Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00281/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00281-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 88785) 

MARK W. ATKINSON (SB# 60472) 

HEATHER A. MORGAN (SB# 177425) 

JOSEPH W. DENG (SB# 179320) 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

515 South Flower Street, Twenty-Fifth Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 

Telephone: (213) 683-6000 

Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 

Attorneys for Defendant CINTAS CORPORATION 

Plaintiffs’ Counsel Listed on Next Page 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ROBERT RAMIREZ, ROBERT 

HARRIS, LUIS POCASANGRE 

CARDOZA, JOSE SALCEDO, A. 

SHAPPELLE THOMPSON, 

CORETTA SILVERS (formerly 

VICK), BLANCA NELLY AVALOS, 

and AMY SEVERSON, on behalf of 

themselves and all other similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

and 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff-Intervenor, 

vs. 

CINTAS CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. C04-0281-JSW 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT AND PROPOSED 

ORDER PURSUANT TO CIVIL 

LOCAL RULE 16-9 

CMC Date: June 10, 2005 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Place: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor 

Judge: Honorable Jeffrey S. White 

Complaint Filed: January 20, 2004 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 1 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

MORRIS J. BALLER (SB# 048928) 

ROBERTA L. STEELE (SB# 188198) 

NINA RABIN (SB# 229403) 

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, 

BORGEN & DARDARIAN 

300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 763-9800 

Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 

PAUL STRAUSS (SB# 153937) 

ROBERT S. LIBMAN (SB# 139283) 

NANCY MALDONADO 

MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 

14 W. Erie Street 

Chicago, IL 60610 

Telephone: (312) 751-1170 

Facsimile: (312) 751-0438 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al. 

ROBERT UNITAS 

ERICA WHITE-DUNSTON 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

1801 L Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

Phone: (202) 663-4768 

Fax: (202) 663-4196 

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 2 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -i- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Personal Jurisdiction, Venue and Service................... 1 

2. Factual Summary and Related Proceedings ............................................................. 1 

a. Factual Summary........................................................................................... 1 

b. Class Issues.................................................................................................... 2 

c. EEOC Complaint-in-Intervention ................................................................. 2 

d. Related Proceedings ...................................................................................... 2 

3. Brief Description of Factual and Legal Issues in Dispute........................................ 5 

4. Procedural History.................................................................................................... 8 

5. Discovery and Disclosures to Date .......................................................................... 8 

6. Discovery Plan.......................................................................................................... 9 

a. Request for Expedited Procedure for Resolution of Discovery 

Disputes ......................................................................................................... 9 

b. Key Witnesses ............................................................................................... 9 

c. Essential Information .................................................................................... 9 

d. Dispute Regarding Temporal Scope of Discovery...................................... 10 

e. Bifurcation of Discovery Regarding Class Certification, Liability, 

and Damages Issues..................................................................................... 10 

f. Sequence of Discovery................................................................................ 11 

g. Changes That Should Be Made in the Limitations on Discovery 

Imposed Under the Federal and Local Civil Rules, and What Other 

Limitations Should Be Imposed.................................................................. 11 

h. Non-Expert Discovery Schedule................................................................. 14 

i. Expert Discovery and Reports..................................................................... 14 

j. Protective Orders Pursuant to FRCP Rule 26(c)......................................... 14 

k. How Discovery Will Be Managed .............................................................. 14 

l. Service of Pleadings .................................................................................... 17 

7. Dispositive Motions Schedule................................................................................ 17 

a. Before Class Certification ........................................................................... 17 

b. Class Certification ....................................................................................... 18 

8. Relief Sought .......................................................................................................... 18 

9. ADR Efforts and Plan............................................................................................. 18 

10. Assignment to a Magistrate.................................................................................... 18 

11. Proposed Deadlines ................................................................................................ 18 

12. Service List for Counsel ......................................................................................... 19 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 3 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

Page

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -ii- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

13. Other Items in Civil Local Rules............................................................................ 19 

a. The Specific Paragraphs of FRCP Rule 23 Under Which the Action is 

Maintainable as a Class Action ................................................................... 20 

b. A Description of the Class or Classes in Whose Behalf the Action is 

Brought........................................................................................................ 20 

c. Facts Showing that Plaintiffs are Entitled to Maintain the Action 

Under FRCP Rule 23(a) and (b).................................................................. 21 

14. Interested Parties .................................................................................................... 22 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 4 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 4 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -1- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

Pursuant to this Court’s January 27, 2004 Order Setting Case Management 

Conference and Requiring Joint Case Management Conference Statement and Northern 

District Civil Local Rules 16-9(a) and (b), Plaintiffs ROBERT RAMIREZ, SANDRA 

EVANS, ROBERT HARRIS, LUIS POCASANGRE CARDOZA, BLANCA NELLY 

AVALOS, ROBIN BEASLEY AND AMY SEVERSON (collectively, “Plaintiffs”),1

Intervenor EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (“EEOC” or 

“Plaintiff-Intervenor”), and Defendant CINTAS CORPORATION (“Cintas” or 

“Defendant”), and collectively “the parties,” jointly submit this Consolidated Case 

Management Statement and Proposed Order (the “Case Management Statement”) and 

request the Court to adopt it as its Case Management Order in this case. 

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Personal Jurisdiction, Venue and Service

This is an employment discrimination case, brought pursuant to the provisions of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 

1991 (“Section 1981”); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et 

seq., as amended (“Title VII”); the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, 

Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. (“FEHA”); and the California Unfair Business 

Practices Act, Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. (“Section 17200”). The 

Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. No question remains at this time 

regarding personal jurisdiction or venue. No parties remain to be served. 

