Case 3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

------------------------------------------------------x

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

-against-

:

:

U.S. ALUMINUM, INC. and

:

UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & :

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT

:

WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668, :

:

:

Defendants.

:

----------------------------------------------------------x

Civil Action No. COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Parties Juanarge Tufino (“Tufino”) and George Haberberger (“Haberberger”). As alleged with greater specificity below, Defendants U.S. Aluminum, Inc. and United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local 1668 (“UAW Local 1668”) discriminated against Tufino and Haberberger because of their age, sixty three (63), by reducing their severance benefits.
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 Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (“ADEA”), which incorporates by reference Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29

1

Case 3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 5
U.S.C. § 216(c). 2. The alleged unlawful employment practices were committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of the ADEA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705.
4. At all relevant times, Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc. has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of New Jersey and the cities of Haskell and Flemington and has continuously had at least twenty (20) employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11(b), (g) and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(b), (g) and (h).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant UAW Local 1668 has continuously been a labor organization, had at least twenty five (25) members, and has been the recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant UAW Local 1668 has continuously been a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11(d) and (e) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(d) and (e).
2

Case 3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 3 of 5
CONCILIATION
8. Prior to institution of this lawsuit, the Commission’s representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with the ADEA through informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
9. Since at least July 2005, Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc. and Defendant UAW Local 1688 have engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623, by reducing Charging Party Tufino’s and Charging Party Haberberger’s severance benefits because of their ages, over forty (40), pursuant to Article XII, Section 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into between Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc. and Defendant UAW Local 1688 which states, “Subject to applicable prevailing law, any employee who is over sixty (60) years of age and is entitled to a pension under the Company’s Pension Plan shall be entitled to a severance pay less an amount equal to one-sixtieth (1/60) of entitled severance pay for each month of age over 60; e.g. an employee who is age 65 and entitled to a pension would not be entitled to receive severance pay.”
10. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Charging Parties Tufino and Haberberger of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their age.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 10 above were willful within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
3

Case 3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 4 of 5
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from discriminating against employees age forty (40) and over on the basis of age. B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals forty (40) years of age and older, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Grant a judgment requiring Defendants to pay appropriate severance benefits in an amount to be determined at trial, and an equal sum as liquidated damages, or prejudgment interest in lieu thereof, to Tufino and Haberberger as a result of the acts complained of above. 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.
4

Case 3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 5 of 5
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Y. Reams Associate General Counsel
s/ Elizabeth Grossman Elizabeth Grossman Regional Attorney s/ Lisa Sirkin Lisa Sirkin Supervisory Trial Attorney s/ Konrad Batog Konrad Batog Trial Attorney New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004 (212) 336-3700 (212) 336-3623 (facsimile) konrad.batog@eeoc.gov
5

 2006 WL 3634784 (D.N.J.) (Cite as: 2006 WL 3634784)

Page 1

For Dockets See 3:06cv03801
United States District Court, D. New Jersey. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v. U.S. ALUMINUM, INC. and United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America Local 1668, Defendants. Civil Action No. 06-CV-03801 (MLC-TJB).
2006.
Jury Trial Demand
Amended Complaint
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Parties Juanarge Tufino (“Tufino”) and George Haberberger (“Haberberger”). As alleged with greater specificity below, Defendants U.S. Aluminum, Inc. and United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local 1668 (“UAW Local 1668”) discriminated against Tufino and Haberberger because of their age, sixty three (63), by reducing their severance benefits.
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 Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (“ADEA”), which incorporates by reference Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 216(c).
2. The alleged unlawful employment practices were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of the ADEA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705.
4. At all relevant times, Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc. has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of New Jersey and the cities of Haskell and

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

2006 WL 3634784 (D.N.J.) (Cite as: 2006 WL 3634784)

Page 2

Flemington and has continuously had at least twenty (20) employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11(b), (g) and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(b), (g) and (h).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant UAW Local 1668 has continuously been a labor organization, had at least twenty five (25) members, and has been the recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant UAW Local 1668 has continuously been a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11(d) and (e) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(d) and (e).
CONCILIATION
8. Prior to institution of this lawsuit, the Commission's representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with the ADEA through informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
9. Since at least July 2005, Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc. and Defendant UAW Local 1688 have engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623, by reducing Charging Party Tufino's and Charging Party Haberberger's severance benefits because of their ages, over forty (40), pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into between Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc. and Defendant UAW Local 1688 which states, “Subject to applicable prevailing law, any employee who is over sixty (60) years of age and is entitled to a pension under the Company's Pension Plan shall be entitled to a severance pay less an amount equal to one-sixtieth (1/60) of entitled severance pay for each month of age over 60; e.g. an employee who is age 65 and entitled to a pension would not be entitled to receive severance pay.”
10. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Charging Parties Tufino and Haberberger of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their age.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were willful within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from discriminating against employees age forty (40) and over on the basis of age.

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

2006 WL 3634784 (D.N.J.) (Cite as: 2006 WL 3634784)

Page 3

B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals forty (40) years of age and older, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Grant a judgment requiring Defendants to pay appropriate severance benefits in an amount to be determined at trial, and an equal sum as liquidated damages, or prejudgment interest in lieu thereof, to Tufino and Haberberger as a result of the acts complained of above.
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.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. U.S. ALUMINUM, INC. and United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local 1668, Defendants. 2006 WL 3634784 (D.N.J.)
END OF DOCUMENT

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

 Case 3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB Document 16 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 5

Konrad Batog, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004 (212) 336-3700 Attorney for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

------------------------------------------------------x

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

-against-

:

:

U.S. ALUMINUM, INC.,

:

UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & :

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT

:

WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668, :

and UNITED STATES BRONZE

:

POWDERS, INC.

:

:

Defendants.

:

----------------------------------------------------------x

Civil Action No. 06-CV-03801 (MLC-TJB) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Parties Juanarge Tufino (“Tufino”) and George Haberberger (“Haberberger”). As alleged with greater specificity below, Defendants U.S. Aluminum, Inc., United States Bronze Powders, Inc. (“U.S. Bronze, Inc.”), and United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local 1668 (“UAW Local 1668”) discriminated against Tufino and Haberberger because of their age, sixty three (63), by reducing their severance benefits.

