following this 21st day of September, 2005:
Mark Thomas D’Alessandro, Esq. United States Attorney’s Office 303 Marconi Blvd., 2nd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215
David J. Palmer Christine Roth Jean Christian K. Tshibaka Employment Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Fourth Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Counsel for Plaintiff, United States of America
Sandra F. Bell, Esq. OCSEA General Counsel 390 Worthington Road, Suite A Westerville, Ohio 43082 Counsel for Defendant, Ohio Civil Service Employees Assn, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO
Sloan T. Spalding, Esq. Senior Asst. Attorney General Ohio Atty. Gen. Employment Law Section 150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Counsel for Defendants State of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, and Ohio State Employment Relations Board
s/ Donald C. Brey
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's Complaint, page 9.

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00881-GCS-TPK Document 1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

OHIO CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES

)

ASSOCIATION, AFSCME,

)

LOCAL 11, AFL-CIO

)

)

Defendant,

)

)

and

)

)

STATE OF OHIO; OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL )

PROTECTION AGENCY, OHIO

)

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE

)

SERVICES and OHIO STATE EMPLOYMENT)

RELATIONS BOARD

)

)

FRCP 19(a) Defendants. )

COMPLAINT
¥\rIDGE SIWl"l"J8T

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to correct unlawful

employment practices on the basis of religion, and to provide appropriate relief to Glen A.

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GCS-TPK Document 1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 2 of 9
Greenwood and the class of similarly situated individuals. Mr. Greenwood is an employee of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. He holds sincere religious beliefs that prevent him from joining or financially supporting organizations that support or advocate policies that are contrary to his religious beliefs. Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association has violated Title VII by failing to accommodate Mr. Greenwood's religious beliefs by refusing to permit him to make alternate contributions, equal in amount to the union dues required of all other employees of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency who benefit from the collective bargaining efforts of the Defendant Union, to a mutuallyagreed charitable organization.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) and 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and -6 ("Title VII"). 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action
2

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GCS-TPK Document 1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 3 of 9
by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) and 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and -6.
4. ' At all relevant times, Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11 , AFL-CIO ("Union" or "OCSEA"), has continuously been an Ohio nonprofit incorporated association of participating employees which deals with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment, and has continuously had at least 15 members. At all relevant times, the Union has been the recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and other Ohio agencies and departments, totaling about 37,000 State of Ohio employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Union has continuously been a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701 (d) and (e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(d) and (e).
6. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("OEPA") is an agency of the State of Ohio and is a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the Defendant Union and is named as a party pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
7. The Ohio Department of Administrative Services ("ODAS") is a department of the State of Ohio and has made and continues to administer payment of Mr. Greenwood's fair share fees to Defendant Union under a collective bargaining agreement and is named as a party pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8. The State Employment Relations Board ("SERB") is an agency of the state of Ohio and is established under the Ohio Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act, Chapter 4117, Ohio Revised Code. SERB reviews public employee applications for
3

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GCS-TPK Document 1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 4 of 9
religious exemption from becoming a member of or financially supporting an employee organization such as Defendant Union and is named as a party pursuant to Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
9. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit Glen A. Greenwood
filed a charge with the Commission alleging a violation of Title VII by Defendant Union. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit under Title VII have been fulfilled.
10. Since on or about June 17, 2002, Defendant OSCEA has engaged in unlawful employment practices at co-Defendant Employer OPEA's facilities, including its Loganville, Ohio facility, in violation of Section 703(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(c). Defendant Union has failed to accommodate the sincere religious beliefs of Mr. Greenwood by refusing to permit him to make alternate contributions of his fare share fee, equal in amount to the union dues required of all other employees of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency who benefit from the collective bargaining efforts of the Defendant Union, to a mutually-agreed charitable organization.
11. Since March 1, 2000, Defendant Union has been a party to two collective bargaining agreements with the State of Ohio; the earlier agreement was effective from March 1, 2000 to February 28,2003, while the current agreement became effective on March 1, 2003 and runs through February 28, 2006.
12. Both agreements contain a provision requiring that State of Ohio employees who are subject to them, but choose not to become OCSEA members, pay OCSEA a representation service fee ("fair share feen or "feen).
4

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GCS-TPK Document 1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 5 of 9
13. Defendant Union has declared that State of Ohio employees covered by its
collective bargaining agreements, who seek a religious accommodation allowing them to
redirect their fair share fees to nonreligious charities must apply to SERB.
14. The Ohio Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act provides in part:
Any public employee who is a member of and adheres to established and traditional tenets or teachings of a bona fide religion or religious body which has historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization and which is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code shall not be required to join or financially support any employee organization as a condition of employment. Upon submission of proper proof of religious conviction to [SERB], [SERB] shall declare the employee exempt from becoming a member of or financially supporting an employee organization. The employee shall be required, in lieu of the fair share fee, to pay an amount of money equal to the fair share fee to a nonreligious charitable fund exempt from taxation under section 501 (c)(3) ofthe Internal Revenue Code mutually agreed upon by the employee and the representative of the employee organization to which the employee would otherwise be required to pay the fair share fee.
OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 4117.09(C). SERB has declared that it will not grant the religious
accommodation with respect to the payment of fair share fees provided for above to public employees who hold sincere religious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization but are not members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations.
15. Glen A. Greenwood is employed by the Ohio EPA as an Environmental Specialist III. Mr. Greenwood was subject to Ohio's 2000-2003 collective bargaining agreement with Defendant OCSEA, and currently is subject to Ohio's and OCSEA's 2003-2006 collective bargaining agreement.
16. On or about June 17, 2002, Greenwood notified OCSEA that he holds sincere religious objections to paying it his fair share fees and to associating with it. Greenwood's stated religious objections are based on his understanding that the American
5

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GCS-TPK Document 1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 6 of 9
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, a larger union with which OCSEA is affiliated, supports and promotes abortion and homosexuality. Greenwood requested that, as a religious accommodation under Title VII, OCSEA redirect his fees to a mutually agreeable charity. OCSEA failed to grant Greenwood's request, responding instead on June 26, 2002 that he should make his request to SERB and that this was the proper procedure for pursuing his claim for religious exemption from the payment of union dues.
17. On July 11, 2002, Greenwood submitted to SERB his application for a religious exemption to allow his fair share fees to be redirected from OCSEA to a nonreligious charity. On the SERB application form, Greenwood stated he was a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Lancaster, Ohio. In an attachment to the application form, Greenwood explained that while the Presbyterian Church has no historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization, Greenwood's personal religious convictions prohibit him from associating with or financially supporting an employee organization such as OCSEA.
18. SERB denied Greenwood's request for a religious exemption. In its September 27, 2002 ruling, SERB stated that Greenwood's basis for his request for a religious exemption was personal and that he had failed to file verification of his Church's historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization.
19. Defendant Union has continued to require that Greenwood pay his fair share fees to itself and has received Greenwood's fees, while, upon information and belief, other State of Ohio employees who are members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations
6

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GCS-TPK Document 1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 7 of 9
such as OCSEA are eligible for and are granted an accommodation allowing them to redirect their fees to nonreligious charities.
20. Defendant OCSEA, by itself and in concert with OEPA, ODAS and SERB, has pursued and continues to pursue policies and practices that discriminate against employees on the basis of religion, in violation of Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6 among other ways, by:
a. failing or refusing to reasonably accommodate the religious observances, practices, and beliefs of those State of Ohio employees covered by collective bargaining agreements who hold sincere religious objections to associating with and financially supporting employee organizations such as OCSEA, but who are not members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations; and
b. subjecting State of Ohio employees covered by collective bargaining agreements to disparate treatment on the basis oftheir religion by allowing employees who are members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations to redirect their fair share fees to nonreligious charities, but denying the same accommodation to employees who are not members and adherents of such religions, even if they hold sincere religious objections to associating with and financially supporting employee organizations such as OCSEA.
21. The policies and practices of Defendant Union, described in paragraphs 11-20 above, constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of the rights of certain State of Ohio employees covered by Defendant Union's collective bargaining agreements, to equal employment opportunities without discrimination based on religion, in violation of Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6. This pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the
7

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GCS-TPK Document 1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 8 of 9
full exercise of the rights secured by Title VII. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendant Union will continue to pursue policies and practices that are the same as, or similar to, those alleged in this Complaint.
22. The effect of the practice(s) complained of above has been to deprive Glen A. Greenwood and similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their religion.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Union, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of religion. B. Order Defendant Union to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals who have religious objections to membership in orfinanciallysupporting Defendant Union and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Union to accommodate the religious beliefs of Glenn A. Greenwood by providing affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices. D. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. E. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES L LEE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL Washington, D.C.
8

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GCS-TPK Document 1 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 9 of 9

GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL Washington, D.C.

~ C~YWA

(003144jf

REGIONAL ATTORNEY

LAWRENCE MAYS (003 .2 8) SUPERVISORY TRIAL AT RNEY

9

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 21 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

GLEN GREENWOOD,

:

:

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

:

:

v.

:

:

OHIO CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES’

:

ASSOCIATION, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, :

:

Defendant,

:

:

and

:

:

STATE OF OHIO, OHIO ENVIORNMENTAL :

PROTECTION AGENCY, OHIO DEPARTMENT :

OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OHIO

:

STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, :

:

Rule 19 Defendants.

:

CASE NO. 2:05-cv-00881 JUDGE SMITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP

DEFENDANT STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR GREENWOOD’S COMPLAINT

1. Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff-Intervenor Glenn Greenwood’s (“Greenwood”) complaint

calls for no response by Defendant State Employment Relations Board (“SERB”).

2. SERB admits that venue is proper in this District and Division. The remainder of

paragraph 2 consists solely of legal conclusions, and calls for no response by SERB.