2. Factual Summary and Related Proceedings

a. Factual Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Cintas has engaged in, and continues to engage in, 

a Rental Division-wide pattern and practice of employment discrimination, on the basis of 

race, national origin, and sex, against themselves and a class of similarly-situated African 

American, Hispanic, and female employees, former employees, and applicants for 

employment as specifically alleged in the Third Amended Complaint. Defendant denies 

 

1

 Original plaintiffs Jose Salcedo, Shappelle Thompson, and Coretta Silvers have been 

ordered to arbitrate their claims and those claims have been stayed in this Court.

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 5 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 5 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -2- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

Plaintiffs’ allegations, denies that there is a pattern and practice of discrimination, denies 

that Plaintiffs are members of a class or that class treatment is appropriate, and denies that 

Plaintiffs have been damaged in any way. 

b. Class Issues

Pursuant to the October 29, 2004 Stipulation and the Court’s Order thereon, the 

issues that can be pursued on a class basis in this case are limited to Plaintiffs’ claims that: 

(i) Cintas has discriminated against women, African Americans and Hispanics in hiring to 

SSR (driver) positions in its Rental Division facilities; (ii) Cintas has discriminated 

against African Americans holding SSR positions with respect to route assignments in its 

Rental Division facilities; (iii) Cintas has discriminated against African American nonexempt employees in its Rental Division facilities in terms of their compensation; and (iv) 

Cintas has discriminated against Hispanic supervisors in promotions, transfers and job 

assignments in its Rental Division facilities. 

c. EEOC Complaint-in-Intervention

The EEOC filed its Complaint-in-Intervention on April 27, 2005, alleging that 

Cintas has discriminated against female applicants for the SSR job. As originally filed, 

EEOC’s Complaint-in-Intervention did not cover Cintas’s facilities in the State of 

Michigan. On May 19, 2005, EEOC moved to amend its Complaint-in-Intervention to 

include women in Michigan. Plaintiffs filed a non-opposition to the EEOC’s motion on 

May 24, 2005. Defendant’s opposition, if any, is due on June 10, 2005, and EEOC’s reply 

is due on June 24, 2005. 

d. Related Proceedings

(1) Arbitration of Claims of Plaintiffs Salcedo, Silvers and 

Thompson

Pursuant to the Court’s March 22, 2005 Order to Compel Arbitration, Plaintiffs 

Salcedo, Thompson and Silvers have been compelled to arbitrate their claims, and the 

action as to those Plaintiffs has been stayed pending completion of that arbitration. 

Plaintiffs Salcedo, Severson, and Thompson’s single arbitration proceeding, brought as a 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 6 of 29

June 17, 2005 and EEOC's reply is due on July 1, 2005

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 6 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -3- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

putative class action, is now in the American Arbitration Association administrative intake 

stage. 

(2) Transfer and/or Arbitration of Claims of Plaintiffs Beasley 

and Severson

The October 29, 2005 Stipulation and Order provides that the claims of Plaintiffs 

Robin Beasley and Amy Severson will be pursued only as individual claims, not as class 

or collective claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs Beasley and Severson will not seek certification 

as class representatives. 

The Stipulation and Order further provided that if the Beasley case is not settled, 

the parties will jointly move the Court to have it transferred to Beasley’s home state of 

Michigan. Settlement discussions are in progress. 

The October 29, 2005 Stipulation and Order also provided that if the Severson case 

is not settled, Cintas may place back on this Court’s motion calendar its motion to transfer 

venue/dismiss the claims of Plaintiff Severson, and/or its motion to dismiss or stay and 

compel arbitration of her claims; that if Defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay and compel 

arbitration of Plaintiff Severson’s claims is withdrawn or denied, the parties will jointly 

move the Court to transfer the Severson case to Severson’s home state of Missouri; and 

that Defendant may move the Court in Missouri to dismiss or stay and compel arbitration 

if and only if the issue has not been decided by this Court. Settlement discussions are in 

progress. 

(3) Related Case to be Filed in the Northern District of 

California

Plaintiffs’ counsel intend to file a new case against Cintas in the Northern District 

of California, brought on behalf of named plaintiffs Larry Houston, Clifton Cooper, and 

James Morgan, alleging, for themselves and on behalf of a class, discrimination against 

African Americans with respect to hiring and promotion into management jobs and 

discrimination against African American SSR’s in route assignments and pay (“the 

Houston case”). Plaintiffs’ counsel intend to file the Houston case with a designation that 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 7 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 7 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -4- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

it is related to this case and both the Houston case plaintiffs and Plaintiffs here believe it 

should be consolidated with this case. 

Defendant has provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with the arbitration agreements signed 

by Messrs. Houston, Cooper and Morgan, along with a letter setting forth the legal 

citations that compel arbitration of their claims. Defendant submits that any attempt to 

pursue these claims in a court of law is frivolous and sanctionable. Plaintiffs dispute this 

contention and have sent defense counsel a letter setting forth the legal citations in support 

of their position. 

(4) Serrano Case Pending in the Eastern District of Michigan

A case pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Michigan, Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corp., No. 01-cv-40132 (Gadola, J.), raises claims 

similar to some of those made in this case. Serrano is a putative, uncertified class action 

filed by private plaintiffs (without the participation of the EEOC) that seeks to maintain 

claims of gender discrimination against women in hiring for SSR (driver) positions in the 

State of Michigan in the period from late 1999 to the present. Counsel for both plaintiffs 

and defendant in Serrano are different from those in the case before this Court. 