1

Case 3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB Document 16 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 5
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 Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (“ADEA”), which incorporates by reference Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 216(c).
2. The alleged unlawful employment practices were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of the ADEA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705.
4. At all relevant times, Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc. has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of New Jersey and the cities of Haskell and Flemington and has continuously had at least twenty (20) employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11(b), (g) and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(b), (g) and (h).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant U.S. Bronze, Inc. has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of New Jersey and the cities of Haskell and Flemington
2

Case 3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB Document 16 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 3 of 5
and has continuously had at least twenty (20) employees. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant U.S. Bronze, Inc. has continuously been an
employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11(b), (g) and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(b), (g) and (h).
8. At all relevant times, Defendant UAW Local 1668 has continuously been a labor organization, had at least twenty five (25) members, and has been the recognized collective bargaining representative for employees of Defendant U.S. Aluminum, Inc.
9. At all relevant times, Defendant UAW Local 1668 has continuously been a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11(d) and (e) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(d) and (e).
CONCILIATION
10. Prior to institution of this lawsuit, the Commission’s representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with the ADEA through informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
11. Since at least July 2005, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623, by reducing Charging Party Tufino’s and Charging Party Haberberger’s severance benefits because of their ages, over forty (40), pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into between Defendants which states, “Subject to applicable prevailing law, any employee who is over sixty
3

Case 3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB Document 16 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 4 of 5
(60) years of age and is entitled to a pension under the Company’s Pension Plan shall be entitled to a severance pay less an amount equal to one-sixtieth (1/60) of entitled severance pay for each month of age over 60; e.g. an employee who is age 65 and entitled to a pension would not be entitled to receive severance pay.”
10. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Charging Parties Tufino and Haberberger of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their age.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were willful within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from discriminating against employees age forty (40) and over on the basis of age. B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals forty (40) years of age and older, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Grant a judgment requiring Defendants to pay appropriate severance benefits in an amount to be determined at trial, and an equal sum as liquidated damages, or prejudgment interest in lieu thereof, to Tufino and Haberberger as a result of the acts complained of above. D. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
4

Case 3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB Document 16 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 5 of 5
E. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its
complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Y. Reams Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 “L” Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20507
s/ Elizabeth Grossman Elizabeth Grossman Regional Attorney
s/ Lisa Sirkin Lisa Sirkin Supervisory Trial Attorney
s/ Konrad Batog Konrad Batog (KB 9443) Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004 (212) 336-3700 (212) 336-3623 (facsimile) konrad.batog@eeoc.gov
5

 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., et al., :

:

Defendants.

:

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-3801 (MLC) MEMORANDUM OPINION

COOPER, District Judge

Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

brings this action on behalf of Juanarge Tufino (“Tufino”) and

George Haberberger (“Haberberger”) (collectively, the “charging

parties”) against defendants, U.S. Aluminum, Inc. (“Aluminum”),

U.S. Bronze Powders, Inc. (“Bronze”), and United Automobile,

Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local 1668

(“Union”) (collectively, “defendants”), alleging that they

violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29

U.S.C. § (“Section”) 621, et seq. (Dkt. entry no. 16, 2d Am.

Compl.) Union alleges a cross claim against Aluminum. (Dkt.

entry no. 18, Union Ans. & Cross-cl., at 4.) Aluminum and Bronze

also allege a cross claim against Union. (Dkt. entry no. 20,

Aluminum & Bronze Ans. & Cross-cl., at 21.)

Aluminum and Bronze now move for summary judgment in their

favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56(c).

(Dkt. entry no. 29.) Union separately moves for summary judgment in its favor. (Dkt. entry no. 26.) Plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, to stay summary judgment on select issues and provide plaintiff with additional discovery. (Dkt. entry no. 34.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court will (1) grant Aluminum’s and Bronze’s motion for summary judgment, (2) grant Union’s separate motion for summary judgment, and (3) deny plaintiff’s cross motion.1
BACKGROUND
Bronze is a company that manufactures bronze and copper alloy powders. (Dkt. entry no. 29, Eugene T. D’Ablemont Aff. (“D’Ablemont Aff.”), at ¶ 4.) Its manufacturing plant and headquarters are located in Flemington, New Jersey. (Id.) Bronze acquired another manufacturing plant from Engelhard Industries (“Engelhard”) in 1973. (Id. at ¶ 5.) This plant, located in Haskell, New Jersey, manufactured aluminum paste. (Id.) Bronze incorporated this plant and formed Aluminum as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bronze. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Aluminum then
1 The Court need not address Union’s and plaintiff’s arguments pertaining to whether Union may be held liable under the ADEA for its conduct here, for the reasons discussed infra. (See dkt. entry no. 27, Union Br.; dkt. entry no. 33, Pl. Br., at 25-37; dkt. entry no. 38, Union Reply Br.) The Court will grant Union’s motion for summary judgment for the same reasons it will grant Aluminum’s and Bronze’s motion for summary judgment, as Union stated at oral argument that it agrees with Aluminum’s and Bronze’s contention that no violation of the ADEA occurred here. (Dkt. entry no. 46, 5-9-08 Oral Arg.)
2

hired all of Engelhard’s employees working at the plant. (Id.) All of the hourly-paid employees were represented by Union; thus, as a successor employer, Aluminum assumed Engelhard’s preexisting labor contract with Union. (Id.)
Aluminum and Union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) as of August 2003. (Dkt. entry no. 29, Aluminum & Bronze Stmt. of Material Facts Not in Dispute (“Aluminum & Bronze Facts”), at ¶ 1.) Article XIII of the CBA specifies the terms and conditions of severance pay. (Dkt. entry no. 33, Pl. Stmt. of Disputed & Undisputed Facts (“Pl. Facts”), at ¶ 15.) At issue here is Article XIII, Section 2 of the CBA which provides:
Subject to applicable prevailing law, any employee who is over sixty (60) years of age and is entitled to a pension under the Company’s Pension Plan shall be entitled to a severance pay less an amount equal to one-sixtieth (1/60) of entitled severance pay for each month of age over 60; e.g. an employee who is age 65 and entitled to a pension would not be entitled to receive severance pay. (Dkt. entry no. 33, Konrad Batog Aff. (“Batog Aff.”), Ex. N, Arts. XIII - XVI of CBA.) Aluminum notified Union in May 2005 that it was going to shut down the Haskell, New Jersey plant on July 29, 2005, for economic reasons. (Aluminum & Bronze Facts, at ¶ 2.) Aluminum and Union then engaged in “effects bargaining” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., and reached a plant shutdown agreement in July 2005. (Id.
3