3. For want of knowledge, SERB denies that on or about December 9, 2002

Greenwood filed charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”) against Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11,

1

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 21 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 2 of 6
AFL-CIO (“OCSEA”). SERB admits the remaining allegations in paragraph 3 of Greenwood’s complaint.
4. SERB admits that on September 23, 2005, EEOC filed this action. The remainder of paragraph 4 consists solely of legal conclusions, and calls for no response by SERB.
5. SERB admits the allegations in paragraph 5 of Greenwood’s complaint. 6. SERB admits the allegations in paragraph 6 of Greenwood’s complaint. 7. SERB admits the allegations in paragraph 7 of Greenwood’s complaint. 8. SERB denies that it is a proper party pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 19(a). SERB admits the remaining allegations in paragraph 8 of Greenwood’s complaint. SERB denies that it ever was or is Greenwood’s employer. 9. SERB admits that during at least parts of 2002, Greenwood was employed by Defendant Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“OEPA”) and was subject to the State of Ohio’s 2000-2003 collective bargaining agreement with OCSEA. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9 of Greenwood’s complaint. 10. SERB admits that Greenwood informed SERB that Greenwood was a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Lancaster, Ohio (“PCUSA”), and is an Elder of the church and has been a member for more than twenty-five (25) years. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 10 of Greenwood’s complaint. 11. SERB admits that Greenwood informed SERB that Greenwood objected to OCSEA’s parent’s views on abortion and homosexuality. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 11 of Greenwood’s complaint. 12. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the allegations in paragraph 12 of Greenwood’s complaint.
2

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 21 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 3 of 6
13. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of Greenwood’s complaint.
14. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the allegations in paragraph 14 of Greenwood’s complaint.
15. SERB admits that Greenwood made a filing with SERB (see paragraph 16 below). For want of knowledge, SERB denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 15 of Greenwood’s complaint.
16. On July 15, 2002, Greenwood filed with SERB an Application for a Religious Exemption, SERB Case No. 2002-RLX-07-0001 that, if granted, would have allowed Greenwood, in lieu of OCSEA’s fair share fee, to pay an amount of money equal to the fair share fee to a non-religious charitable fund exempt from taxation under § 501(C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code mutually agreed upon by Greenwood and OCSEA, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 4117.09(C). SERB admits that Greenwood stated he is a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Lancaster, Ohio. SERB admits that Greenwood stated that the Presbyterian Church has no historically held conscientious objection to its members joining or financially supporting an employee organization. SERB admits that Greenwood stated that the basis of his request was one of personal conviction concerning association with OCSEA. SERB admits that on September 19, 2002 it denied Greenwood’s Application for Religious Exemption. SERB admits that its denial stated that Greenwood submitted a letter stating that the basis for his filing was personal, and that he failed to file verification of his church’s historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization, as required pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 4117.09(C).
3

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 21 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 4 of 6
17. SERB admits that EEOC on April 30, 2003 issued a determination finding a violation of law by SERB and invited it to enter into conciliation. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 17 of Greenwood’s complaint.
18. SERB admits that EEOC’s conciliation was not successful. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 18 of Greenwood’s complaint.
19. Paragraph 19 consists solely of legal conclusions, and calls for no response by SERB.
20. SERB denies the allegations in paragraph 20 of Greenwood’s complaint. FIRST AFFIMATIVE DEFENSE
21. SERB has not been properly named as a party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22. Greenwood did not exhaust his remedies, under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4117.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23. Ohio Revised Code § 4117.09(C) does not violate any portion of the Civil Rights Act, and Ohio Revised Code § 4117.09(C) has not been invalidated, either in whole or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, since it was enacted.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24. Greenwood’s claims against SERB, if any, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or by sovereign immunity.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25. EEOC’s complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
4

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 21 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 5 of 6
WHEREFORE, Defendant State Employment Relations Board respectfully requests that the Court dismiss all of Plaintiff Glenn A. Greenwood’s claims against Defendant State Employment Relations Board, for its costs expended herein and for whatever other relief the Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted, JIM PETRO (0022096) Attorney General
/s/ Michael D. Allen MICHAEL D. ALLEN (0020693) Principal Assistant Attorney General Counsel of Record Executive Agencies Section Labor Relations Unit 30 East Broad Street, 26th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3400 (614) 644-8462 (614) 728-9470 (fax) mallen@ag.state.oh.us Counsel for Defendant State Employment Relations Board
5

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 21 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this foregoing was made via electronic mail with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the parties listed below this 14th day of November, 2005:
Donald C. Brey, Counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff Bruce N. Cameron, Counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff C. Larry Watson, Regional Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff Lawrence Mays, Supervisory Trial Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff Jeffrey A. Stern, Trial Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff Sandra F. Bell, Counsel for Defendant, OCSEA, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO Jack W. Decker, Counsel for Defendants Trial Counsel for State of Ohio, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
/s/ Michael D. Allen MICHAEL D. ALLEN Assistant Attorney General
6

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 23 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

GLEN GREENWOOD,

:

:

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

:

:

v.

:

:

OHIO CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES’

:

ASSOCIATION, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, :

:

Defendant,

:

:

and

:

:

STATE OF OHIO, OHIO ENVIORNMENTAL :

PROTECTION AGENCY, OHIO DEPARTMENT :

OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OHIO

:

STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, :

:

Rule 19 Defendants.

:

CASE NO. 2:05-cv-00881 JUDGE SMITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP

DEFENDANT STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) complaint contains an

unnumbered paragraph immediately before paragraph 1 of EEOC’s complaint. It calls for no

response from Defendant State Employment Relations Board (“SERB”).

1. Paragraph 1 of EEOC’s complaint consists solely of legal conclusions, and calls

for no response by SERB.

2. SERB admits that venue is proper in this District and Division. The remainder of

paragraph 2 consists solely of legal conclusions, and calls for no response by SERB.

1

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 23 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 2 of 7
3. SERB admits that EEOC is an agency of the United States of America, but denies that EEOC is authorized to bring this action against SERB, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), because the United States Department of Justice has already filed an action against SERB for the same alleged acts and/or omissions. The remainder of paragraph 3 consists solely of legal conclusions, and calls for no response by SERB.
4. SERB admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of EEOC’s complaint. 5. SERB admits the allegations in paragraph 5 of EEOC’s complaint. 6. SERB admits that Defendant Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“OEPA”) is an agency of the State of Ohio and is a party to a collective bargaining agreement with Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11, AFL-CIO (“OCSEA”). The remainder of paragraph 6 consists solely of legal conclusions, and calls for no response by SERB. 7. SERB admits that Defendant Ohio Department of Administrative Services (“ODAS”) is a Department of the State of Ohio. For want of knowledge, SERB denies that ODAS continues to administer payment of Plaintiff Glenn Greenwood’s (“Greenwood”) fair share fees to OCSEA under a collective bargaining agreement. The remainder of paragraph 7 consists solely of legal conclusions, and calls for no response by SERB. 8. SERB admits that it is an agency of the State of Ohio and is established under the Ohio Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act, Chapter 4117, Ohio Revised Code. SERB admits that it grants or denies public employee applications for religious exemption from becoming a member of or financially supporting an employee organization such as OCSEA, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 4117.09(C). SERB denies that it is a proper party
2

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 23 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 3 of 7
pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 19(a). The remainder of paragraph 8 consists solely of legal conclusions, and calls for no response by SERB.
9. SERB admits that more than 30 days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Greenwood filed a charge with EEOC alleging a violation of Title VII by OCSEA. The remainder of paragraph 9 consists solely of legal conclusions, and calls for no response by SERB.
10. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the allegations in paragraph 10 of EEOC’s complaint.
11. SERB admits the allegations in paragraph 11 of EEOC’s complaint. 12. SERB admits the allegations in paragraph 12 of EEOC’s complaint. 13. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs’ complaint. 14. SERB admits that paragraph 14 of EEOC’s complaint quotes, in part, Ohio Revised Code § 4117.09(C). SERB denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 14 of EEOC’s complaint. 15. SERB admits that during at least parts of 2002, Greenwood was employed by OEPA and was subject to the State of Ohio’s 2000-2003 collective bargaining agreement with OCSEA. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 15 of EEOC’s complaint. 16. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the allegations in paragraph 16 of EEOC’s complaint. 17. On July 15, 2002, Greenwood filed with SERB an Application for a Religious Exemption, SERB Case No. 2002-RLX-07-0001 that, if granted, would have allowed
3

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 23 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 4 of 7
Greenwood, in lieu of OCSEA’s fair share fee, to pay an amount of money equal to the fair share fee to a non-religious charitable fund exempt from taxation under § 501(C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code mutually agreed upon by Greenwood and OCSEA, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 4117.09(C). SERB admits that Greenwood stated he is a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Lancaster, Ohio. SERB admits that Greenwood stated that the Presbyterian Church has no historically held conscientious objection to its members joining or financially supporting an employee organization. SERB admits that Greenwood stated that the basis of his request was one of personal conviction concerning association with OCSEA.
18. SERB admits that on September 19, 2002 it denied Greenwood’s Application for Religious Exemption. SERB admits that its denial stated that Greenwood submitted a letter stating that the basis for his filing was personal, and that he failed to file verification of his church’s historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization, as required pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 4117.09(C).
19. For want of knowledge, SERB denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of EEOC’s complaint.
20. SERB denies the allegations in paragraph 20 of EEOC’s complaint. 21. Paragraph 21 consists solely of legal conclusions, and calls for no response by SERB. 22. Paragraph 22 consists solely of legal conclusions, and calls for no response by SERB.
FIRST AFFIMATIVE DEFENSE 23. SERB has not been properly named as a party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a).
4

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 23 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 5 of 7 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24. Greenwood did not exhaust his remedies, under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4117.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25. Ohio Revised Code § 4117.09(C) does not violate any portion of the Civil Rights Act, and has not been invalidated, either in whole or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, since it was enacted.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26. EEOC’s complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. WHEREFORE, Defendant State Employment Relations Board respectfully requests that the Court dismiss all of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s claims against Defendant State Employment Relations Board, for its costs expended herein and for whatever other relief the Court deems appropriate.
5

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 23 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 6 of 7
Respectfully submitted, JIM PETRO (0022096) Attorney General
/s/ Michael D. Allen MICHAEL D. ALLEN (0020693) Principal Assistant Attorney General Counsel of Record Executive Agencies Section Labor Relations Unit 30 East Broad Street, 26th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3400 (614) 644-8462 (614) 728-9470 (fax) mallen@ag.state.oh.us Counsel for Defendant State Employment Relations Board
6

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 23 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this foregoing was made via electronic mail with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the parties listed below this 15th day of November, 2005:
Donald C. Brey, Counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff Bruce N. Cameron, Counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff C. Larry Watson, Regional Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff Lawrence Mays, Supervisory Trial Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff Jeffrey A. Stern, Trial Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff Sandra F. Bell, Counsel for Defendant, OCSEA, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO Jack W. Decker, Counsel for Defendants Trial Counsel for State of Ohio, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
/s/ Michael D. Allen MICHAEL D. ALLEN Assistant Attorney General
7

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:05CV-0799

-VS-

JUDGE FROST

STATE OF OHIO; OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, et al.,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

Defendants.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Case No. C2-05-881

-VS-

JUDGE FROST

OHIO CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASS’N, LOCAL 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al.,

MAGSTRATE JUDGE KING

Defendants.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS STATE OF OHIO, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, TO COMPLAINT OF INTERVENOR GLEN GREENWOOD [Doc. 44]
For their answer to the complaint of intervenor Glen Greenwood herein (Case No. 2:05-

CV-799, Doc. 44), the defendants State of Ohio (not including the State Employment Relations

Board), the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ["OEPA"], and the Ohio Department of

Administrative Services ["ODAS"], through counsel, aver as follows:

1) The allegations of¶¶ 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 of the complaint are admitted.

2) The allegations of¶¶ 24, 25 and 26 of the complaint are denied.