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in Serrano is due sometime in the next 

several months. Recently, counsel for Plaintiffs in Serrano informed counsel for Plaintiffs 

here that they intend to move to amend the complaint in Serrano to seek certification of a 

nationwide class on the gender discrimination in SSR hiring claim. Cintas has denied that 

certification of a class action is appropriate in Serrano, and stated that it will oppose the 

plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint and their motion for class certification. If the 

court in Michigan grants certification of a nationwide class, the class claims in Serrano

would significantly overlap with some of the class claims in this case. 

The parties believe that the best course of action in regard to the possible overlap 

between the Serrano class claims and those in this case is to await further developments in 

that case. After the court in Michigan defines the scope of the class action, if any, in 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 8 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 8 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -5- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

Serrano, this Court then could revisit the question of whether further case management 

orders are necessary or appropriate in this regard. 

3. Brief Description of Factual and Legal Issues in Dispute

The parties agree that the principal factual and legal issues that the parties dispute 

include: 

1. Whether Cintas has discriminated against women in hiring for SSR (driver) 

positions in its Rental Division facilities nationwide? 

2. Whether Cintas has discriminated against African Americans in hiring for 

SSR (driver) positions in its Rental Division facilities nationwide? 

3. Whether Cintas has discriminated against Hispanics in hiring for SSR 

(driver) positions in its Rental Division facilities nationwide? 

4. Whether Cintas has discriminated against African Americans holding SSR 

(driver) positions with respect to route assignments and compensation opportunities in its 

Rental Division facilities? 

5. Whether Cintas has discriminated against African American employees in 

non-exempt positions in its Rental Division facilities with respect to compensation? 

6. Whether Cintas has discriminated against Hispanic supervisors in Rental 

Division facilities with respect to promotions, transfers and job assignments? 

7. Whether the FRCP 23 requirements for certification of this case as a class 

action are met; in particular – 

a. Whether the alleged class is so numerous that joinder of all 

class members is impracticable? (Rule 23(a)(1)) 

b. Whether there are common questions of fact and law as to the 

issues of alleged class wide discrimination raised by Plaintiffs’ claims? (Rule 23(a)(2)) 

c. Whether the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those 

of the putative class as a whole? (Rule 23(a)(3)) 

d. Whether the named Plaintiffs would be adequate class 

representatives? (Rule 23(a)(4)) 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 9 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 9 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -6- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

e. Whether Cintas has acted or failed to act with respect to the 

issues raised in the Complaint on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole, 

such that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief on behalf of the 

putative class as a whole would be appropriate? (Rule 23(b)(2)) 

8. What is the statute of limitations/class liability period applicable to the 

claims of Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and members of the putative class under 42 

U.S.C. §1981? 

9. What is the statute of limitations/class liability period that applies to the 

claims of Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and members of the putative class, and to the 

claims of the EEOC, under Title VII? In particular, 

a. Whether Plaintiffs can rely on an EEOC charge filed by a 

class member who is not herself a named Plaintiff in this case? 

b. What is the statute of limitations/liability period that applies to 

the claims of the EEOC? 

10. Whether, should the Court not certify a gender class of discrimination in 

hiring for SSR (driver) positions, EEOC can maintain its action as pleaded. 

11. Whether there is statistically significant evidence that one or more of 

Cintas’s allegedly discriminatory practices has adverse impact against members of the 

putative class with respect to the issues raised in the Complaint? 

12. What probative weight should be accorded to the opinion testimony that will 

be offered by the parties’ respective statistical analysts, labor economists, and any other 

expert witnesses who may testify in this case? 

13. Whether, if one of more of Cintas’s allegedly discriminatory practices is 

shown to have adverse impact on members of the class, Cintas can demonstrate that its 

practices are required as a matter of business necessity? 

14. Whether, if Cintas attempts to justify any of its practices which have an 

adverse impact on members of the class as a business necessity, there are less 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 10 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 10 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -7- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

discriminatory alternatives that would adequately serve Cintas’s legitimate business 

purposes? 

15. If Cintas is found to have discriminated unlawfully with respect to the 

putative class in one or more of the ways alleged in the Complaint, what class-wide 

injunctive remedies are necessary and appropriate to terminate Cintas’s ongoing 

discriminatory practices and eliminate insofar as possible the present effects of actionable 

past discrimination? 

16. If Cintas is found to have discriminated against the class in one or more of 

the ways alleged in the complaint, what types of monetary relief, and what measures of 

relief for each such type of relief, are appropriate and necessary to compensate the 

putative class members for loss of income and damages suffered due to Cintas’s unlawful 

discrimination? 

17. Whether any of Cintas’ alleged acts of discrimination on the basis of sex 

against the named Plaintiffs or the class were intentional within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 

§1981a (a)(1)? 

18. Whether the allegedly discriminatory acts of Cintas constitute unlawful, 

unfair, or fraudulent business practices within the meaning of California Business & 

Professions Code §17200? 

19. Whether Cintas discriminated against the individual named Plaintiffs Nelly 

Avalos, Luis Pocasangre Cardoza, Robert Harris, Anthony Jones, Sandra Evans, and 

Robert Ramirez, on the bases alleged in the Complaint, in violation of Title VII; and/or, in 

the case of those plaintiffs who allege racial discrimination, of 42 U.S.C. §1981; and/or, in 

the case of those Plaintiffs who worked or applied for work to Cintas in California, the 

FEHA? 