at ¶ 3; D’Ablemont Aff., at ¶ 12.)2 The plant shutdown agreement incorporated the terms of the CBA, including Article XIII, Section 2. (Aluminum & Bronze Facts, at ¶ 4.) It also provided, inter alia, an option for employees to receive their severance pay in the form of salary continuation, rather than in a lump sum, so as to allow the employees to continue their health care coverage and avoid paying health insurance premiums pursuant to higher rates under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”) through December 2005. (Id. at ¶ 9; see D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. C, 7-7-05 Letter from Eugene D’Ablemont to Robert Pike (“7-7-05 Letter”).)
The pension plan for Aluminum employees who were members of the Union (“the Pension Plan”) was also amended after Aluminum decided to shut down the plant, effective June 1, 2005 (“6-1-05 Amendment”). (D’Ablemont Aff., at ¶ 22, Ex. G, 6-1-05 Amendment.) Prior to that amendment, to be eligible for an immediate pension under the Pension Plan, an employee had to have (1) had at least ten years of pension credited service, and (2) been at least sixty years old. (D’Ablemont Aff., at ¶ 21, Ex. F, Pension Plan Definitions.)
2 Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA mandates that a union must be given significant opportunity to bargain with an employer with regard to the effects of a plant shutdown. See 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5); First Nat’l Maint. Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 452 U.S. 666, 681-82 (1981).
4

If an employee eligible for an immediate pension decided to retire prior to age sixty-five, however, the employee’s monthly pension would be reduced. (See id., Ex. I, Art. VI of Pension Plan.) Section 6.01 of Article VI of the Pension Plan provides that “[i]f a Participant receives a Retirement Pension prior to attaining his Normal Retirement Date, such Pension shall be the Participant’s Normal Retirement Pension reduced by five-ninths percent (5/9%) for each of the first five (5) years by which the commencement of such payments precedes his Normal Retirement Date . . .” (Id.) An employee’s “Normal Retirement Age” was age sixty-five. (Id., Ex. H, Pension Plan Definitions.) “Normal Retirement Date” is defined as the first day of the month coincident with or next following the date a Participant attains his Normal Retirement Age. (Id.) “Normal Retirement Pension” is defined as “the monthly pension to which a Participant becomes entitled upon attaining his Normal Retirement Date.” (Id.) Pursuant to an amendment to the Pension Plan, effective January 1, 2004 (“1-1-04 Amendment”), the amount of this monthly pension was the product of the number of years of pension credited service and $23.00, if the employee retired between January 2004 and January 2006. (Dkt. entry no. 37, Linda Trigas Aff. (“Trigas Aff.”), Ex. A, 1-1-04 Amendment.)
The Pension Plan also did not allow retired employees to receive their pension benefits in a lump sum when the present
5

value of the employee’s pension benefit exceeded $5,000. (Aluminum & Bronze Facts, at ¶ 10.) Pursuant to the 6-1-05 Amendment, however, an employee eligible for an immediate pension would be able to receive a lump sum pension benefit, which would be “the Actuarial Equivalent of such Participant’s Normal Retirement Pension.” (D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. G, 6-1-05 Amendment, Ex. J, Art. V of Pension Plan.) The 6-1-05 Amendment also states that “such lump sum option must be elected no later than the time of a distribution made in connection with a termination of the Plan.” (Ex. G, 6-1-05 Amendment.) The Pension Plan was subsequently terminated pursuant to an amendment to the Pension Plan, effective July 29, 2005 (“7-29-05 Amendment”). (Batog Aff., Ex. P, 7-29-05 Amendment.)
At issue here is the benefits the charging parties received at the time of the plant shutdown. The charging parties were the only two Aluminum employees subject to a reduction in their severance pay pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2, as both were sixty-three years old and entitled to an immediate pension under the Pension Plan. (Aluminum & Bronze Facts, at ¶¶ 7-8.) Haberberger’s severance pay was reduced by $21,604, from $34,112 to $12,507.3 (Id. at ¶ 8; Pl. Facts, at ¶ 32.) Tufino’s
3 Aluminum apparently “deemed” Haberberger eligible to receive severance pay under Article XIII, Sections 1 and 5 as a result of the effects bargaining, but now states that Haberberger is not entitled to any severance pay. (Aluminum & Bronze Facts, at ¶¶ 17-18.) Aluminum further argues that “[s]hould the Court
6

severance pay was reduced by $7,824, from $11,177 to $3,353. (Aluminum & Bronze Facts, at ¶ 8; Pl. Facts, at ¶ 33.)
The charging parties also opted to take their severance pay in the form of salary continuation through December 2005, thereby avoiding an increase in the cost of their health care coverage in the amount of $2,200 each. (Aluminum & Bronze Facts, at ¶ 9.) They also chose to take an immediate and unreduced lump sum pension benefit pursuant to the 6-1-05 Amendment. (Aluminum & Bronze Facts, at ¶ 13.) Haberberger received a pension benefit of $87,793; Tufino received a pension benefit of $60,093. (Id.)
DISCUSSION I. Summary Judgment Standard
Rule 56(c) provides that summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. The summary judgment movant bears the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant has met this prima facie burden, the non-movant must set
determine that Aluminum violated the ADEA by applying to [Haberberger] [Article XIII, Section 2], any damages that may flow from such violation should be offset by the proper application to him of Sections 1 and 5 of Article XIII.” (Dkt. entry no. 39, Aluminum & Bronze Reply Br., at 10.) The Court need not address this issue, for the reasons discussed infra.
7

out specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2). A non-movant must present actual evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact and may not rely on mere allegations. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
The Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant when deciding a summary judgment motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). At the summary judgment stage, the Court’s role is “not . . . to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Under this standard, the “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-movant’s] position will be insufficient [to defeat a Rule 56(c) motion]; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant].” Id. at 252. “By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 247-48 (emphasis in original). A fact is material only if it might affect the action’s outcome under governing law. Id. at 248. “[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a
8

verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-50 (internal citations omitted). II. Age Discrimination Under The ADEA
A. Legal Standards Section 623 of the ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer, inter alia, “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age”. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). “Compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” includes “all employee benefits, including such benefits provided pursuant to a bona fide employee benefit plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 630(l). A plaintiff may assert a disparate treatment claim under the ADEA. Embrico v. U.S. Steel Corp., 404 F.Supp.2d 802, 817 (E.D. Pa. 2005). When alleging a disparate treatment claim, the plaintiff ultimately must show that age actually motivated or had a determinative influence on the employer’s adverse employment decision. Id. Such a claim may be proven by direct evidence or indirect evidence. Id.4
4 A plaintiff may also bring a disparate impact claim pursuant to the ADEA. Embrico, 404 F.Supp.2d at 817. This claim challenges a specific, facially neutral employment practice that operates to deprive the individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affects that individual’s status as an
9