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 2 of 26
3) It is admitted that Greenwood invokes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in this action, that venue and jurisdiction are proper, and that Greenwood requested an accommodation of his putative religious beliefs. The remaining allegations of ’[I’[I 1 and 2 of the complaint are denied.
4) It is admitted that the United States has filed a complaint in this action, which speaks for itself, and that the United States has certain Title VII enforcement responsibilities. It is denied that these responsibilities are appropriately exercised in this case. The remaining allegations of’[l’[l 5 and 6 of the complaint are denied.
5) It is admitted that ODAS and OEPA are agencies of the State of Ohio and an "employer" under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. SERB is admitted to be an agency of the State of Ohio. The remaining allegations of’[I 9 of the complaint are denied.
6) The allegations of ’[I’[I 11 through 13 of the complaint are denied for lack of knowledge. It is specifically denied that Greenwood’s objections are "religious" within the meaning of Title VII.
7) It is admitted that Greenwood corresponded with the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO ["OCSEA"], and filed an application to SERB seeking to redirect his fair share fee to a non-religious charity, that his application was denied, and that Greenwood corresponded with ODAS and OEPA. Greenwood’s correspondence and application, SERB’s decision, speak for themselves. The remaining allegations of’[I’[I 14 through 17 and 19 through 21 of the complaint are denied.
8) It is admitted that Greenwood filed a charge with the EEOC, and that conciliation was attempted but failed. The remaining allegations of ’[I’[I 18, 22 and 23 of the complaint are denied.

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 3 of 26
9) Any allegation in the complaint of intervenor Greenwood, not specifically and explicitly admitted herein, is denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 10) The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 11) Greenwood’s objection to the payment of fair share fees is neither bonafide nor is it religious in nature. 12) Each and every accommodation demanded by Greenwood has been unreasonable. 13) Greenwood has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to some or all of his claims. 14) Greenwood’s claims against the State of Ohio and its agencies are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or by sovereign immunity. Because of the nature of Greenwood’s claims, discovery will be necessary in order to decide the extent to which the Eleventh Amendment is a bar to this action.
CROSS-CLAIM 15) Pursuant to O.R.C. Chapter 4117, the State of Ohio has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO ["OCSEA"], effective from March 1, 2003 through February 28, 2006. A true copy of relevant provisions is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A true copy of relevant provisions of the predecessor agreement, effective from March 1, 2000 through February 28, 2003, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 16) Greenwood is, and has at all relevant times been, a member of a bargaining unit covered by the OCSEA collective bargaining agreements. Section 4.02 of each agreement requires the State to deduct and remit to OCSEA a fair share fee from the wages of all OCSEA

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 4 of 26
bargaining unit employees with more than sixty days of service who have not become members of OC SEA.
17) Section 4.04 of the OCSEA collective bargaining agreements provides: The Union agrees to indemnify and hold the Employer harmless against
any and all claims, suits, orders or judgments brought or issued against the Employer as a result of any action taken or not taken as a result of the Union under the provisions of this Article. 18) Under § 4.04 of its collective bargaining agreements with OCSEA, the State of Ohio, OEPA and ODAS are entitled to indemnification from OCSEA for any and all back fair share fees that the State remitted to OCSEA, which the State, OEPA and/or ODAS may be required to refund, or contribute to a charity, as the result of any claim brought in this action by Greenwood, and for any attorney fees and/or costs of suit the State may be required to pay as the result of any claim brought in this action by Greenwood. 19) Under a common-law theory of unjust enrichment, the State of Ohio, OEPA and ODAS are entitled to indemnification, contribution, or other payment from OCSEA for any and all back fair share fees that the State remitted to OCSEA, which the State, OEPA and/or ODAS may be required to refund, or contribute to a charity, as the result of any claim brought in this action by Greenwood, and for any attorney fees and/or costs of suit the State may be required to pay as the result of any claim brought in this action by Greenwood. In the event that fair share fees were wrongfully forwarded to OCSEA, it would violate the public policy embodied within Title VII and O.R.C. Chapter 4112 to permit OCSEA to retain the beneficial enjoyment of some or all such funds. 20) Under a common law right of contribution, the State of Ohio, OEPA and ODAS are entitled to contribution from OCSEA in the amount of any and all back fair share fees which the State remitted to OCSEA, which the State, OEPA and/or ODAS may be required to refund,

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 5 of 26
or contribute to a charity, as the result of any claim brought in this action by Greenwood, and for
any attorney fees and/or costs of suit the State may be required to pay as the result of any claim
brought in this action by Greenwood.
WHEREFORE, the defendants State of Ohio (not including the State Employment
Relations Board), OEPA and ODAS pray that the complaint of intervenor Greenwood be
dismissed at Greenwood’s cost. Only in the event the State is required to remit back fair share
fees and/or attorney fees as a result of any claim brought by Greenwood, and the State is
determined not to enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity from such claims, the State prays that
OCSEA be required to contribute to and/or to indemnify any such payments.
Respectfully submitted,
JIM PETRO The Attorney General of Ohio
/s/Jack W. Decker
JACK W. DECKER (0021285) Principal Assistant Attorney General Employment Law Section 150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor Columbus OH 43215-3167 (614) 644-7257 (telephone) (614) 752-4677 (telefax) elsreview@ag, state.oh.us (email)
Trial Counsel for State of Ohio, Ohio Dep’t Of Administrative Services, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Of Counsel:
MAHJABEEN QADIR (0079900) Assistant Attorney General Employment Law Section 150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor Columbus OH 43215-3167

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 6 of 26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This will certify that the foregoing was filed electronically on February 3, 2006. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s/Jack W. Decker JACK W. DECKER Assistant Attorney General
f:\emplaw\jack\greenwood, glen\answer USDOJ gw.doc

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006

CONTRACT
BETWEEN

THE STATE OF OHIO

AND

THE OHIO ¢ML SERVICE ASSOCIATION

AFSCME LOCAL 11 AFL-CIO

2003-2006

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 8 of 26
O 0

case

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 12 of 26

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 13 of 26

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 14 of 26

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 15 of 26

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 16 of 26 ~ ~ ~0oo, o o

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 17 of 26
CONTRACT
Between
THE STATE OF OHIO
And
AFL-CIO /
OHIO CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
AFSCME Local 11 AFL-CIO 2000-2003

Filed 02/03/2006 Page 21 of 26

Case 2:05-c,,~00799-G LF-N M K Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 23 of 26

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 24 of 26

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 25 of 26

Case 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK Document 50 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 26 of 26

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 49 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and GLEN GREENWOOD Plaintiffs,
v. STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants,

Case No. 05-CV-799 Judge Gregory L. Frost Magistrate Judge King

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and GLEN GREENWOOD,
Plaintiffs, v.
OHIO EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 05-CV-881 Judge Gregory L. Frost Magistrate Judge King

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR GREENWOOD’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Glen Greenwood, through counsel, files his Intervenor’s complaint against the above-
named Defendants in case No. 05-CV-881 and alleges: I. Nature of the Case.
1. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., to correct unlawful employment practices. Glen Greenwood has sincerely held religious beliefs which prohibit him from joining or paying the required fees to the Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO (“OCSEA” or “Union”) and its
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's First Amended Complaint, page 1.

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 49 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 2 of 9
affiliates. Mr. Greenwood requested an accommodation of his sincere religious beliefs from the defendant. He offered to pay his union fees to a mutually agreed-upon charity. The Union refused to accommodate him. After suit was filed, the Union retaliated against Mr. Greenwood by countersuing him for essentially all of his wages earned since 1978. II. Jurisdiction:
2. This Court has jurisdiction and venue over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1343, 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)&(3). Plaintiff-Intervenor also seeks a declaration of his rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
3. On or about December 9, 2002, Mr. Greenwood filed charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the OCSEA. The EEOC, on April 30, 2003, issued a Determination finding a violation of law by both the OCSEA and the Ohio State Employment Relations Board.
4. On, September 23, 2005, the EEOC, the original plaintiff, filed suit against the Union to correct unlawful employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Title VII). The complaint filed by the EEOC against the Union is premised upon charges filed by Mr. Greenwood against the Union for refusing to accommodate his sincerely held religious beliefs which prohibit him from joining or paying fees to the Union. III. Original Plaintiff:
5. Plaintiff EEOC is charged with the enforcement of Title VII. IV. Plaintiff-Intervenor:
6. Glen Greenwood is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f). Mr. Greenwood intervenes in this litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's First Amended Complaint, page 2.

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 49 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 3 of 9
V. Defendants: 7. Defendant OSCEA is a "labor organization" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
2000e(d) and (e). It is the exclusive bargaining representative of Mr. Greenwood. 8. Rule 19 Defendants Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Ohio
Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”) and Ohio State Employment Relations Board (“SERB”) are all agencies of the Rule 19 Defendant State of Ohio. All are "employers" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (b). VI. Facts:
9. Mr. Greenwood is an employee of the State of Ohio working in the EPA. He is part of a bargaining unit represented by the OCSEA. Mr. Greenwood is obliged to join the OCSEA or pay a fee to it if he continues his employment with the EPA.
10. Mr. Greenwood is a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Lancaster, Ohio (PCUSA). He is an Elder of the Church and has been a member for more than 25 years. As a Christian, he believes that God is the Authority for his life and the Bible is the framework for his beliefs. Everything he does and believes comes from his religious faith which forms his world view.
11. Mr. Greenwood believes that the Bible teaches that an abortion constitutes the taking of a human life and that homosexual practice is contrary to the law of God.
12. Mr. Greenwood believes that the Defendant Union and its affiliates are a unified organization, all of which receive some portion of his compulsory union fees. Mr. Greenwood understands that this unified organization takes a position in support of the pro-choice position on abortion and in favor of homosexual rights. For Mr. Greenwood to join or financially support
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's First Amended Complaint, page 3.

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 49 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 4 of 9
the Defendant Union and its affiliates would be contrary to his sincerely held religious beliefs as formed by his understanding of the teachings of the Bible.
13. On June 17, 2002, Mr. Greenwood sent a letter to the Union informing it of the conflict between his religious beliefs and the requirement that he join or financially support the OCSEA and its affiliates.
14. The General Counsel of the OCSEA responded on June 26, 2002, informed him that there was a procedure for obtaining a religious accommodation, and that procedure required him to go to the Ohio State Employee Relations Board to obtain a religious accommodation.
15. Mr. Greenwood followed the instructions of the Union and filed a religious accommodation request with SERB.
16. SERB denied Mr. Greenwood’s request for religious accommodation on September 19, 2002. The basis for that denial was that Mr. Greenwood’s religious beliefs about supporting the Union were based on his personal understanding of the Bible, and he could not verify that he was a member of a church with “historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization.”
17. On or about December 9, 2002, the Mr. Greenwood filed charges with the EEOC against the Union. The EEOC, on April 30, 2003, issued a Determination finding a violation of law by both the Union and SERB and invited each to enter into conciliation.
18. Conciliation failed, and the Union continues to take Mr. Greenwood’s money in violation of his sincere religious beliefs, rather than accommodate Mr. Greenwood, because he is not a member of a church with doctrines approved by the State of Ohio.
19. Mr. Greenwood fulfilled all conditions precedent to intervening into this lawsuit.
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's First Amended Complaint, page 4.