20. If Cintas is found to have unlawfully discriminated against one or more of 

the individual named Plaintiffs, what measures of injunctive and/or monetary relief are 

necessary and appropriate to make those Plaintiffs whole from the effects of Cintas’s 

discriminatory practices? 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 11 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 11 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -8- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

No partially dispositive issues are appropriate for decision by motion or agreement 

at this time, before discovery. 

4. Procedural History

The procedural history is included in Section 2 above. 

Plaintiffs intend to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, adding Anthony Jones, an 

African-American applicant for a SSR job who alleges he was denied that job because of 

his race. Defendant will stipulate to the filing of a Fourth Amended Complaint adding 

only Jones and containing the same words with respect to Jones’ claims as the draft 

presented to defense counsel, reserving all defenses to the allegations in that Complaint, 

once Jones has requested and the EEOC has issued a Notice of Right to Sue to Jones and 

the EEOC has terminated its administrative proceedings with regard to the claims raised 

in that charge. 

No other motions are pending. No party presently intends to add any additional 

parties. 

5. Discovery and Disclosures to Date

Discovery has not commenced. 

On April 29, 2005, the parties met in person in San Francisco and conducted their 

FRCP Rule 26(f) conference. On May 27, 2005, the parties exchanged their initial 

disclosures pursuant to FRCP Rule 26(a), and held a further telephonic conference to 

discuss initial disclosures, the issues raised by this Statement, and the issues to be 

addressed at the Case Management Conference. The parties agreed to a Stipulation for a 

Protective Order, which was entered by the Court on June 3, 2005. 

The parties made timely disclosures as follows: 

Persons: Plaintiffs, Defendant, and the EEOC made timely disclosures of 

individuals likely to have discoverable information that they may use to support their 

claims and have agreed to disclose additional witnesses as they are identified. Cintas has 

also agreed to provide further information on a rolling basis. 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 12 of 29

June 10, 2005.

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 12 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -9- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

Documents: Plaintiffs, Defendant, and the EEOC made timely disclosures 

of documents that may be used to support their claims and have agreed to disclose 

additional documents as they are identified. 

Damage Computations and Other Relief: Unknown at this time. 

Insurance Agreements: St. Paul Employment Practices Liability Policy 

0534CM265; effective dates July 1, 2003 through July 1, 2004; Lexington Insurance 

Employment Practices Liability Policy 1323949; effective dates July 1, 2003 through July 

1, 2004. 

The parties will confer regarding the disclosures made to date and supplement their 

disclosures required by the Rules. 

6. Discovery Plan

a. Request for Expedited Procedure for Resolution of Discovery Disputes

The parties are continuing to discuss the appropriate scope of discovery, the means 

and nature of the discovery that should be taken at the early stages, and ways to make 

discovery efficient. At this stage, with initial discovery yet to be served, the parties do not 

have issues to present to the Court for resolution. However, the parties would benefit 

from an expedited procedure for the resolution of discovery disputes that may arise. 

b. Key Witnesses

Because of the complex nature of this case and the number of issues, the parties 

cannot concisely list key witnesses. 

c. Essential Information

Plaintiffs and EEOC believe that to move this case forward quickly towards 

resolution it is crucial to receive from Cintas the available data it has (particularly data in 

computer-readable form) about its employees and applicants (name, sex, race, job 

position, etc.) and personnel transactions (hiring, promotion, etc.). 

Defendant’s counsel believes that it is essential to obtain all information that 

Plaintiffs, their counsel and the labor organizations that have encouraged and supported 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 13 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 13 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -10- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

this litigation have obtained to support the allegations asserted in this lawsuit, as well as 

all information the named Plaintiffs have in support of their claims. 

d. Dispute Regarding Temporal Scope of Discovery

The parties do not agree on the appropriate temporal scope for discovery. Plaintiffs 

and the EEOC contend that discovery should extend to documents, facts, and practices of 

Cintas since January 1, 1997. Cintas contends that discovery for the pre-class certification 

hearing phase should be limited to the time period from January 20, 2002 to the present on 

issues of recruiting, hiring, and promotion, and from January 1, 2000 to the present on 

issues of pay and job assignments. 

e. Bifurcation of Discovery Regarding Class Certification, Liability, and 

Damages Issues

Discovery should be bifurcated. During the initial phase of pre-class discovery, 

inquiry should be limited to (1) policies and practices of Defendant relevant to employees 

and applicants in jobs covered by the Complaint at Defendant’s Rental Division facilities; 

(2) electronic data (i.e., payroll and human resources databases) with respect to employees 

and applicants at Defendant’s Rental Division facilities for jobs covered by the 

Complaint; (3) the availability of hard paper records to supplement the electronic payroll 

and human resources databases referred to in (2); (4) Plaintiffs’ claim that this case should 

be certified as a class action; (5) the named Plaintiffs’ individual liability and damages 

claims; (6) information relevant to confirm or rebut written statements of witnesses, 

produced in initial disclosures or discovery; (7) electronic data, hard copy payroll and 

personnel records, and other information about employment and personnel transactions at 

the facilities where witnesses listed in Plaintiffs’ Rule 26 initial disclosures were 

employed; and (8) Defendant’s defenses with respect to (1) to (7). The scope of discovery 

with respect to topics (1) – (8) will be governed by the standards in the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and the decisions interpreting those Rules. Other merits discovery and 

damages discovery should not commence until a ruling on class certification, at which 

time a new discovery plan will be required. 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 14 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 14 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -11- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

EEOC is not required to certify a class pursuant to FRCP 23 to maintain its action. 