A policy that facially discriminates on the basis of a
protected trait may constitute direct evidence of per se or
explicit age discrimination for the purposes of a disparate
treatment claim in certain circumstances. DiBiase v. SmithKline
Beecham Corp., 48 F.3d 719, 726 (3d Cir. 1995). Whether an
employment practice involves disparate treatment through explicit
facial discrimination does not depend on why the employer
discriminates but rather on the explicit terms of the
discrimination. Id. “This is because, in a facial disparate
treatment case, the protected trait by definition plays a role in
the decision-making process, inasmuch as the policy explicitly
classified people on that basis. Thus, when the policy itself
displays the unlawful categorization, the employee is relieved
from independently proving intent.” Id. “The touchstone of
explicit facial discrimination is that the discrimination is apparent from the terms of the policy itself.” Id. at 727.5
employee. Id. The plaintiff must show that the practice has an adverse impact on older workers that is not due to reasonable factors other than age. Id. Plaintiff does not allege this type of claim, as it asserts that Article XIII, Section 2 of the CBA is facially discriminatory. (See Pl. Br., at 13-18.)
5 If an employer’s policy is not facially discriminatory, then the plaintiff must prove both unequal treatment and intent to discriminate to establish a disparate treatment claim. DiBiase, 48 F.3d at 728. If the plaintiff offers indirect evidence to support these claims, the claims must proceed through a three-step burden-shifting framework. Embrico, 404 F.Supp.2d at 817-18. The plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, which creates an inference that the
10

The ADEA allows an employer to maintain certain age-based
benefit plans under certain conditions, however. Stokes v.
Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 206 F.3d 420, 426 (4th Cir.
2000). One such condition is at issue here. Section
623(l)(2)(A) specifically addresses the coordination of severance
payments and certain health and pension benefits when both are
triggered by an event unrelated to age. Id.; 29 U.S.C. §
623(l)(2)(A). It provides that an employer does not violate the
ADEA when
solely because following a contingent event unrelated to age–(i) the value of any retiree health benefits received by an individual eligible for an immediate pension; (ii) the value of any additional pension benefits that are made available solely as a result of the contingent event unrelated to age and following which the individual is eligible for not less than an immediate and unreduced pension; or (iii) the values described in both clauses (i) and (ii); are deducted from severance pay made available as a result of the contingent event unrelated to age.
29 U.S.C. § 623(l)(2)(A). As the court in Stokes explained:
Congress crafted [Section] 623(l)(2)(A)(ii) to allow benefit coordination if additional pension benefits accrue as a
employer acted with a discriminatory motive. Id. at 818. The burden then shifts to the defendant to produce evidence that it had a legitimate business reason for its adverse employment action. Id. If the defendant meets this burden, the inference of discriminatory motive is dispelled and the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s articulated reason is merely a pretext for intentional discrimination. Id. The Court need not engage in this analysis, as plaintiff argues that Article XIII, Section 2 is facially discriminatory. (Pl. Br., at 13-18.)
11

result of the age-neutral event that triggers severance pay and if the employee is entitled immediately after layoff to receive an unreduced pension. In such a case, the additional pension benefits and severance pay are analogous and therefore may be appropriately coordinated. Just as severance pay provides short-term wage replacement to provide a bridge to a person’s next job, immediate pension benefits provide a bridge to retirement. Stokes, 206 F.3d at 427; see 29 U.S.C. § 623(l)(2)(A)(i). Similarly, Section 623(l)(2)(A)(i) “explicitly permits an employer to reduce severance payments by the value of retiree health benefits an employee receives” because of a contingent event unrelated to age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(l)(2)(A)(i); McCambridge v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 873 F.Supp. 919, 925 (E.D. Pa. 1994). B. Legal Standards Applied Here
The reduction in the charging parties’ severance pay pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2 of the CBA was permissible here under Section 623(l)(2)(A)(ii), as the (1) charging parties each received an additional pension benefit, in the form of an immediate, lump sum, unreduced pension benefit, to offset the reduction in their severance pay, and (2) triggering event for both the reduction in severance pay and additional pension benefit was the plant shutdown. (Aluminum & Bronze Facts, at ¶¶ 2, 8, 13; D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. G, 6-1-05 Amendment to Pension Plan.) See 29 U.S.C. § 623(l)(2)(A)(ii); Stokes, 206 F.3d at 427. Before the decision was made to close the plant in May 2005, the charging parties, each at the age of sixty-three, only would have been entitled to a reduced pension. (See D’Ablemont
12

Aff., Ex. I, Art. VI of Pension Plan.) However, after the
decision was made to close the plant, the 6-1-05 Amendment
entitled the charging parties to an immediate, lump sum pension
benefit in the amount of the “Actuarial Equivalent of such
Participant’s Normal Retirement Pension”. (Id., Ex. G, 6-1-05
Amendment, Ex. J, Art. V of Pension Plan.) The benefit of this
immediate, lump sum, unreduced pension benefit totaled $22,764
for Haberberger and $15,692 for Tufino, more than offsetting the
reductions in their severance pay. (Aluminum & Bronze Reply Br.,
at 7-8 (noting that for (1) Haberberger, value of pension
benefit, totaling $22,764, offset $21,604 reduction in severance
pay, and (2) Tufino, value of pension benefit, totaling $15,692,
offset $7,824 reduction in severance pay).)6
6 The formula to reduce the charging parties’ pension benefit, had they not been permitted by the 6-1-05 Amendment to take an immediate, lump sum, unreduced pension, as set out in Article VI of the Pension Plan, would have been as follows:
(1) Haberberger had 27.25 years of pension credited service. (Aluminum & Bronze Reply Br., at 7.) The Pension Plan provided that his Normal Retirement Pension would be that number multiplied by $23.00. (Trigas Aff., Ex. A, 1-1-04 Amendment.) Thus, Haberberger’s Normal Retirement Pension was $626.75 per month. (Id.; Aluminum & Bronze Reply Br., at 7.) Applying the 5/9% reduction for each of the twentyfour months Haberberger was under the age of sixty-five would result in a total reduction in Haberberger’s Normal Retirement Pension per month of $83.57. (Id.; D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. I, Art. VI to Pension Plan.) Over a projected lifetime of 22.7 years, the total reduction in Haberberger’s pension would have been $22,764. (Aluminum & Bronze Reply Br., at 7-8.)
13