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 49 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 5 of 9
VII. Claim For Relief: First Count: Violation of Title VII 20. By the forgoing, the Defendant Union violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) by failing to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of Mr. Greenwood.
Second Count: Retaliation 21. In response to the filing of his charge before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which culminated in the filing of his original complaint against the Defendant Union, as well as the complaints in this consolidated case by the United States of America and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the Union, the Union filed a counterclaim in this case against Mr. Greenwood. 22. The Union’s counterclaim demanded that Mr. Greenwood pay an unspecified sum of money to the Union which appeared to Mr. Greenwood to be most, if not essentially all, of his lifetime earnings with the State of Ohio. 23. The Union’s counterclaim has a causal connection to Mr. Greenwood’s original complaint, and the additional litigation which his EEOC filings spawned, because the Union requested at page 3 of its counterclaim, that Mr. Greenwood also reimburse the Union for all of its costs in defending against the claims brought against it in these consolidated cases. 24. The Union’s counterclaim was not warranted by existing law, had no substantial factual basis and was used to coerce, intimidate and discriminate against Mr. Greenwood for his attempt to enforce his rights under Title VII in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. 25. On November 14, 2005, Mr. Greenwood filed retaliation charges against the Union
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's First Amended Complaint, page 5.

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 49 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 6 of 9
with the EEOC. On June 6, 2006, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter to Mr. Greenwood allowing him to file suit in federal court within 90 days on his retaliation claim. VIII. Prayer For Relief:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Glen Greenwood, prays that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Union, its officers, successors, assigns, affiliates and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of religion against Mr. Greenwood. B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Union, its officers, successors, assigns, affiliates and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from retaliating against Mr. Greenwood based on his efforts to obtain a religious accommodation under Title VII. C. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Union to inform all employees which it represents that those with conscientious objections to the payment of union fees are entitled to pay those fees to a charity. D. Declare that Glen Greenwood has the right to an accommodation of his sincere religious beliefs that requires the entire Union fee collected from Mr. Greenwood (including the fees for the OCSEA’s affiliates) be redirected to a mutually agreed upon charity. E. Declare that Ohio Revised Code § 4117.09(C) in no way limits employees rights under Title VII because, among other things, it is unconstitutional on its face and as applied by SERB and the Union in this case. F. Grant a permanent injunction requiring the Defendant Union to pay all fees collected from Mr. Greenwood since June 17, 2002, until present to a charity mutually agreed upon by the Union and Mr. Greenwood and enjoining the Union from demanding or collecting any union fees
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's First Amended Complaint, page 6.

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 49 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 7 of 9
from Mr. Greenwood in the future. The injunction is not intended to prohibit the Union from requiring that Mr. Greenwood provide the Union with proof that he has paid the amount of the objecting nonmember’s fee to a mutually agreed upon charity.
G. Award Mr. Greenwood his costs in this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. I. To retain jurisdiction of this action for a reasonable period after final judgment to ensure that the Union complies with the Orders of this Court and the requirements of Title VII.
s/ Donald C. Brey Donald C. Brey (Ohio Bar No. 0021965) Chester, Willcox & Saxbe. LLP 65 E. State Street Suite 1000 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4000 Facsimile: (614) 221-4012 dbrey@cwslaw.com Trial Attorney
s/ Bruce N. Cameron
Bruce N. Cameron (D.C. Bar No. 380850) c/o National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600 Springfield, Virginia 22160 Telephone: (703) 321-8510 Facsimile: (703) 321-9319 bnc@nrtw.org Attorneys for Plaintiff Glen Greenwood
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's First Amended Complaint, page 7.

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 49 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 8 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the filed copy of the foregoing Plaintiff-Intervenor Glen Greenwood's First Amended Complaint in case No. 05-CV-881 was made via electronic mail with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the parties listed below on the 12th day of June, 2006:
Mark Thomas D’Alessandro, Esq. United States Attorney’s Office 303 Marconi Blvd., 2nd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215
David J. Palmer William B. Fenton Jean Christian K. Tshibaka Employment Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Fourth Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Counsel for Plaintiff, United States of America
C. Larry Watson, Regional Attorney Lawrence Mays, Supervisory Trial Attorney Jeffrey A. Stern, Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cleveland District Office Tower City - Skylight Office Tower 1660 West Second Street, Suite 850 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1412 Counsel for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Sandra F. Bell, Esq. OCSEA General Counsel 390 Worthington Road, Suite A Westerville, Ohio 43082 Counsel for Rule 19 Defendant, Ohio Civil Service Employees Assn, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO
Michael D. Allen, Assistant Attorney General Ohio Attorney General: Executive Agencies Section Rhodes State Office Tower, 26th Floor
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's First Amended Complaint, page 8.

Case 2:05-cv-00881-GLF-NMK Document 49 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 9 of 9 30 East Broad Street, Columbus OH 43215 Counsel for Rule 19 Defendant Ohio State Employment Relations Board Jack W. Decker Principal Assistant Attorney General Ohio Attorney General: Employment Law Section 150 East Gray Street, 22nd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3167 Counsel for Defendants State of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services.
Bruce N. Cameron
Glen Greenwood Intervenor's First Amended Complaint, page 9.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case

No. 2:05CV-0799

-vs-

JUDGE

FROST

STATE OF OHIO; OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, et al.,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

Defendants.

* * * * * * *

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Case

No. C2-05-881

-vs-

JUDGE

FROST

OHIO CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES

MAGSTR

ASS’N, LOCAL 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al.,

ATE JUDGE KING

Defendants.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS STATE OF OHIO, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF INTERVENOR GLEN GREENWOOD

For their answer to the first am ended complaint of in tervenor Glen Greenwood herein,

the defendants State of Ohio (not including the State Employment Relations Board), the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency [“OEPA” ], and the Ohio Departm ent of Adm inistrative

Services [“ODAS”], through counsel, aver as follows:

1) The allegations of ¶¶ 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 a nd 25 of the first am ended complaint are

admitted.

1

2) The allegations of ¶¶ 19, 20, 23 and 24 of the first amended complaint are denied. 3) It is admitted that Greenwood invokes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in this action, that venue and jurisdiction ar e proper, and that Greenwood requested an accommodation of his putative religious beliefs. It is denied that the S tate of Ohio, ODAS o r OEPA, or the State Em ployment Relations Board [“SERB”], are properly na med under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). The remaining allegations of ¶¶ 1 and 2 of the first amended complaint are denied. 4) It is adm itted that the EEOC has f iled this ac tion, and its c omplaint speaks for itself. The remaining allegations of ¶ 4 of the first amended complaint are denied. 5) It is admitted that ODAS and OEPA are an “employer” under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The remaining allegations of ¶ 8 of the first amended complaint are denied. 6) The allegations of ¶¶ 10 through 12 of th e first amended complaint are denied for lack of knowledge. It is speci fically denied that Greenwoo d’s objections are “religious” within the meaning of Title VII. 7) It is adm itted that Greenwood corresponded with the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO [“OCSEA”], and filed an application to SERB seeking to redirect his fair share fee to a non-religious charity, and that his application was denied. G reenwood’s correspondence and app lication, and SERB’s decision, speak for themselves. The rem aining allegations of ¶¶ 13 through 16 of the first amended complaint are denied. 8) It is admitted that Greenwood filed a charge with the EEOC, and that conciliation was attempted but failed. The rem aining allegations of ¶¶ 17 and 18 of the fi rst amended complaint are denied.
2

9) It is adm itted that OCSEA filed a c ounterclaim in this action, which speaks for itself. The remaining allegations of ¶¶ 21 and 22 of the first amended complaint are denied.
10) Any allegation in the com plaint of intervenor Greenwood, not specifically and explicitly admitted herein, is denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 11) The first am ended complaint fails to state a claim upon wh ich relief can be granted. 12) Greenwood’s objection to the payment of fair share fees is neither bona fide nor is it religious in nature. 13) Each and every accommodation demanded by Greenwood has been unreasonable. 14) Greenwood has failed to exhaust his adm inistrative remedies as to som e or all of his claims. 15) Greenwood’s claims against the S tate of Ohio, if any, are barred by the E leventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or by sovereign immunity. WHEREFORE, the defendants State of Ohio (not including the State Em ployment Relations Board), OEPA and ODAS pray that the first am ended complaint of interveno r Greenwood be dismissed at Greenwood’s cost.
Respectfully submitted, JIM PETRO The Attorney General of Ohio /s/ Jack W. Decker JACK W. DECKER (0021285) Principal Assistant Attorney General Trial Counsel
3

/s/ Mahjabeen F. Qadir MAHJABEEN F. QADIR (0079900) Assistant Attorney General Employment Law Section 150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor Columbus OH 43215-3167 (614) 644-7257 (telephone) (614) 752-4677 (telefax) elsreview@ag.state.oh.us (email) Counsel for State of Ohio, Ohio Dep’t Of Administrative Services, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This will certify that th e foregoing was filed electronically on June 21, 2006. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s/ Jack W. Decker JACK W. DECKER Assistant Attorney General
f:\emplaw\jack\greenwood, glen\answer am EEOC gw.doc
4

 
 474 F.Supp.2d 916 (2007)
UNITED STATES of America and Glen Greenwood, Plaintiffs, v.
State of OHIO, et al., Defendants. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Glen Greenwood,
Plaintiffs, v.
Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, et al., Defendants.
Nos. 05-CV-799, 05-CV-881.
United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.
February 21, 2007.
917 *917 Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, David J. Palmer, Chief, Employment Litigation Section, William B. Fenton, Jean Christian Kanyiki Tshibaka, Sarah C. Blutter, Attorneys, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for United States of America.
Jacqueline H. McNair, Regional Attorney, Lawrence Mays, Supervisory Trial Attorney, Jeffrey A. Stern, Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cleveland, OH, for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Bruce N. Cameron, Donald, C. Brey, Chester, Willcox & Saxbe, LLP, Columbus, OH, for Glen Greenwood.
Jack W. Decker, Ohio Attorney General, Mahjabeen F. Qadir, Ohio Attorney General's Office, Columbus, OH, for State of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Ageny, and Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services.
Michael David Allen, Ohio Attorney General, Katharine Adams, Ohio Attorney General's Office, Columbus, OH, for Ohio State Employment Relations Board.
Sandra F. Bell, OCSEA General Counsel, Westerville, OH, for Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, and AFL-CIO.
OPINION & ORDER
FROST, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court for consideration of a petition for attorneys' fees (Doc. # 57) filed by PlaintiffIntervenor Glen Greenwood ("Greenwood"), a memorandum in opposition (Doc. # 64) filed by the State of Ohio, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining, and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (collectively "State Defendants"), a memorandum in opposition (Doc. # 62) filed by Ohio Civil Service Employees' Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO ("Union"), and a reply to each. (Doc. # 66, Doc. # 67.) An oral hearing was conducted on December 1, 2006.
A. Background
This is a consolidated Title VII action brought by the United States against the State Defendants and the Union as well as an action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against the Union and the State Defendants. The United States named the Union and the State Employment Relations Board ("SERB") as Rule 19 Defendants. The EEOC in its action, however, named the Union as the primary defendant and named the State Defendants as Rule 19 Defendants. Greenwood was allowed to intervene and filed an Intervenor's complaint in both suits.
918