There is, however, substantial potential overlap between EEOC’s merits discovery and 

Plaintiffs’ class certification discovery. Therefore, to avoid duplicative discovery, EEOC 

will participate in discovery as described in (1) – (8) above. In addition, EEOC will 

coordinate its discovery with Plaintiffs whenever practicable. 

f. Sequence of Discovery

The parties intend to conduct discovery efficiently and expeditiously. In 

accordance with the provisions of FRCP 26(d), methods of discovery may be utilized in 

any sequence. The fact that one party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or 

otherwise, shall not be utilized as a reason to delay or prevent discovery by any other 

party. Nonparty discovery shall be conducted concurrently with party discovery. 

g. Changes That Should Be Made in the Limitations on Discovery 

Imposed Under the Federal and Local Civil Rules, and What Other 

Limitations Should Be Imposed

The following changes should be made to the limitations on discovery imposed 

under the Federal and Local Rules: 

(1) Depositions

The parties agree that the provisions of FRCP 30 will apply to depositions. The 

parties further agree that it will be necessary to take more than the ten depositions per side 

allowed under FRCP 30(a)(2)(A). The parties agree that, without further leave of the 

Court, Plaintiffs and the EEOC collectively may take thirty depositions2

 and Defendant 

may take thirty depositions before a decision on a motion for class certification. Those 

depositions are in addition to the depositions of each expert witness designated by the 

other side. Furthermore, unless otherwise agreed or ordered by the Court, the parties will 

adhere to the seven-hour time limit for depositions pursuant to FRCP 30(d)(2), except as 

follows: 

 

2

 Plaintiffs and EEOC agree to an undivided allocation of depositions only for the preclass certification phase of discovery. 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 15 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 15 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -12- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

(a) Plaintiffs and EEOC, collectively, and Defendant may 

each depose five individuals for not to exceed fourteen (14) hours each of running tape 

time. 

(b) Expert witness depositions each may be up to twelve 

(12) hours of running tape time. 

(c) Counsel will confer on the location of each deposition 

in an attempt to select locations that are reasonably accessible to airplane travel and 

convenient to all parties. 

Pursuant to FRCP 30(b), the parties agree that upon notice given concurrently as 

part of the original notice of deposition, or by separate notice if by the non-noticing party 

not later than five days prior to the commencement of the deposition, depositions may be 

recorded by non-stenographic means, including without limitation by videotape and/or a 

real-time computer program (such as LiveNote), provided that the deposition is also 

stenographically recorded by a certified stenographic reporter. The party noticing the 

non-stenographic recording shall be responsible for the cost of the original nonstenographic recording. Any party who wishes to obtain a copy of any non-stenographic 

recording of a deposition shall be entitled to obtain such a copy from the person or entity 

who recorded such deposition non-stenographically upon payment to such person or entity 

of the usual and customary fee charged by such person or entity for a copy. 

In the event that a dispute arises regarding the number of allowable depositions or 

the duration of a deposition, the parties agree to attempt to resolve the dispute informally. 

In the event that attempts to informally resolve such disputes are unsuccessful, the parties 

will present a one to three page letter to the Court setting forth their positions on the 

dispute, unless the nature of the dispute reasonably requires a longer recitation. The 

parties will contact the Court to obtain a mutually agreeable time when the Court may 

agree to hear and decide the matter by telephone. 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 16 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 16 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -13- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

(2) Interrogatories

The parties agree that during the pre-class certification hearing stage the parties 

may serve the following number of interrogatories: 

Plaintiffs and Defendant each may serve twelve interrogatories relating to each of 

the named Plaintiffs’ individual claims, respectively (i.e., Plaintiffs and Defendant may 

each serve one set of twelve interrogatories for each named Plaintiff). 

Plaintiffs and the EEOC, collectively, may serve twenty interrogatories about 

electronic and hard copy data maintained or held by Cintas or its vendors (covering, e.g., 

the items of information in the database; the time period covered by the database; the 

categories of employees covered by the database; the names of the files or tables in the 

database; the specific fields in those files; the existence of a record lay-out or data 

dictionary describing the location of information on the database; look-up tables or other 

explanations of codes used in the database; whether data can be exported, etc.).3

Plaintiffs may serve fifteen interrogatories and the EEOC may serve ten 

interrogatories about Cintas’s employment and compensation policies, procedures, and 

practices. 

Plaintiffs and the EEOC, collectively, even may serve five contention 

interrogatories. 

Defendant may serve forty-five additional interrogatories addressed to the 

Plaintiffs as a group and/or the EEOC. 

This is without prejudice to the right of any party to seek a further stipulation or 

court approval of additional interrogatories. 

(3) Requests For Admissions

The parties agree that requests for admissions will be governed by the provisions of 

FRCP 36. 