Plaintiff contends that Section 623(l)(2)(A) did not allow for the reduction in the charging parties’ severance pay, as (1) “the formula used to coordinate and reduce severance pay matters because neither [Section 623(l)(2)(A)] nor any other section of the ADEA, nor any of the legislative history to which [Aluminum and Bronze] cite, allow for severance pay reductions because of age”, and (2) the reduction in severance pay did not occur “because of and in relation to the cost of an immediate pension option”; rather, the reduction occurred on the basis of age and pension eligibility. (Pl. Br., at 20-21.)
The plain language of Section 623(l)(2)(A)(ii) does not support this assertion. See 29 U.S.C. § 623(l)(2)(A)(ii). The provision explicitly allows for coordination of severance pay and pension benefits under certain conditions, as discussed supra. See id. It does not indicate that such coordination must be done with a certain intent or using a certain “formula”, or “because of and in relation to the cost of an immediate pension option.”
(2) Tufino had 18.67 years of pension credited service. (Id. at 8.) This number would be multiplied by $23.00 under the Pension Plan. (Trigas Aff., Ex. A, 1-1-04 Amendment.) Thus, Tufino’s Normal Retirement Pension was $429.41 per month. (Aluminum & Bronze Reply Br., at 8.) Applying the 5/9% reduction for each of the twenty-four months Tufino was under the age of sixty-five would result in a total reduction in Tufino’s Normal Retirement Pension per month of $57.61. (Id.; D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. I, Art. VI to Pension Plan.) Over a projected lifetime of 22.7 years, the total reduction in Tufino’s pension would have been $15,692. (Aluminum & Bronze Reply Br., at 8.)
14

See id. Rather, what matters is that the charging parties’ entitlement to both benefits - severance pay and an immediate, lump sum, unreduced pension benefit - was triggered by the ageneutral event of the plant shutdown, and the charging parties both received such a pension, offsetting the reductions in their severance pay. See id.
The charging parties were not treated unfavorably compared to the younger employees here, moreover, as the younger employees will not be entitled to receive an immediate, lump sum, unreduced pension benefit if they choose to retire prior to age sixty-five. (See D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. G, 6-1-05 Amendment, Ex. J, Art. V to Pension Plan; Batog Aff., Ex. P, 7-29-05 Amendment, Art. XII of Pension Plan.) The 6-1-05 Amendment provides that the lump sum option “must be elected no later than the time of a distribution made in connection with a termination of the Plan.” (D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. G, 6-1-05 Amendment.) The Pension Plan was terminated, effective July 29, 2005. (Batog Aff., Ex. P, 7-29-05 Amendment.) Thus, the option to take a lump-sum distribution of an unreduced pension terminated on July 29, 2005. (D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. G, 61-05 Amendment; Batog Aff., Ex. P, 7-29-05 Amendment to Pension Plan.)
Article XII of the Pension Plan provides that, after termination of the Pension Plan, “[d]istributions . . . shall be made . . . in accordance with the provisions of Articles IV and V.” (Batog Aff., Ex. P, Art. XII of Pension Plan.) Article V,
15

in turn, provides that distribution of an employee’s unreduced Normal Retirement Pension occurs only when an employee reaches the Normal Retirement Date, the first day of the month coincident with or next following the date an employee attains his Normal Retirement Age of sixty-five. (D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. J, Art. V of Pension Plan, Ex. H, Pension Plan Definitions.) Thus, in contrast to the charging parties, the younger employees will have to wait until age sixty-five to receive an unreduced pension benefit. (Aluminum & Bronze Reply Br., at 9.) Moreover, the younger employees will not have the option of receiving their pension benefit in lump sum form. (See D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. G, 6-1-05 Amendment; Batog Aff., Ex. P, 7-29-05 Amendment.)
Plaintiff also argues that the immediate, lump sum, unreduced pension benefit the charging parties each received was not a permissible offset pursuant to Section 623(l)(2)(A)(ii) because the charging parties had already accrued this benefit “before the July 2005 plant shutdown agreement and before the July 29, 2005 plant shutdown.” (Pl. Br., at 22-23.) This argument is without merit. Nothing in the provision requires the additional pension benefits to accrue after formal “effects bargaining” and a plant shutdown agreement is reached so as to be coordinated with a reduction in severance pay. See 29 U.S.C. § 623(l)(2)(A)(ii). Rather, the statute provides that the value of such benefits “made available solely as a result of the
16

contingent event unrelated to age” may be deducted from severance pay “following a contingent event unrelated to age”. Id. It is undisputed that the decision to close the plant in May 2005, a contingent event unrelated to age, triggered both the (1) 6-1-05 Amendment providing the additional pension benefits, and (2) reduction in the charging parties’ severance pay that occurred thereafter. (Aluminum & Bronze Facts, at ¶¶ 2, 8; D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. G, 6-1-05 Amendment.) Thus, the provision’s requirements are met. See 29 U.S.C. § 623(l)(2)(A)(ii).7
Plaintiff further argues that “there is no ‘additional pension benefit’ in providing a lump sum payment as opposed to an annuity since the value of the lump sum is the actuarial equivalent of an annuity.” (Pl. Br., at 23.) However, even if receiving the immediate, unreduced pension benefit in lump-sum form was not an “additional” pension benefit within the meaning of Section 623(l)(2)(A)(ii), the charging parties each received
7 Plaintiff also argues that the continued medical coverage the charging parties received was not a permissible offset within the meaning of Section 623(l)(2)(A)(i) because (1) this coverage did not fall within the meaning of “retiree health benefits” as defined in the ADEA, and (2) all laid-off employees received this benefit. (Pl. Br., at 21-22.) The Court need not address this argument. Even if the Court were to decide that the $2,200 the charging parties saved by salary continuation did not qualify as a retiree health benefit within the meaning of Section 623(l)(2)(A)(i), the amount of additional pension benefit the charging parties received more than offset the reduction in their severance pay, as discussed supra.
17