*918 Greenwood is a member of the Union. He is a Presbyterian who claims to oppose "abortion" and "gay marriage" on religious grounds despite his Union's support of those issues. The State of Ohio has a statute, Ohio Rev.Code § 4117.09(C), that permits SERB to exempt a bargaining unit member from payment of dues or fair share fees to his union if he "is a member of and adheres to established and traditional tenants or teachings of a bona fide religion or religious body which has historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization."
Pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 4117.09(C), Greenwood asked the Union to redirect his fair share fees to a charity on June 17, 2002. See Ohio Rev.Code § 4117.09(C) (stating that [u]pon submission of proper proof of religious conviction to the board, the board shall declare the employee exempt . . . [t]he employee shall be required, in lieu of the fair share fee, to pay an amount of money equal to the fair share fee to a non-religious charitable fund . . ."). The Union directed Greenwood to apply to SERB for a statutory exemption. When determining whether to grant an exemption, SERB followed guidelines set forth in a SERB directive. Under this directive, SERB would not grant religious accommodations pursuant Ohio Rev.Code § 4117.09(C) to public employees who hold sincere religious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations, but are not members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to such support. In its September 27, 2002 ruling SERB concluded that Greenwood's basis for religious exemption was personal, and that he failed to file religious verification of his church's historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization. Consequently, SERB denied Greenwood's application.
Greenwood then filed an EEOC charge against the Union on December 9, 2002. See, e.g., New York Gaslight Club v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54, 65, 100 S.Ct. 2024, 64 L.Ed.2d 723 (1980) (stating that after proper exhaustion of state or local remedies, an employee who seeks an accommodation of his religious beliefs is required to file administrative charges with the EEOC). He also requested from the Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining ("OCB") that his fees be placed in escrow pending resolution of his dispute with the Union. OCB denied his request. Greenwood then proceeded to file an EEOC charge against the State Defendants as well. After the EEOC found merit in Greenwood's claim, neither the Union nor the State Defendants accommodated him.[1]
As a result, the United States and EEOC filed these suits alleging that the State Defendants and Union violated Title VII. Specifically, the United States and EEOC alleged that the State Defendants and the Union did not permit Greenwood to redirect his union fees to a charity, but allegedly made accommodations available to others on a discriminatory basis.
On June 23, 2006, the Union made a Fed R. Civ. P. 68 Offer of Judgment to Greenwood that he accepted on July 7, 2006 and filed with the Court on September 5, 2006. The offer provided that Greenwood's union fees that he paid after putting the Union on notice of his objection would be remitted by the Union to a mutually agreed upon charity. It further stated that Greenwood's future union fees would be sent to a charity of his choice as long as he was still represented by the Union. The offer of judgment also agreed to pay expenses, costs, and attorneys' fees 919 for time *919 directly attributable to Greenwood's pursuit of this action against the Union. Then, the State Defendants and the Union entered into a consent decree signed by this Court, which provides that Greenwood is eligible to recover attorneys' fees from the State Defendants and the Union subject to the collective upper limit of $166,600.00
In the present action, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(2), Greenwood's counsel, Bruce N, Cameron, asks this Court to award his reasonable attorney's fees and expenses totaling $123, 202.70. Greenwood's other local counsel, Donald C. Brey, asks this Court to award his reasonable attorney's fees and expenses totaling $8,972.50. Brey's request is uncontested.
B. Discussion
1. Arguments
Greenwood requests attorneys' fees and expenses on several grounds. First, he posits that 42 U.S.C. § 2000 (e)-5(k) provides for the award of attorneys' fees to the prevailing plaintiff. Second, he argues that he is entitled to attorneys' fees from the Union based upon his acceptance of the Union's offer of judgment. Moreover, he

contends that he is entitled to attorneys' fees from the Union and the State Defendants pursuant to the consent decree that they executed. As to the amount of his requested fees, Greenwood argues that his fees are reasonable and not duplicative. Rather, he contends that his hours spent were appropriate. He claims that they reflect the State Defendants' decision to make this case more complex. Allegedly, the State Defendants transformed a simple religious accommodation case into a factual battle over the sincerity of Greenwood's religious beliefs. Specifically, Greenwood references the following: (1) SERB's denial of his request for an accommodation; (2) the State Defendants' refusal to escrow Greenwood's Union fees pending resolution of the case; (3) and the State Defendants' refusal to enforce the findings of the EEOC by granting Greenwood his accommodation until they entered into a new collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with the Union.
In response, the State Defendants recognize that they are clearly liable for some attorneys' fees pursuant to the consent decree. They argue, however, that the "cap" on attorneys' fee recovery in the consent decree was not the product of negotiations regarding the reasonableness of Greenwood's fee demand. Rather, the State Defendants allegedly only entered into the consent decree so they would not be subject to infinite liability. The State Defendants object to the reasonableness of the Greenwood's requested fees on the grounds that his attorneys' fee demand is excessive. They contend that the most of the hours spent were either duplicative of the United States and EEOC's efforts and therefore wasteful or irrelevant or that they were expended for relatively routine tasks. Finally, they allege that the hours spent were disproportionate to the results obtained.
To the extent that the State Defendants are liable, however, they argue that their entire liability is subject to their right of indemnification by the Union subject to Section 4.05 of their CBA with the Union, which states that "[t]he Union agrees to indemnify and hold the Employer harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the Employer as a result of any action taken or not taken as a result of the Union under the provisions of this article." The State Defendants assert that the indemnification clause is both applicable to this situation and is valid because it does not cover the cost of the State Defendants' defenses to the litigation.
Lastly, the Union argues that is not liable because none of Greenwood's attorneys' fees are directly attributable to 920 Greenwood's pursuit of this action against *920 the Union. The Union posits that it does not have a legal duty to
grant an exemption under Ohio Rev.Code § 4117.09(C). Furthermore, the Union argues that it also did not have the independent ability to grant an exemption to Greenwood because the State of Ohio had not officially sanctioned the Presbyterian Church as a doctrinally appropriate belief that may receive an exemption. Rather, the Union contends that it fulfilled its statutory obligations by referring Greenwood to SERB when he requested an accommodation. It also argues that Greenwood should not be treated as a prevailing party, because he did not play a significant role in the litigation. Alternatively, if the Union is liable, the Union contends that the Court should reduce the attorneys' fees awarded against it to less than $10,000.
2. Issues Presented
This case presents several issues for the Court to resolve. Preliminarily, this Court will assess whether Greenwood's request for $123,202.70 in attorneys' fees and expenses is reasonable, and the degree to which the Union and the State Defendants are liable. Secondly, to the extent that the State Defendants are liable, this Court must consider whether the indemnification provision is valid as a matter of public policy. If so, the Court must then decide if it is applicable to the entire amount of the State Defendants' liability. The applicability of the indemnification provision raises several additional issues. The first additional issue is whether Ohio Rev.Code § 4117.09(C) and the former SERB directive prevent the Union or the State Defendants from accommodating a bargaining unit member if he or she is entitled to an exemption under Title VII, or did both the Union and the State Defendants have a separate duty to accommodate Greenwood under Title VII. Second, if the Court determines that both the Union and the State Defendants had independent duties despite the Ohio statute and SERB directives, the Court must decide whether the indemnification provision is inapplicable to the portion of the attorneys' fees accrued because of the State Defendants' decision to first deny Greenwood's accommodation request and then the later refusal to comply with the EEOC's determination.
3. Reasonableness of Attorneys' Fees

Title VII provides Greenwood with a statutory right to intervene in the litigation, which he started before the EEOC. In light of the offer of judgment, the consent decree, and the relief Greenwood obtained, the Court finds that Greenwood is the prevailing party. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.2000e-5(k), Greenwood, as the prevailing party, is entitled to attorneys' fees.
This Court next turns to the issue of whether Greenwood's requested award of $123,202.70 in attorneys' fees and expenses is reasonable. To aid in this determination, the Court looks to precedent involving fee applications. Such precedent indicates that Greenwood bears the burden of proving that the requested monies are reasonable. Reed v. Rhodes, 179 F.3d 453, 472 (6th Cir.1999). A reasonable fee is one that attracts competent counsel while avoiding a windfall to counsel. Id. at 472. In determining what is reasonable, the general approach is to "first determine the lodestar amount by multiplying the reasonable number of hours billed by a reasonable billing rate." That amount can then be adjusted based on a twelve-factor test used for assisting in the 921 determination of the reasonableness of an application for attorney's fees.[2]Id. at 471-72 n. 3 (adopting *921 factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974)). These factors include:
(1) the time and labor required by a given case; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented;. (3) the skill needed to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the "undesirability" of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.
Id. at 472. There is a "strong presumption that the lodestar represents the reasonable fee." City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 562, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992).
Guided by the foregoing analytic framework, the Court should first calculate the lodestar, amount. Although the United States Supreme Court has recognized that oftentimes the traditional twelve factors "are usually subsumed with the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate," the Court should then address the relevant factors after the lodestar analysis. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, at 430 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)
Plaintiffs have the burden of "documenting the number of hours spent on the case and of maintaining records in a way that would allow a court to determine how much time was spent on each claim." Moore, 355 F.3d at 566. In discussing the amount of detail necessary in documentation submitted to a court, the Sixth Circuit has held that "the documentation offered in support of the hours charged must be of sufficient detail and probative value to enable the court to determine with a high degree of certainty that such hours were actually and reasonably expended in the prosecution of the litigation." United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, et al., v. G & M Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc., 732 F.2d 495, 502 n. 2. (6th Cir.1984). The Court may reduce the award when the submitted documentation is inadequate. Reed, 179 F.3d at 472. In reviewing the submitted billing statements, the Court is neither in the business of nor interested in second-guessing or micro-managing any firm's business practices.
Here, the Court has reviewed the billing entries and has discerned that they contain sufficient detail, when read in context, to enable the Court to determine that counsel reasonably spent his time in pursuit of his client's interests. (Doc. # 57-3.)
As a general matter, the Sixth Circuit has recognized that one issue that arises regarding the reasonableness of hours billed is "whether the lawyer . . . unnecessarily duplicat[ed] the work of co-counsel." Coulter v. State of Tennessee, 805 F.2d 146, 151 (6th Cir.1986). The appellate court has held that a district court has the discretion to make a simple across-the-board reduction, by a certain percentage, in order to account for duplicative hours. Hudson v. Reno, 130 F.3d 1193, 1209 (6th Cir.1997) (applying across-the-board reduction of 25%), overruled on other grounds, Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 532 U.S. 843, 121 S.Ct. 1946, 150 L.Ed.2d 62 (2001). 922 In this case, the Court finds that an across the board reduction is not warranted because the time *922 spent by