 

3

 Plaintiffs and EEOC agree to an undivided allocation of interrogatories about electronic 

and hard copy data only for the pre-class certification phase of discovery. 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 17 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 17 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -14- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

h. Non-Expert Discovery Schedule

Notices of depositions to be served on a rolling basis by 2/21/2006 

Complete non-expert interrogatories and document discovery by 4/8/2006 

Complete non-expert depositions (e.g., Plaintiffs, FRCP 30(b)(6) 

deponents, witnesses and records custodians) by 

4/8/2006 

i. Expert Discovery and Reports

Plaintiffs and EEOC to identify expert(s) and subject of expert opinion by 3/01/2006

Defendant to identify expert(s) and subject of expert opinion by 4/05/2006 

Plaintiffs and EEOC to provide FRCP 26(a)(2) expert report(s) by 4/15/2006 

Plaintiffs’ and EEOC’s expert(s) to be made available for deposition by 5/21/2006 

Defendant to provide FRCP 26(a)(2) expert report(s) by 6/27/2006 

Defendant’s expert(s) to be made available for deposition by 7/21/2006 

Plaintiffs to serve rebuttal expert reports by 8/15/2006 

Defendant to serve supplemental expert reports by 9/15/2006 

Expert discovery cut-off 10/8/2006 

j. Protective Orders Pursuant to FRCP Rule 26(c)

The Court has entered a Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement And Agreed 

Protective Order (the “Protective Order”) submitted by the parties. This Order applies to 

all discovery. 

k. How Discovery Will Be Managed

Counsel have agreed that they will attempt to meet and confer, and work out 

arrangements for discovery, as much as possible. 

To date the parties have agreed to the following: 

(i) Documents produced will be numbered as follows: 

 P000001 – will start Plaintiffs range. 

 E100000 – will start EEOC’s range. 

 C200000 – will start Defendant’s range. 

(ii) Documents will be produced in the form of images 

stored on CDs. Defendant will provide copies of its CDs to the two Plaintiffs’ firms of 

record and the EEOC. Plaintiffs and EEOC will provide three copies of their CDs to 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 18 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 18 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -15- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

Defendant. Specifically, the parties have agreed that documents will be produced as 

single page, group IV TIFF file format, scanned at 300 DPI (or such other technology to 

which the parties mutually agree), and produced on a CDROM (or DVDROM), not hard 

copy. Each TIFF file will be named the same as its bates number designation. Document 

production will also include a text file containing the beginning and ending page numbers 

(i.e., Bates number) of each document. Finally, an image load file, in an Opticon file 

format, will be produced. 

(iii) The following communications do not need to be 

logged on a privilege log as long as the communication has not be shared in any part or 

manner with anyone to whom the privilege does not apply. 

(a) Attorney-client privileged communications 

between named Plaintiffs and either of the two Plaintiff law firms of record.

(b) Privileged (joint prosecution) communications 

between Plaintiffs’ counsel of record and counsel for the EEOC. 

(c) Privileged communications between Plaintiffs’ 

counsel or counsel for the EEOC and any other attorneys with whom they consult about 

the claims of their clients or prospective clients or with whom they discuss privileged 

work product information. 

(d) Privileged communications between counsel for 

the EEOC and EEOC employees. 

(e) Attorney-client privileged communications 

between or among outside counsel for Cintas, and between or among outside counsel for 

Cintas and Cintas in-house counsel. 

(f) Attorney-client privileged communications 

between or among outside counsel for Cintas and current Cintas employees with respect 

to whom the attorney-client privilege applies as to the communication. 

(g) Attorney-client privileged communications 

between or among outside counsel and former Cintas employees, made at a time when the 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 19 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 19 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -16- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

person was employed by Cintas, with respect to those aspects of the communications to 

which the attorney-client privilege applies. 

(h) Attorney-client privileged communications 

between or among in-house counsel for Cintas and current Cintas employees with respect 

to whom the attorney-client privilege applies as to the communication. 

(i) Attorney-client privileged communications 

between or among in-house counsel for Cintas and former Cintas employees, made at a 

time when the person was employed by Cintas, with respect to those aspects of the 

communications to which the attorney-client privilege applies. 

(j) Attorney work product communications between 

counsel for Plaintiffs and any consulting expert who individually or whose firm is not also 

a testifying expert. 

(k) Attorney work product communications between 

counsel for Cintas (outside counsel or in-house counsel) and any consulting expert who 

individually or whose firm is not also a testifying expert. 

(l) Attorney work product communications between 

counsel for the EEOC and any consulting expert who individually or whose firm is not 

also a testifying expert. 

(iv) Privilege logs will be deemed timely if served no later 

than thirty (30) days after the date the response or objections to the document production 

is served. 

(v) The period for discovery will commence upon entry of 

the agreed proposed Protective Order and this Order. The parties thereafter may serve 

requests for production of documents, interrogatories, requests for admission, and notices 

of deposition. 

(vi) Discovery requests will be sent electronically using 

Word software. 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 20 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 20 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -17- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

(vii) This agreement shall not be construed to prohibit the 

parties from undertaking additional discovery as allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

(viii) The parties will attempt to resolve any discovery 

disputes that arise informally. In the event that the dispute cannot be resolved informally, 

the parties will submit a letter of one to three pages in length, unless the nature of the 

dispute reasonably requires a longer recitation, setting forth the issue to be resolved. The 

parties will then contact the Court to establish an agreeable time when the Court may 

agree to hear and resolve the dispute by telephone. 

l. Service of Pleadings

Pleadings will be filed electronically and deemed served upon filing. The parties 

will email a courtesy copy of all motions, oppositions and replies to the other counsel of 

record. Should exhibits exceed 100 pages, they will be served by overnight delivery. 

Discovery and responses to discovery will be served only by email. Discovery 

propounded must be served by 5:00 p.m. Pacific time to count as service on a given date. 