an “additional” pension benefit by receiving an immediate, unreduced pension benefit prior to age sixty-five, as discussed supra. (Aluminum & Bronze Facts, at ¶ 13; see D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. H, Pension Plan Definitions, Ex. I, Art. VI of Pension Plan.)
Plaintiff also contends that the reduction in the charging parties’ severance pay is not offset by the value of the immediate, lump sum, unreduced pensions they received because the Pension Plan provided for a reduction in an employee’s pension of 5/9% per year, as opposed to per month, for each of the five years before the age of sixty-five. (Pl. Br., at 24-25.) Thus, according to plaintiff’s calculation, prior to the 6-1-05 Amendment, reducing (1) Haberberger’s unreduced pension of $87,793 by 5/9% for two years would result in a total reduction of $975.47, and (2) Tufino’s unreduced pension of $60,093 by 5/9% for two years would result in a total reduction of $667.70. (See id. at 25.) As such, plaintiff argues that the reduction in the charging parties’ severance pay was not offset by receiving immediate, lump sum, unreduced pension benefits. (Id.)
Plaintiff’s calculation is not supported by the plain language of the Pension Plan. That language provides that the “Normal Retirement Pension” is to be “reduced by five-ninths percent (5/9%) for each of the first five (5) years by which commencement of such payments precedes his Normal Retirement Date” if an employee retires prior to age sixty-five.
18

(D’Ablemont Aff., Ex. I, Art. VI of Pension Plan.) The “Normal
Retirement Pension” is a monthly payment. (Id., Ex. H, Pension
Plan Definitions.) Thus, the 5/9% reduction is multiplied by the
number of months the employee retired prior to age sixty-five,
and applied on a monthly basis to reduce to each monthly pension
payment; the reduction is not applied once per year to the total
amount of the Normal Retirement Pension. (See id., Ex. H,
Pension Plan Definitions, Ex. I, Art. VI of Pension Plan.)8
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated supra, the Court will (1) grant the
motion by Aluminum and Bronze for summary judgment, (2) grant
Union’s separate motion for summary judgment on the same grounds,
8 The Court notes that the Social Security Act also applies a similar reduction formula for Social Security benefits if an individual retires prior to the individual’s “retirement age”. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(q)(1). The statute provides:
[I]f the first month for which an individual entitled to an old-age . . . insurance benefit is a month before the month in which such individual attains retirement age, the amount of such benefit for such month and for any subsequent month shall . . . be reduced by–(A) 5/9 of 1 percent of such amount if such benefit is an old-age insurance benefit . . . multiplied by (B)(i) the number of months in the reduction period for such benefit . . . or (ii) if less, the number of such months in the adjusted reduction period for such benefit . . . Id. 20 C.F.R. § 404.410 further explains that the reduction due to early retirement occurs on a monthly, rather than an annual, basis: “The reduction in your primary insurance amount is based on the number of months of entitlement prior to the month you attain full retirement age. The reduction is 5/9 of 1 percent for each of the first 36 months and 5/12 of 1 percent for each month in excess of 36.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.410.
19

and (3) deny plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, to stay summary judgment on select issues and provide plaintiff with additional discovery. The Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.9

Dated: May 23, 2008

s/ Mary L. Cooper MARY L. COOPER United States District Judge

9 The Court will deny as moot the motion by Aluminum and Bronze to strike plaintiff’s reply memorandum (dkt. entry no. 42), as the Court did not rely on plaintiff’s reply memorandum here.
20

 U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-cv-03801-MLC-TJB

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. U.S. ALUMINUM, INC. et al Assigned to: Judge Mary L. Cooper Referred to: Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni Case in other court: Third Circuit, 08-03253 Cause: 29:626 Job Discrimination (Age)

Date Filed: 08/11/2006 Date Terminated: 05/27/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by ELIZABETH GROSSMAN NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE EEOC 33 WHITEHALL STREET 5TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10004-2112 (212) 336-3695 Fax: (212) 3623 Email: elizabeth.grossman@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KONRAD BATOG U.S. EEOC 33 WHITEHALL STREET 5TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10004 212-336-3620 Email: konrad.batog@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant U.S. ALUMINUM, INC.

represented by GEOFFREY W. CASTELLO , III KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP ONE JEFFERSON ROAD 2ND FLOOR PARSIPPANY, NJ 07054 (973) 503-5900

Defendant UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668
Defendant UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC.

Email: gcastello@kelleydrye.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, LLP ONE JEFFERSON ROAD 2ND FLOOR PARSIPPANY, NJ 07054 (973) 503-5900 Email: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ROBERT T. MCGOVERN Archer, Byington, Glennon & Levine, LLP 425 Broadhollow Road SUITE 405 Melville, NY 11747-9064 631-249-6565 Email: rmcgovern@abgllaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT CHARLES ANGELILLO ARKIN SOLBAKKEN LLP 750 LEXINGTON AVE., 25TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10022 212-333-0200 Email: rangelillo@arkin-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GEOFFREY W. CASTELLO , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668
V. Cross Defendant U.S. ALUMINUM, INC.
Cross Claimant UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668
V. Cross Defendant U.S. ALUMINUM, INC.
Cross Defendant UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC.

represented by ROBERT T. MCGOVERN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GEOFFREY W. CASTELLO , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ROBERT T. MCGOVERN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GEOFFREY W. CASTELLO , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GEOFFREY W. CASTELLO , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant U.S. ALUMINUM, INC.
Cross Claimant UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC.
V. Cross Defendant UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668

LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GEOFFREY W. CASTELLO , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GEOFFREY W. CASTELLO , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ROBERT T. MCGOVERN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/11/2006
08/16/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668 ( Filing fee $ 0 receipt number .) jury demand, filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(tp ) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
2 Summons Issued as to U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668.Days Due - 20. (mailed to counsel ) (ck, ) (Entered: 08/16/2006)