Greenwood's counsel on each task was reasonable, appropriate and not necessarily duplicative of the efforts of the United States and EEOC.
Specifically, the Court rejects the State Defendants' argument that counsel's work was excessive given the straightforward nature of the claim. Rather, this Court is convinced by counsel's contention that the hours accrued were reasonable due to the fact that the State Defendants curiously prolonged the litigation. This Court first notes that the State Defendants denied Greenwood's request for an accommodation and refused to escrow his funds pending resolution of the case. More significantly, this Court is troubled by the fact that they refused to initially comply with the EEOC's determination that Greenwood had been wrongly denied a religious accommodation in violation of Title VII.[3] Its decision was implicitly predicated on its finding that Greenwood held a sincere religious belief that was entitled to an accommodation. Rather than litigating the narrow issue that had been determined by the EEOC, the State Defendants chose to inject into the litigation that they doubted the sincerity of Greenwood's religious beliefs.
The Court has also considered the amount involved and the results obtained. Indeed, according to Hensley, the single most important factor regarding the reasonableness of fees is the result that is obtained. Id., 461 U.S. at 434-36, 103 S.Ct. 1933. Under Hensley, if counsel obtained excellent results, the Court should award the full fee request. Id. at 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933. In contrast, partial victory cases occur "where plaintiff is deemed prevailing even though he succeeded on only some of his claims for relief." Id. at 439, 103 S.Ct. 1933. In partial victory situations, the Court may reduce the fee award. Id. "A reduced fee award is appropriate if the relief, however significant, is limited in comparison to the scope of the litigation as a whole." Id. Stated simply, a party who partially prevails is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees commensurate to that party's success. Krichinsky v. Knox County Schools, 963 F.2d 847, 850 (6th Cir.1992).
In this case, Greenwood obtained the exact results that he sought to achieve. The Court acknowledges that the Union made Greenwood an offer of judgment, which he accepted. The offer of judgment provided that Greenwood's union fees, which he paid after placing the Union on notice of his objection, would be remitted by the Union to a mutually agreed upon charity. It further stated that Greenwood's future union fees would be sent to a charity of his choice as long as he was still represented by the Union. The offer of judgment also agreed to pay expenses, costs, and attorneys' fees for time directly attributable to Greenwood's pursuit of this action against the Union.
Moreover, the State Defendants and the Union entered into a consent decree signed by this Court that provides that Greenwood is eligible to recover attorneys' fees from the State Defendants and the Union subject to the collective upper limit of $166,600.00. This Court also seriously considers the fact that as a result of this litigation, the State Defendants entered into a new state-wide provision with the Union and its other collective bargaining partners in which they agreed to exercise their best efforts to incorporate the new accommodation procedures in all its collective bargaining agreements. Consequently, the provision now enables all those who can prove that 923 they have sincere religious *923 objections to joining or supporting an employee organization to be able to claim that they are entitled to an accommodation regardless of their denominational preference. This was not, therefore, a partial victory of relief for Greenwood. Rather, this Court finds that Greenwood obtained excellent results in light of the relief sought as manifested by the offer of judgment, the consent decree, and the new statewide bargaining provisions.
This Court concludes that Greenwood's request $123, 202.70 in attorneys' fees and expenses is reasonable.
4. Allocation of Liability
This Court must now consider whether the attorneys' fees should be allocated to both Union and the State Defendants. The Union argues that is not liable because none of Greenwood's attorneys' fees are directly attributable to Greenwood's pursuit of this action against the Union. This Court finds that the Union forfeited its argument that it is, not liable. First, the Union acknowledged its liability when it made an offer of judgment to Greenwood. Second, it entered into a consent decree with Greenwood.
As for the liability of the State Defendants, they recognize that they are clearly liable for some attorneys' fees pursuant to the consent decree. They acknowledge that "[i]ndeed, the defendants would be hard-pressed to deny

Greenwood's entitlement to some attorney fees in light of their agreement, and the Court's order, that Greenwood shall be eligible to recover from the State and OSCEA reasonable costs and attorneys' fees."
Thus, this Court finds that 0907 both the State Defendants and the Union are liable for a portion of attorneys' fees directly attributable to each of them. To the extent that the State Defendants are liable, however, the State Defendants argue that their entire liability is subject to their right of indemnification by the Union pursuant to Section 4.05 of its CBA with the Union, which states that "[t]he Union agrees to indemnify and hold the Employer harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the Employer as a result of any action taken or not taken as a result of the Union under the provisions of this article." Therefore, this Court must now consider whether the indemnification provision is valid as a matter of public policy.
An indemnification provision that insulates an employer from virtually all consequences of non-compliance with Title VII or other federal constitutional or statutory duties, including its own costs of defenses and expenses of compliance as a result of litigation, is void as matter of public policy. Weaver v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 970 F.2d 1523 (6th Cir.1992). In Weaver, the indemnification clause in a collective bargaining agreement was held to be void as a matter of public policy. Weaver, 970 F.2d at 1528. The Sixth Circuit couched its reasoning in the fact that the indemnification clause relieved the employer of all consequences of its non-compliance of its duties including the reasonable costs and expenses of defending legal actions. The Sixth Circuit distinguished Weaver from a Third Circuit decision, Hohe v. Casey, 956 F.2d 399 (3d Cir.1992) (holding that the indemnification provision is valid as matter of public policy challenge because it did not indemnify the employer against the costs and expenses of defending legal actions against it). Implicit in the Sixth Circuit's decision in Weaver to strike down the indemnification provision is that the Sixth Circuit would have upheld it if it had not contained language indemnifying the employer for the costs of its defenses.
924 Like the indemnification provision in Hohe, Section 4.04 of the CBA between *924 the Union and the State Defendants does not indemnify the State Defendants for any costs or expenses in defense of litigation against it because of the Union's actions or inactions. Thus, because the indemnification clause does not shift the entire burden of Title VII compliance from the State Defendants to the Union, the State Defendants still have an incentive to comply with their Title VII duties. As a result, this Court finds that the indemnification provision in the CBA between the Union and State Defendants is valid as a matter of public policy.
This finding leads the Court to next decide to what extent the indemnification provision is applicable here. Section 4.05 of the CBA states "[t]he Union agrees to indemnify and hold the Employer harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the Employer as a result of any action taken or not taken as a result of the Union under the provisions of this article." Contrary to the State Defendants' assertion, it is clear from the language of the provision that their right to indemnification by the Union is contingent on the fact that the Union brought about the litigation against the State Defendants. The Court finds that the indemnification provision, therefore, does not apply to the extent that the State Defendants' brought about their own liability.
Not withstanding the SERB directive and Ohio Rev.Code § 4117.09(C), the next issue is whether the State Defendants and/or the Union had a duty to accommodate Greenwood under Title VII. Under the SERB directive, pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 4117.09(C), the State would not grant religious accommodations to public employees who hold sincere religious objections to joining or financially supporting employee organizations, but are not members and adherents of religions that historically have held conscientious objections to such support. The State Defendants contend "that nothing in this statute prevented OCSEA from accommodating bargaining unit members whose beliefs systems did not fall within the statute's narrow terms, yet were entitled to a religious accommodation under Title VII." (Doc. # 64 at 3,4.)
In contrast to the statute and directive, Title VII is broader as it protects, "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as the belief" regardless of membership in a religion, body or sect. 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)(j); see Wilson v. National Labor Relations Board, 920 F.2d 1282 (6th Cir.1990) (holding that the religious objector provision of the NLRA violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment[4]). Title VII is an independent and separate source of rights. See International Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Lodge 751 v. Boeing Company, 833 F.2d 165 (9th Cir.1987). According to the Supreme Court, "the legislative history of Title VII manifests a congressional intent to allow an individual to pursue independently his rights under both Title VII and

other applicable state and federal statutes. The clear inference is that Title VII was designed to supplement, rather than supplant, existing laws and institutions relating to employment discrimination." International Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Lodge 751, 833 F.2d at 169-170 (quoting Alexander v. Gardner 0907 Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 48-49, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974)). Moreover, in cases brought under Title VII, the Sixth 925 Circuit has held that *925 the duty to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs extends to unions as well as employers. See, e.g., Wilson v. National Labor Relations Board, 920 F.2d at 1286.
Thus, this Court rejects the. Union's contention that it did not have the legal duty or ability to grant Greenwood a religious exemption pursuant to his rights under Title VII. This Court finds that Ohio Rev. Code § 4117.09(C) did not abrogate the Union's duty to comply with Title VII. The Union did have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to accommodate Greenwood's religious beliefs.
Moreover, this Court finds that the State Defendants' also brought about their own liability. First, they wrongly denied Greenwood's initial application for an exemption based solely on Ohio Rev.Code § 4117.09(C) as if it also precluded the State Defendants from granting an accommodation pursuant to Title VII. Second, they initially failed to comply with the EEOC's determination that Greenwood was not entitled to an accommodation.
C. Conclusion
In conclusion, this Court finds that both the .Union and the State Defendants are culpable. The State Defendants' do not have the right to be indemnified by the Union for the portion of the attorneys' fees that Greenwood accrued as a result of the State Defendants' inaction or action in this case. It impossible for this Court to determine what portion of Greenwood's attorneys' fees are attributable to his litigation against the State Defendants and the Union, respectively. Therefore, in light of principles of equity, this Court ORDERS Greenwood's request for $123,202.70 in attorneys' fees be divided evenly between the State Defendants and the Union. Each party is liable for $61,601.35 in attorneys' fees to be paid to Greenwood. This Court also ORDERS that Greenwood's request for $8,972.50 in attorneys' fees be divided evenly between the State Defendants and the Union. Each party, therefore, is liable for a total amount of $66,087.60 in attorneys' fees.
Thus, this Court GRANTS Greenwood's petition for attorneys' fees. (Doc. # 57.) The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[1] This Court will later address whether the Union and/or the State Defendants had the duty and/or the ability to accommodate Greenwood.
[2] Although the relied-upon Johnson case has been abrogated, its twelve-factor test remains good law. Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 93, 109 S.Ct. 939, 103 L.Ed.2d 67 (1989) ("Johnson's `list of 12' thus provides a useful catalog of the many factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of an award of attorney's fees").
[3] The State Defendants later entered into a state-wide contract provision with the Union on this subject and agreed to exercise its "best efforts" to incorporate the new accommodation procedures into its collective bargaining agreements.
[4] This Court notes that § 19 of the National Labor Relations Act contained language that is virtually identical to the Ohio Rev.Code § 4117.09(C). Neither party in the case, however, has challenged the constitutionally of Ohio Rev.Code § 4117.09(C).
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Columbus) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-00799-GLF-NMK

United States of America v. State Of Ohio et al Assigned to: Gregory L Frost Referred to: Norah McCann King Case in other court: USCA 6th Circuit, 07-03366 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 08/26/2005 Date Terminated: 09/05/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff United States of America

represented by Mark Thomas D'Alessandro United States Attorney's Office - 2 303 Marconi Boulevard 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614-469-5715 Email: mark.dalessandro@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Roth Employment Litigation Section U.S. Department of Justice Patrick Henry Building, Room 4615 601 D Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20004 202-514-2375 Fax: 202-514-1105 Email: christine.roth@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/13/2006