Discovery responses may be served until 11:59 p.m. Pacific time on the due date to be 

timely. Counsel served with discovery and responses to discovery will respond 

“received” to confirm receipt as a courtesy to avoid confusion about service. 

7. Dispositive Motions Schedule

a. Before Class Certification

Dispositive motions on the merits of the individual claims of the Named 

Plaintiffs and affirmative defenses to be filed by 

5/15/2006 

Opposition to such dispositive motion(s) to be filed by 6/22/2006 

Reply in support of dispositive motion(s) to be filed by 7/15/2006 

Hearing on dispositive motion(s) (on or after) 8/15/2006 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 21 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 21 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -18- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

b. Class Certification

Motion for Class Certification, to be filed by 10/22/20064

Defendant’s Opposition to Class Certification, to be filed by 12/22/2006 

Plaintiffs’ Reply to be filed by 1/21/2007 

Hearing on Motion for Class Certification (on or after) 2/21/2007 

8. Relief Sought

Declaratory, injunctive, monetary relief, and attorneys’ fees are sought on behalf of 

Plaintiffs and the class. Discovery is required before Plaintiffs and the EEOC can address 

this issue in detail. 

9. ADR Efforts and Plan

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 16-8(b), all parties and their counsel, 

except plaintiff Robert Harris, have filed an ADR Certification, on a form established for 

this purpose by the Court, and have provided a copy to the ADR Unit of the Court.5

 The 

parties have agreed to mediation by a private mediator at an appropriate stage but have not 

agreed when that stage will be reached. No later than January 2006, the parties will 

confer in good faith about the timing of a mediation. 

10. Assignment to a Magistrate

Defendant does not consent to assignment to a Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs and the 

EEOC would consider such an assignment. 

11. Proposed Deadlines

Deadlines for discovery, motions and class certification are set forth above. The 

parties will not be in a position to propose additional deadlines or predict the length of 

trial before a ruling on class certification. 

 

4

 The parties have agreed that Plaintiffs will make their best efforts to serve the vast 

majority of their declarations and exhibits in support of their Motion for Class 

Certification by October 12, 2006. 

5

 Plaintiffs’ counsel have contacted Mr. Harris to get his signature on the ADR form. 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 22 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 22 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -19- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

12. Service List for Counsel

For Plaintiffs: 

MORRIS J. BALLER (SB# 048928) 

ROBERTA L. STEELE (SB# 188198) 

NINA RABIN (SB# 229403) 

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, 

BORGEN & DARDARIAN 

300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 763-9800 

Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 

PAUL STRAUSS (SB# 153937) 

ROBERT S. LIBMAN (SB# 139283) 

NANCY MALDONADO 

MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 

14 W. Erie Street 

Chicago, IL 60610 

Telephone: (312) 751-1170 

Facsimile: (312) 751-0438 

For Plaintiff-Intervenor EEOC: 

ROBERT UNITAS 

ERICA WHITE-DUNSTON 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

1801 L Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

Phone: (202) 663-4768 

Fax: (202) 663-4196 

For Defendant, Cintas Corporation: 

NANCY L. ABELL (SB# 88785) 

MARK W. ATKINSON (SB# 60472) 

HEATHER A. MORGAN (SB# 177425) 

JOSEPH W. DENG (SB# 179320) 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

515 South Flower Street, Twenty-Fifth Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 

Telephone: (213) 683-6000 

Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 

13. Other Items in Civil Local Rules

Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 16-9(b), Plaintiffs provide the 

following additional information: 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 23 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 23 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -20- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

a. The Specific Paragraphs of FRCP Rule 23 Under Which the Action is 

Maintainable as a Class Action

At the liability stage of this case, before consideration of individual class members’ 

entitlements to equitable relief including backpay and damages, Plaintiffs seek class 

certification pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2). 

b. A Description of the Class or Classes in Whose Behalf the Action is 

Brought

Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that they seek to represent a class consisting of 

those persons listed below. However, Plaintiffs may re-evaluate and change that position 

before moving for class certification. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiffs may 

request class certification in this case for the following people only, unless Cintas agrees 

to revise that stipulation: 

1. Women who were allegedly denied hiring to Service Sales Representative 

(“SSR” or “driver”) positions in Cintas’s Rental Division during the limitations period; 

2. African Americans who were allegedly denied hiring to SSR positions in 

Cintas’s Rental Division during the limitations period; 

3. Hispanics who were allegedly denied hiring to SSR positions in Cintas’s 

Rental Division during the limitations period; 

4. African Americans who have held an SSR position in Cintas’s Rental 

Division and who allegedly have been subjected to discriminatory practices with regard to 

SSR route assignments during the limitations period; 

5. African Americans who have held non-exempt positions in Cintas’s Rental 

Division and who allegedly have been subjected to discriminatory compensation practices 

during the limitations period; and 

6. Hispanics who have held positions as exempt supervisors or managers in 

Cintas’s Rental Division below the General Manager (or Branch Manager or equivalent) 

position who allegedly have been subjected to discriminatory practices with regard to 

opportunities for promotion out of those positions, and the scope and extent of their job 

assignments, during the limitations period. 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 24 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 24 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -21- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

7. Plaintiffs Cardoza and Avalos also seek to represent a subclass consisting of 

Hispanics who were allegedly denied hiring to SSR positions in Cintas’s Rental Division 

facilities in California during the limitations period; and 

8. Plaintiff Avalos seeks to represent a subclass of Women who were allegedly 

denied hiring to SSR positions in Cintas’s Rental Division facilities in California during 

the limitations period. 

c. Facts Showing that Plaintiffs are Entitled to Maintain the Action Under 

FRCP Rule 23(a) and (b)

Although description of the grounds for class certification, applying each of the 

elements of FRCP 23(a) and (b), would require more space than is available in this 

Report, Plaintiffs briefly submit: 

Cintas has over 300 rental facilities and more than 27,000 employees. The class, 

and each subclass, is estimated to be more than large enough to satisfy the numerosity 

requirements of FRCP 23(a)(1). 