10/17/2006 10/24/2006 10/26/2006 11/03/2006 12/12/2006
12/13/2006
12/19/2006 01/02/2007
01/09/2007

3 AMENDED COMPLAINT with jury trial demand against all defendants all defendants., filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(BATOG, KONRAD) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
4 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, CROSSCLAIM against U.S. ALUMINUM, INC. by UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service (by ECF and Mail))(MCGOVERN, ROBERT) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
5 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by U.S. ALUMINUM, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Local Civil Rule 11.2# 2 Statement of Disclosure Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1# 3 Certificate of Service)(CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
6 ORDER Scheduling a rule 16 Conference set for 1/16/2007 2:00 PM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 11/3/06. (Attachments: # 1 ADR MEMO)(mm) (Entered: 11/04/2006)
7 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT# 2 Brief IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT# 5 Certificate of Service)(BATOG, KONRAD) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
Set Deadline - 7 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint set for 1/16/2007, 10:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni (Please note pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 and Local Rule 7.1(B)(4) no oral argument will be held in this matter and parties should not appear unless specifically directed to do so by this Court)(DH) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
8 LETTER ORDER re: postponement of scheduling conference, Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 12/18/06 (DH) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
9 RESPONSE in Opposition re 7 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint TO ADD U.S. BRONZE POWDERS, INC. AS A DEFENDANT filed by U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., U.S. ALUMINUM, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit OF EUGENE T. D'ABLEMONT# 2 Affidavit OF VINCENT VACCARO)(CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 01/02/2007)
10 REPLY to Response to Motion re 7 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of EEOC's

01/12/2007
01/29/2007 02/06/2007 02/06/2007
02/16/2007 02/26/2007 05/22/2007 05/29/2007
05/29/2007 05/30/2007
05/30/2007

Memorandum of Law in Reply to Defendant U.S. Aluminum's Opposition to EEOC's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint)(BATOG, KONRAD) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
11 Letter from Defendant, U.S. Aluminum, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order /CONSENT ORDER# 2 Declaration of Eugene D'Ablemont in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice)(CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
12 ORDER admitting Eugene D'Abelmont, Esq. pro hac vice on behalf of the defendants. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 1/29/07. (ck, ) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
Pro Hac Vice fee: for Eugene D'Ablemont, Esq. $ 150, receipt number 343632 (lk) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
13 Letter from Robert T. McGovern, Esq.. (Attachments: # 1 (Proposed) Consent Order Admitting Lowell Peterson, Esq. pro hac vice# 2 Supporting Affidavit of Robert T. McGovern, Esq.)(MCGOVERN, ROBERT) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
14 ORDER granting pro hac vice admission of Lowell Peterson, Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 2/15/07 (DH) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
Pro Hac Vice fee: for Lowell Peterson, Esq. $ 150, receipt number 355787 (lk) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
15 ORDER granting 7 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended complaint by 5/29/07. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 5/21/07. (ck) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
16 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Complaint against all defendants all defendants., filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(BATOG, KONRAD) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION re 16 Amended Complaint (BATOG, KONRAD) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: Regarding Document 16 Second Amended Complaint filed by K. Batog, Esq. on 5/29/07 contained a new defendant. Counsel did not add this party to the docket at the time of filing, therefore the Clerk will correct this error and add them to the docket. (lk) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
18 Answer to Second Amended Complaint ANSWER to Amended Complaint, CROSSCLAIM against U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC. by UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL

06/05/2007 06/15/2007 06/18/2007 06/19/2007 06/20/2007
06/20/2007 08/13/2007 08/14/2007 09/21/2007

1668.(MCGOVERN, ROBERT) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
19 ORDER Scheduling a rule 16 Conference set for 8/13/2007 2:30 PM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 6/5/07. (Attachments: # 1 ADR MEMO)(mm) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
20 ANSWER to Complaint (Second Amended), First CROSSCLAIM against UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668 by U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC..(CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
21 US Aluminum, Inc. ANSWER to Crossclaim of United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local 1668 by U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC..(CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
22 ANSWER to Crossclaim set forth in the Answer to the Second Amended Complaint of of Defendants U.S. Aluminum by UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668.(MCGOVERN, ROBERT) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: Document 22 Answer submitted by ROBERT MCGOVERN, ESQ. on 6/19/07 did not contain a proper electronic signature (s/). PLEASE RESUBMIT THE DOCUMENT WITH THE PROPER ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE BY 6/22/07. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only (ck, ) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
23 REPLACES DOCKET # 22 ANSWER to Complaint Answer To Crossclaim set forth in the Answer to the Second Amended Complaint of Defendants U.S. Aluminum by UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668.(MCGOVERN, ROBERT) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 8/13/2007. (mm) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
24 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 9/21/2007 1:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 8/14/2007. (ss, ) Modified on 8/15/2007 (ss, ). (Entered: 08/14/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Settlement Conference held on 9/21/2007. (mm) (Entered: 09/24/2007)

09/24/2007 10/26/2007
10/26/2007 10/26/2007 10/29/2007 10/29/2007 10/31/2007

25 SCHEDULING ORDER:Motions due by 10/26/2007.. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 9/24/07. (lk) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
26 MOTION for Summary Judgment Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668.Responses due by 11/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Rule 56 Statement of Material Issues Not In Dispute On Behalf of United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local 1668# 2 Affidavit of Lowell Peterson, Esq.# 3 Affidavit of Lowell Peterson, Esq. (Exhibit 1 March 21, 2006 Letter)# 4 (Proposed) Order)(MCGOVERN, ROBERT) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
27 BRIEF in Support re 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment On Behalf of United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local 1668 filed by UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668. (MCGOVERN, ROBERT) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
28 MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC..Responses due by 11/5/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Brief # 2 Rule 56.1 Statement# 3 Affidavit of Eugene T. D'Ablemont# 4 Exhibit A-C# 5 Exhibit D-K# 6 Exhibit L-K# 7 Affidavit of Vincent Vaccaro# 8 Text of Proposed Order)(CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
Set Deadlines as to 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 11/19/2007 before Judge Mary L. Cooper. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.)(lk) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
CLERKS OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: Document 28 Motion filed by G. Castello, Esq. on 10/26/07 is signed by Pro hac vice counsel Eugene T. D'Ablemont, Esq. Pursuant to Local Rules 11.1 and 101.1(c) pleadings must be signed by a member of the bar of this Court. Admission pro hac vice doesn't allow counsel to file papers before this, please refer to the Court's Order filed on 1/29/07 document 12 . Counsel of record is to Refile Motion by 11/1/07. The Clerk will terminate the deadline. (lk) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
29 MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk) by U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC..Responses due by 11/5/2007 (Attachments:

11/01/2007
11/02/2007 11/05/2007
11/07/2007 11/26/2007 11/30/2007 12/03/2007

# 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Rule 56.1 Statement# 3 Affidavit of Vincent Vaccaro# 4 Affidavit of Eugene T. D'Ablemont# 5 Exhibit A-C of D'Ablemont Affidavit# 6 Exhibit D-K of D'Ablemont Affidavit# 7 Exhibit L-Q of D'Ablemont Affidavit# 8 Text of Proposed Order)(CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
Set Deadlines as to 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk) MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk) MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk). Motion Hearing set for 12/3/2007 before Judge Mary L. Cooper. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.)(lk) (Entered: 11/01/2007)
30 Rule 7.1 Letter for extension of return date re 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (BATOG, KONRAD) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
Reset Deadlines as to 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 12/3/2007 before Judge Mary L. Cooper. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.)(lk) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
31 ORDER setting briefing schedule for motion for summary judgment Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 11/7/2007. (ss, ) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI on behalf of U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC. (MAZZUCHETTI, LAURI) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
CLERK'S NOTE: Letter request dated 11/30/07 to extend the page limit for a brief is granted by consent at the direction of Judge Cooper. (eh, ) *** CORRECTED ON 12/3/07 - LETTER REQUEST SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF.**** (Entered: 11/30/2007)
33 BRIEF in Opposition re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk) MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk) MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk), 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment Notice of Motion for Summary

12/03/2007
12/04/2007 12/05/2007 01/03/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008

Judgment filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Konrad Batog# 2 Affidavit of Juanarge Tufino# 3 Statement of Disputed and Undisputed Facts)(BATOG, KONRAD) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
34 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment , or in the Alternative to Stay Summary Judgment on Select Issues and Provide Plaintiff with Additional Discovery (Brief, Affidavits, and Statement of Undisputed and Disputed Facts in Support of Cross-Motion filed with Docket Number 33) by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.Responses due by 1/7/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)(BATOG, KONRAD) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
Set Deadlines as to Cross-motion for summary judgment Motion Hearing set for 1/7/2008 before Judge Mary L. Cooper. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.)(lk) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
35 Letter from Geoffrey Castello. (CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
36 RESPONSE in Support re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk) MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk) MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk) filed by U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC.. (CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
Reseting Deadlines as to 29 & 34 Motions. Motions set for 1/22/2008 10:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 5W before Judge Mary L. Cooper. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.) (ij, ) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
37 BRIEF in Opposition to the EEOC's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Linda Trigas)(CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
38 RESPONSE in Support (UAW Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment) filed by UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Affidavit of Lowell Peterson, Esq.)(MCGOVERN, ROBERT) (Entered: 01/04/2008)

01/04/2008
01/14/2008 01/14/2008 01/22/2008 01/23/2008
02/04/2008 02/06/2008 02/11/2008

39 RESPONSE in Support re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk) MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk) MOTION for Summary Judgment (amended and refiled at request of the Clerk)(amended and refiled) filed by U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC.. (CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
40 BRIEF in Support of Plaintiff's Rule 56(a) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) Cross-Motion, Made in the Alternative, to Stay Summary Judgment on Select Issues and Provide Plaintiff with Additional Discovery filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (BATOG, KONRAD) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
41 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION re 40 Brief in Support of Motion, (BATOG, KONRAD) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
42 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Law by U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC..Responses due by 2/4/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Brief In Support Of Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Memorandum Or In The Alternative For Leave To Submit A Response# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
Setting Deadlines as to 42 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Law. Motion set for 2/19/2008 10:00 AM in Trenton Courtroom 5W before Judge Mary L. Cooper. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.) (ij, ) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
43 BRIEF in Opposition re 42 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Law filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(BATOG, KONRAD) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
44 NOTICE of Appearance by ROBERT CHARLES ANGELILLO on behalf of UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 1668 (ANGELILLO, ROBERT) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
45 RESPONSE in Support re 42 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Law filed by U.S. ALUMINUM, INC., UNITED STATES BRONZE POWDERS, INC.. (CASTELLO, GEOFFREY) (Entered: 02/11/2008)

04/22/2008 05/09/2008 05/27/2008 05/27/2008 06/16/2008
07/25/2008
08/04/2008 08/11/2008 09/10/2008

ORAL ARGUMENT set for 5/9/2008 02:00 PM before Judge Mary L. Cooper re: pending motions for summary judgment. (Confirmed via telephone w/counsel for dft.) (eh, ) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
46 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mary L. Cooper: Motion Hearing held on 5/9/2008 re: motions for summary judgment.Ordered motions taken under advisement. (ESR: HANEKE.) (eh, ) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
47 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 5/23/08. (lk) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
48 ORDER & JUDGMENT granting 26 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 34 Motion for Summary Judgment; denied as moot 42 Motion to Strike; and directing the Clerk to close action. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 5/23/08. (lk) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
49 TRANSCRIPT of MOTION HEARING held on MAY 9, 2008 before Judge MARY L. COOPER. Court Reporter: MELISSA HANEKE. PLEASE NOTE: The complete transcript of these proceedings is maintained in paper format on file in the Clerks Office. To request copies of this transcript, contact the Official Court Reporter or Transcription Service who prepared the transcript. (mmh) (Main Document 49 replaced on 6/30/2016) (kas). (Entered: 06/16/2008)
50 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 48 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,, Order on Motion to Strike, by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(BATOG, KONRAD) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
52 USCA Case Number 08-3253 for 50 Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA) filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. USCA Case Manager Carolyn Hicks (Document Restricted - Court Only) (ca3hicks, ) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
51 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST NOT REQUESTED by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (ij, ) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
53 CERTIFIED ORDER of USCA in lieu of formal MANDATE as to 50 Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA) filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, dismissing case pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). (ca3hicks, ) (Entered: 10/01/2008)


In 2006 EEOC case, a district court held that reducing the severance pay of employees entitled to pensions did not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because severance pay and pension benefits served the same basic function. (D.N.J.) 