Jean Christian Tshibaka Employment Litigation Section, CRD U.S. Department of Justice Room 4029 Patrick Henry Building 601 D Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20004 202-305-1324

Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood

Fax: 202-514-1005 Email: niki.tshibaka@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah C. Blutter U.S. Department of Justice Employment Litigation Section Patrick Henry Building 601 D Street, N.W, Room 4017 Washington, DC 20004 Email: sarah.blutter@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B Fenton Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litagation Section P.O. Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202-514-6269 Email: william.b.fenton@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald Carl Brey Chester Willcox & Saxbe - 2 65 E State Street Suite 1000 Columbus, OH 43215-4213 614-221-4000 Email: dbrey@cwslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce N Cameron National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation 8001 Braddock Road Springfield, VA 22160 703-321-8510 Fax: 703-321-9319 Email: bnc@nrtw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant State Of Ohio

represented by Jack Wilson Decker Ohio Attorney General - 2 150 E Gay Street 22nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215-3167 614-644-7257 Fax: (614) 644-7253 Email: elsreview@ag.state.oh.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir Ohio Attorney General's Office 150 East Gay Street 22nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614-644-7257 Fax: 614-752-4677 Email: elsreview@ag.state.oh.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ohio Department of Administrative Services

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ohio State Employment Relations Board

represented by Michael David Allen Ohio Attorney General Charitable Organizations Section 150 East Gay Street 23rd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614-466-3180 Fax: 614-466-9788 Email: mallen@ag.state.oh.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Adams Ohio Attorney General's Office 30 East Broad Street 26th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614-644-8462 Email: kadams@ag.state.oh.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO

represented by Sandra Faye Bell OCSEA General Counsel 390 Worthington Road Suite A Westerville, OH 43082 614-865-4720 Fax: 614-865-2688 Email: sbell@ocsea.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Melle Buckley King & Bluso - 2 10 W Broad Street Suite 1300 Columbus, OH 43215 614-461-5600 Email: melle@bucklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant State Of Ohio

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
Ohio Department of Administrative Services

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Cross Defendant
Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO

represented by Sandra Faye Bell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Melle Buckley King & Bluso - 2 One Columbus 10 W Broad Street

Suite 1300 Columbus, OH 43215 614-461-5600 Email: melle@bucklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
Ohio Department of Administrative Services

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Cross Defendant
Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO

represented by Sandra Faye Bell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Melle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Claimant United States of America

represented by Mark Thomas D'Alessandro (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Roth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/13/2006
Jean Christian Tshibaka (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah C. Blutter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B Fenton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Claimant State Of Ohio

represented by Jack Wilson Decker Ohio Attorney General - 2 Employment Law Section 150 E Gay Street 22nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215-3167 614-644-7257 Fax: (614) 644-7253 Email: elsreview@ag.state.oh.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Claimant
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Claimant
Ohio Department of Administrative Services

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Claimant
Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO

represented by Sandra Faye Bell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Melle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Claimant
Ohio State Employment Relations Board

represented by Michael David Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Adams Ohio Attorney General's Office Executive Agencies 30 East Broad Street 26th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614-644-8462 Email: kadams@ag.state.oh.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Counter Defendant

Glen Greenwood

represented by Donald Carl Brey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce N Cameron (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant State Of Ohio

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
Ohio Department of Administrative Services

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mahjabeen F Qadir (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
Ohio State Employment Relations Board

represented by Jack Wilson Decker (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Adams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Cross Defendant
Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO

represented by Sandra Faye Bell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Melle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/26/2005
09/09/2005 09/09/2005 09/14/2005
09/19/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff United States of America against Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio State Employment Relations Board & Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFLCIO.(er ) (Entered: 08/26/2005)

2 MOTION for Leave for Sandra F. Bell to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. (er ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)

Filing fee for phv for Bell: $ 50, receipt number 200248182. (er ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)

3 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave for Sandra F. Bell to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. Signed by Judge Norah McCann King on 9/14/05. (er ) . (Entered: 09/15/2005)

4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO waiver sent on 8/26/2005, answer due 10/25/2005. (er ) (Entered:

09/21/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005
09/21/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/23/2005
09/29/2005
09/30/2005

09/20/2005)
5 MOTION to Intervene of Glen Greenwood. (Brey, Donald) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
7 TENDERED INTERVENOR COMPLAINT against all defendants submitted by Intervenor Glen Greenwood (Brey, Donald) . (Entered: 09/21/2005)
8 MOTION for Limited Admission of Attorney Bruce N. Cameron, pro hac vice, by Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DC Court of Appeals Certificate of Good Standing)(Brey, Donald) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
6 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 5 MOTION to Intervene of Glen Greenwood filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood. (jdm, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Notice of Correction re:6 Affidavit in Support of Motion originally docketed as a motion to intervene. Corrected to read affidavit in support of motion to intervene. (jdm, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Filing fee for attorney Bruce Cameron $ 50.00, receipt number 248329 for phv motion. (rew ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
9 ORDER granting 8 Motion for Limited Admission of Bruce N. Cameron, on behalf of intervenor pltf Glen Greenwood. Signed by Judge Norah McCann King on 9/22/05. Signed by Judge Norah McCann King on 9/22/05. (er ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Ohio State Employment Relations Board waiver sent on 8/26/2005, answer due 10/25/2005. (er ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: State Of Ohio waiver sent on 8/26/2005, answer due 10/25/2005; Ohio Environmental Protection Agency waiver sent on 8/26/2005, answer due 10/25/2005; Ohio Department of Administrative Services waiver sent on 8/26/2005, answer due 10/25/2005. (er ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for attorneys Christine Roth and Jean Christian Kanyiki Tshibaka filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Cert of Good Standing Roth# 2 Exhibit 2 - Cert of Good Standing Tshibaka)(D'Alessandro, Mark) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
13 ORDER granting 12 Motion for Christine Roth & Jean

10/07/2005 10/11/2005 10/12/2005 10/21/2005
10/21/2005
10/21/2005

Tshibaka Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of the Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Norah McCann King on 09/30/2005. (mvl ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael David Allen Defendant Ohio State Employment Relations Board (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
15 ORDER re 14 Notice of Appearance: Document is unsigned and is therefore ORDERED STRICKEN from the record. Counsel for the defendant is DIRECTED to file a properly executed notice of appearance. Signed by Judge Norah McCann King on 10/11/05. (er ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
16 CORRECTED NOTICE of Appearance by Michael David Allen Defendant Ohio State Employment Relations Board (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
17 ANSWER to Complaint, CROSSCLAIM against Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO by Defendants Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Decker, Jack) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
18 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio State Employment Relations Board. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Complaint (799)# 2 Exhibit B - P/I Greenwood's Complaint ((799)# 3 Exhibit C EEOC Complaint (881)# 4 Exhibit D - P/I Greenwood Complaint (881))(Decker, Jack) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
19 OCSEA ANSWER to Complaint of Glen Greenwood, First COUNTERCLAIM of OCSEA against Glen Greenwood by Intervenor Plaintiffs Glen Greenwood, Glen Greenwood, Plaintiff United States of America, Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio State Employment Relations Board, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Cross Claimants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Cross Defendants Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO.(Bell, Sandra)

10/21/2005
10/24/2005 10/24/2005 10/25/2005 10/26/2005 10/28/2005 11/08/2005

(Entered: 10/21/2005)
20 First COUNTERCLAIM of OCSEA against Glen Greenwood, filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Glen Greenwood, Glen Greenwood, Plaintiff United States of America, Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio State Employment Relations Board, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Cross Claimants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Cross Defendants Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Counter Claimants Glen Greenwood, United States of America, State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Ohio State Employment Relations Board, Counter Defendant Glen Greenwood.(Bell, Sandra) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
21 NOTICE of Hearing: Pretrial Conference set for 12/7/2005 @ 02:15 PM in chambers before Norah McCann King. Gregory L Frost. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(jdm, ) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
22 ANSWER to Complaint by Defendant Ohio State Employment Relations Board.(Allen, Michael) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
23 ANSWER to Complaint by Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO.(Bell, Sandra) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
24 ORDER re 18 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by State Of Ohio,, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services & Ohio State Employment Relations Board; Non-oral hearing on said motion set for 12/9/2005. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 10/26/05. (sem, ) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
25 Plaintiff-Intervenor's ANSWER to Counterclaim of Ohio Civil Service Employees' Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO by Counter Defendant Glen Greenwood.(Cameron, Bruce) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
26 Consent to Joint Motion to Consolidate Case with C2-05-881 filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood. (Cameron, Bruce) (Entered: 11/08/2005)

11/09/2005 11/15/2005
11/22/2005 12/02/2005
12/05/2005 12/05/2005 12/06/2005
12/06/2005 12/07/2005 12/07/2005

27 RESPONSE to Motion re 18 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Tshibaka, Jean) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
28 REPLY to Response to Motion re 18 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio State Employment Relations Board. (Decker, Jack) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
29 RULE 26(f) REPORT filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A# 2 Certificate of Service)(Tshibaka, Jean) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
30 MOTION for Sanctions against Rule 19 Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees' Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO by Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood. (Attachments: # 1 Supporting Memorandum# 2 Affidavit Greenwood's Declaration# 3 Affidavit Cameron Declaration)(Cameron, Bruce) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
31 NOTICE of Hearing: The preliminary pretrial conference set for 12/7/2005 @ 2:15 pm has been vacated. The pretrial conference will be reset after resolution of the motion to consolidate in 2:05-cv-881. Gregory L Frost. (jdm, ) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
32 ORDER granting 18 Motion to Consolidate Case with C2-05881 . Signed by Judges Gregory L Frost and George C Smith on 12/5/05. (sem, ) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
33 ORDER re 30 MOTION for Sanctions against Rule 19 Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees' Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO filed by Glen Greenwood; Non-oral hearing on said motion set for 1/23/2006. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 12/6/05. (sem, ) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
34 NOTICE of Hearing: Pretrial Conference set for 2/22/2006 @ 02:15 PM in chambers before Norah McCann King. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(jm1, ) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
35 MOTION to Dismiss Compulsory Counterclaim by Counter Claimant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. Responses due by 1/2/2006 (Bell, Sandra) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
36 RESPONSE to Motion re 30 MOTION for Sanctions against Rule 19 Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees' Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO Memorandum Contra filed by Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association,

12/08/2005 12/08/2005 12/09/2005
12/14/2005
12/14/2005 01/13/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/18/2006

AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. (Bell, Sandra) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
37 ORDER re 35 MOTION to Dismiss Compulsory Counterclaim filed by Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO; Non-oral hearing on said motion set for 1/23/2006. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 12/8/05. (sem, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
38 ORDER that all future filings shall be filed in C2-05-799 & C205-881. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 12/8/05. (sem, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
39 RESPONSE to Motion re 30 MOTION for Sanctions against Rule 19 Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees' Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO filed by Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services. (Decker, Jack) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
40 REPLY to Response to Motion re 30 MOTION for Sanctions against Rule 19 Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees' Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Second Declaration of Bruce N. Cameron Supporting Rule 11 Motion)(Cameron, Bruce) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
41 RESPONSE in Support re 35 MOTION to Dismiss Compulsory Counterclaim of Ohio Civil Service Employees' Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO filed by Counter Defendant Glen Greenwood. (Cameron, Bruce) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
42 NOTICE by Plaintiff United States of America of Substitution of William Fenton as counsel (Tshibaka, Jean) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
43 ORDER granting # 5 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Norah McCann King on 1/17/06. (rew) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
44 Complaint of Intervenor , filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood, Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO.(rew ) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
45 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice William B. Fenton by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Certificate of Good Standing)(D'Alessandro, Mark) (Entered: 01/18/2006)

01/19/2006 01/27/2006 02/02/2006 02/03/2006 02/03/2006
02/06/2006 02/22/2006

46 ORDER granting 45 Motion for Leave for William B. Fenton to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of plaintiff United States of America. Signed by Judge Norah McCann King on 1/19/06. (er ) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
47 Witness List by Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. (Bell, Sandra) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
48 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting for No. 05-799 & No. 05-881. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement "Attachment A" to Amended Report)(Tshibaka, Jean) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
49 NOTICE by Defendant Ohio State Employment Relations Board re 44 Intervenor Complaint, (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
50 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint, CROSSCLAIM against Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO by Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio State Employment Relations Board, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Cross Defendants Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Counter Claimant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO.(Decker, Jack) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
51 NOTICE of withdraw from the case effective 5/12/06 by plaintiffs co counsel Christine Roth U.S. Department of Justice.(rew ) Modified on 2/8/2006 to correct docket entry. (rew) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
52 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL ORDER: Joinder of Parties & Motions to Amend due by 6/9/2006. Primary Expert due by 8/25/2006. Rebuttal Expert due by 10/11/2006. Discovery due by 1/18/2007. Motions for summary judgment, including motions addressing jurisdictional issues, due by 3/1/2007. Settlement Week set for 12/2006. Final Pretrial Conference ready by 6/1/2007. Motion to dismiss the counterclaim with prejudice, doc 35, is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Norah McCann King on 2/22/06. (er ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)

03/02/2006
03/02/2006 03/02/2006 03/08/2006 03/08/2006 03/10/2006 03/28/2006 06/08/2006 06/09/2006 06/12/2006 06/21/2006

53 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 1/18/2007. Dispositive Motions due by 3/1/2007. Court Trial set for 8/20/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4 before Gregory L Frost. Non-oral hearing on said motions set for 4/27/2007 08:00 AM before Gregory L Frost. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/11/2007 12:00 PM in chambers before Gregory L Frost. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 3/2/06. (sem, ) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
54 NOTICE of Final Pretrial and Trial (sem, ) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
55 NOTICE of Appearance by Jean Christian Tshibaka for Plaintiff United States of America (Tshibaka, Jean) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
56 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for attorney Sarah C. Blutter filed by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Certificate of Good Standing)(D'Alessandro, Mark) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
57 NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER regarding party Ohio Civil Service Employees Association . Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 3/8/06. (sem, ) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
58 ORDER granting 56 Motion for Leave for Sarah C. Blutter to Appear Pro Hac Vice obo plaintiff United States of America. Signed by Judge Norah McCann King on 3/9/06. (er ) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
59 ORDER denying 30 Plaintiff-Intervenor Greenwood's Motion for Sanctions . Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 3/28/06. (sem, ) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
60 MOTION to Amend Intervenor's Complaint by Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood. (Attachments: # 1 Supporting Memorandum# 2 First Amended Complaint in 05-CV881)(Cameron, Bruce) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
61 ORDER granting 60 Intervenor's Motion to Amend the complaint in case no 2:05-cv-881. Signed by Judge Norah McCann King on 6/9/06. (er ) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
62 NOTICE by Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood re 61 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Noting Filing Copy of Amended Intervenor's Complaint in 05-881 (Cameron, Bruce) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
63 ANSWER to Complaint (First Amended Complaint) by

06/21/2006 06/29/2006 09/01/2006
09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006
09/12/2006

Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio State Employment Relations Board, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO.(Decker, Jack) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
64 Answer filed by Defendant Ohio State Employment Relations Board (Allen, Michael) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
65 NOTICE of Appearance by Katharine Adams Defendant Ohio State Employment Relations Board (Adams, Katharine) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
66 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment filed on behalf of all parties by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Consent Decree)(Tshibaka, Jean) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
67 ORDER granting 66 Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment . Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 9/5/06. (sem1, ) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
68 CONSENT DECREE signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 9/5/06. (sem1, ) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
69 NOTICE of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment by Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood (Attachments: # 1 OCSEA Rule 68 Offer of Judgment# 2 Certificate of Service)(Cameron, Bruce) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
70 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time, new date requested 10/6/2006, filed To File Application for Attorney Fees by Unknown Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cross Claimants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio State Employment Relations Board, State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Cross Defendants Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood, Plaintiff United States of America, Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio State Employment Relations Board, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO,

09/13/2006 10/05/2006 10/06/2006
10/11/2006
10/12/2006 10/19/2006 10/30/2006

Counter Claimants United States of America, State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, Ohio State Employment Relations Board, Counter Defendant Glen Greenwood. (Decker, Jack) Modified on 9/13/2006 (sem1, ). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
71 ORDER granting 70 Motion for Extension of Time, until 10/6/06, to file Application for Attorney Fees . Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 9/13/06. (sem1, ) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
72 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood. (Attachments: # 1 Supporting Memorandum# 2 Affidavit Cameron affidavit# 3 Affidavit Brey Declaration# 4 Affidavit Todd Declaration# 5 Affidavit Dixon Affidavit)(Cameron, Bruce) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
73 ORDER re 72 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Glen Greenwood; Memorandum in Opposition to said motion shal be filed by 10/30/06; Reply shall be filed by 11/13/06; In-Court Hearing on said motion set for 12/1/2006 01:00 PM in Courtroom 4 before Gregory L Frost. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 10/6/06. (sem1, ) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
74 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response, New date requested 11/3/2006, to Petition for Attorney Fees by Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio State Employment Relations Board, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. (Decker, Jack) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
75 ORDER granting Motion for extension of time to respond to petition for attorney fees 74. Memorandum in opposition due 11/3/06; Reply due 11/17/06; Oral hearing remains scheduled for 12/1/06 AT 1:00 P.M.. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 10/12/06. (ksh, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
76 NOTICE by Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO of Appearance of Co-Counsel Andy Douglas (Bell, Sandra) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
77 RESPONSE in Opposition re 72 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Intervenor/Plaintiff Greenwood filed by Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. (Bell, Sandra) (Entered: 10/30/2006)

10/30/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006
11/06/2006 11/17/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006

78 Memorandum in Support of their RESPONSE in Opposition re 72 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. (Bell, Sandra) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
79 RESPONSE in Opposition re 72 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio State Employment Relations Board, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Decker, Jack) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
80 AFFIDAVIT of Counsel by Defendants Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 2A# 4 Exhibit 2B# 5 Exhibit 2C# 6 Exhibit 2D# 7 Exhibit 2E# 8 Exhibit 2F# 9 Exhibit 2G# 10 Exhibit 2H# 11 Exhibit 2I# 12 Exhibit 2J# 13 Exhibit 2K Part 1# 14 Exhibit 2K Part 2# 15 Exhibit 3# 16 Exhibit 4# 17 Exhibit 5# 18 Exhibit 6# 19 Exhibit 7# 20 Exhibit 8# 21 Exhibit 9# 22 Exhibit 10# 23 Exhibit 11# 24 Exhibit 12# 25 Exhibit 13# 26 Exhibit 14# 27 Exhibit 15# 28 Exhibit 16# 29 Exhibit 17# 30 Exhibit 18# 31 Exhibit 19# 32 Exhibit 20 Part 1# 33 Exhibit 20 Part 2# 34 Exhibit 21# 35 Exhibit 22# 36 Exhibit 23# 37 Exhibit 24)(Decker, Jack) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
81 REPLY to Response to Motion re 72 MOTION for Attorney Fees (regarding Union opposition) filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Bruce N. Cameron)(Cameron, Bruce) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
82 REPLY to Response to Motion re 72 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Regarding State Opposition Brief) filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Glen Greenwood. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Cameron affidavit)(Cameron, Bruce) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
83 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gregory L Frost : Motion Hearing held on 12/1/2006 re 72 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Glen Greenwood; Intervenor Plaintiff Counsel: B Cameron & D Brey; Defendants counsel: J Decker, S Bell & A Douglas; C/D: S Miller; The Court heard oral argument regarding the Motion for Attorney Fees and will issue a decision in due course. (Court Reporter Denise Errett.) (sem1, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
84 JUDGMENT entered pursuant to the Consent Decree signed by

02/21/2007 03/07/2007
03/21/2007
03/21/2007 03/28/2007 03/28/2007 03/29/2007 03/30/2007 04/23/2007

Judge Gregory L Frost on 9/5/06. (sem1, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
85 ORDER granting 72 Greenwood's Motion for Attorney Fees . Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 2/21/07. (sem1, ) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
86 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Attorney Fees Hearing) held on 12/1/06 before Judge Frost (transcript, in its entirety, located in the Clerk's Office). Court Reporter: Denise Errett. (sem1, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
87 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Defendants State Of Ohio, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Department of Administrative Services. Filing fee $ 455. (Decker, Jack) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number 255545 re 87 Notice of Appeal. (sr1 ) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
88 NOTICE of Appearance by James Edward Melle for Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO (Melle, James) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
89 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Defendant Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. Filing fee $ 455. (Melle, James) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
USCA Case Number 07-3366 for 87 Notice of Appeal. (er ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number 200 255676 re 89 Notice of Appeal.(er ) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
90 ORDER of USCA that the appeals are dismissed as to # 89 Notice of Appeal filed by Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO, and #87 Notice of Appeal filed by Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, State Of Ohio (rew ) (Entered: 04/24/2007)

 
 Nos. 07-3366; 07-3408

",' fiLED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEA.LS ::;,::.. i
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ' [ ' : APR 1 9 2007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; E EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION;

QUA

L~'iJUl

t.PR

23

. tEO(lfARD

GREEN,

Clerk

Plaintiffs
GLEN GREENWOOD
Intervenor - Appellee
v.

.' ,
~ ) I~
F (.
d: oS -t VI,? 'j
,-:~:r (,v- &'-i1

STATE OF OHIO; OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; OHIO DEPARTMENT OF,! ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES; OHIO OFFICES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING;

Defendants - Appellants

OHIO CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ASSOCIATION, AFSCME Local 11

Defendant - Appellee

In accordance with Rule 33, Rules of the Sixth Circuit, and upon consideration of the
stipulation of the parties to voluntarily dismiss the appeals,
-, IT IS ORDERED that the appeals be and they hereby are dismissed pursuan!!o 42(b),
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
ENTERED PURSUANT TO RULE 33(d) RULES OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
2~?-/A