The claims of the subclasses are subject to common questions of law and fact as 

required by FRCP 23(b)(2). Cintas’s regional and national management controls 

operations at the rental facilities and provide directives with respect to recruitment, hiring, 

and other personnel practices. The Company requires managers to take courses in Cintas 

corporate culture; high-level managers regularly visit facilities and review personnel at 

those facilities. The result at the facility level is staffing that is remarkably similar from 

location to location, with minority and female employees largely excluded from higherpaying positions as drivers and managers, and, in the case of African American 

employees, being denied equal compensation in SSR and other non-exempt positions. 

The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of each subclass as required 

by FRCP 23(b)(3). Each subclass is represented by at least one named Plaintiff who 

individually raises the same type of claim. 

Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives under FRCP 23(a)(4) because they 

present individual claims that are typical of the claims of the subclass members and 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 25 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 25 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -22- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

because they have retained counsel who are capable of litigating and experienced in cases 

of this kind. 

Class certification is appropriate pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2) at the liability stage, 

where the issue is Cintas’s liability with respect to class-wide claims and the 

appropriateness of injunctive relief. There are no questions of eligibility for individual 

relief and damages at this stage. 

Defendant Cintas contends that Plaintiffs will not establish the elements of FRCP 

23(a) or (b). The conduct challenged is not “generally applicable to the class, thereby 

making appropriate final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the 

class as a whole.” FRCP 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) applies only where the primary relief 

sought is declaratory or injunctive. That is not the case here where Plaintiffs seek 

significant monetary damages. Individual issues predominate. 

14. Interested Parties

The following individuals and entities are known by the parties, or believed by one 

of them, to have a financial interest in the subject matter or in a party to the proceeding, or 

any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the 

proceeding. 

Counsel of record for the parties, as listed in paragraph 12 

above. 

Named Plaintiffs: Robert Ramirez, Robert Harris, Luis 

Pocasangre Cardoza, Jose Salcedo, A. Shappelle Thompson, 

Coretta Silvers (formerly Vick), Blanca Nelly Avalos, and 

Amy Severson 

Intervenor: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Defendant: Cintas Corporation 

Labor Unions: UNITE (Union of Needletrades, Industrial and 

Textile Employees, AFL-CIO); International Brotherhood of 

Teamsters AFL-CIO 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 26 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 26 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -23- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

DATED: June 2, 2005 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ 

PAUL STRAUSS 

Paul Strauss 

Robert S. Libman 

Nancy Maldonado 

MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND 

14 W. Erie Street 

Chicago, IL 60610 

Phone: (312) 751-1170 

Fax: (312) 751-0438 

 Morris J. Baller 

Roberta L. Steele 

Nina Rabin 

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & 

DARDARIAN 

300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 

Oakland, CA 94611 

Phone: (510) 763-9800 

Fax: (510) 835-1417 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez, et al.

DATED: June 2, 2005 

By: /s/ 

ROBERT D. UNITAS 

Robert D. Unitas 

Erica White-Dunston 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION 

1801 L Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20507 

Phone: (202) 663-4768 

Fax: (202) 663-4196 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor EEOC 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 27 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 27 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -24- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

DATED: June 2, 2005 

By: /s/ 

NANCY L. ABELL 

Nancy L. Abell 

Mark W. Atkinson 

Heather A. Morgan 

Joseph W. Deng 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 

Phone: (213) 683-6000 

Fax: (213) 627-0705 

Counsel for Defendant Cintas Corporation

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 28 of 29 Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 28 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C04-0281-JSW -1- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is hereby adopted by 

the Court as the Case Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to 

comply with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

 THE HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 105 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 29 of 29

as modified by the Court. The deadlines proposed by the 

parties have been adopted with modifications set forth below.

June 10, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White

The deadline to file opening briefs on the need for more than one summary judgment

motion shall be December 2, 2005. Opposition briefs are due on December 9, 2005.

There shall be no replies unless ordered by the Court.

The deadline to complete private mediation is May 15, 2006.

A further case management conference is set for September 30, 2005 at 1:30 p.m.

The deadline to file opening briefs on the need for more than one summary 

judgment motion shall be December 2, 2005. Opposition briefs are due on 

December 9, 2005. There shall be no replies unless ordered by the Court.

The deadline for non-expert interrogatories and document disocovery is 4/7/06. The 

deadline for completion of non-expert depositions is 4/7/06. The deadline for 

Plaintiffs and the EEOC to provide FRCP 26(a)(2) reports is 4/14/06. The deadline 

for Plaintiffs and the EEOC to make experts available for deposition is 5/22/06. The 

deadline to complete expert discovery is 10/10/06.

The deadline to file reply briefs on a dispositive motion is 7/14/06. The deadline to hear 

dispositive motions is Friday, August 18, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

The deadline to file the motion for class certification is 10/23/06. The deadline to file 

the reply on the motion for class certification is 1/22/07. The deadline for hearing 

the motion for class certification is Friday, February 23, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 108 Filed 06/10/05 Page 29 of 29