Input:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F~I.ED.-ED4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 1LLIN~, EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

O.S. DISTRICT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO.

CA~ BUDDIG & COMPANY Defendant.

)
)

) COMPLAINT

)

)

JURY T~AL DEMAND

)

~q~%~<~--~ +~, ,-~ +.:.,~- .?..:~. :.y

NATU~ OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act o£ 1991, 42 U.S.C. ~ 1981a, to co~¢ct unla~vful employee practices on the basis of race and sex and to provide appropriate relief to a class of A~can American applicants ~d a class of female applicants and employees who were adversely affected by such practices. P1Mntiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Oppo~unity Commission (the "Commission’0, contends Defend~t, Carl Baddig & Company ("Buddig’0, has engaged in a pmtem or practic~ of discrimination against a class of A~c~ ~erican applicants for employment by failing or refusing to hire them because of their race. In addition, the Commission comends the Buddig utilizes hiring practices which have a disparme impact on African ~eficans. The Commission also contends or practice of discrimination against a class of female employees and applic~ts because of their sex, by segregating them into job positions based upon sex and failing or refusing to hire females for ce~ain job positions because of their sex.

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 706(0(1) and (3) and

Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)

and (3) and 2000e-6, and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is the agency of the

United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of

Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) and

Section 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and 2000e-6.

4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business

in the State of Illinois and the cities of Chicago, South Holland and Homewood and has

continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.

5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an

industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Commissioner

Reginald E. Jones filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by

Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

2

7. Since at least 199 I, Defendant has engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful employment practices at its facilities, in violation of Sections 703(a)(1) and (2), and Section 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and (2), and 2000e-6. These practices include, but are not limited to:
(a) failing or refusing to hire African Americans, because of their race; (b) segregating applicants and employees by sex and failing or refusing to hire females for certain job positions because of their sex; The unlawful employment practices described in this paragraph seven (7) were engaged in by Defendent in continuing violation of Section 703(a) and Section 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and-6. 8. Since at least 1991, Defendant has utilized hiring practices that cause a disparate impact on the basis of race. These practices include, but are not limited to, hiring, almost exclusively, applicants who are referred by current employees. The unlawful employment practices described in this paragraph eight (8) were engaged in by Defendent in continuing violation of Section 703(k) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k). 9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph seven (7)(a) and eight (8) above has been to deprive a class of African American applicants of equaI employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants because of their race. 10. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph seven (7)(b) above has been to deprive a class of female applicants and employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants and/or employees because of their sex. 11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above were and are intentional.
3

12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of a class of African American applicants and a class of female applicants and employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, Buddig, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discri~ninates on the basis of race or sex; B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African Americans and women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendant to make whole a class of African American applicants and a class of female applicants and employees, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, rightful place hiring of a class of African American applicants and a class of female applicants. D. Order Defendant to make whole a class of African American applicants and a class of female applicants and employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above; E. Order Defendant to make whole a class of African American applicants and a class of femaIe applicants and employees by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation;
4

F. Order Defendant to pay a class of African American applicants and a class of female applicants and employees punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct, in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Order Defendant to provide training to its officers, managers and employees regarding equal employment opportunity in the workplace;
Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
I. Award the Commission its costs in this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
5

Respectfully submitted,

NICHOLAS M. 1NZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

1801 "L"

N.W.

)n

kttomey
Knight Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 886-9124

Civil Cover Sheet

http ://2v~w.ilnd,uscourts,gov/PUBLIC/Forms/auto_j s44.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Civil Cover Sheet

FILED"ED4 ~ 02 ~t~F~ 28 tltt 9:

This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is authorized for use ~ in the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff(s): U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Defendant(s):CARL BUDDIG & COMPANY

County of Residence:

County of Residence:

Plaintiffs Atty: Gregory Gochanour

Defendant’s Atty:

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission

500 W. Madison, Suite 2800

Chicago, IL 60661

312-886-9124

Harry Secaras Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg 2 North LaSalle, Suite 2400, Chicago, IL 60602

II. Basis of Jurisdiction:

1. U.S. Gov’t Plaintiff

III. Citizenship of Principal Parties Diversity Cases Only)
Plaintiff:- N/A Defendant:- N/A

IV. Origin."

1. Original Proceeding

JUDGE JOAN H. LEFKOW

V. Nature of Suit:

442 Employment

VI.Cause of Action:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§

2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,

42 U.S.C. § 1981a, race and sex discrimination.

VII. Requested in Complaint

Class Action:)~

Dollar Demand:

Jury Demand: Yes

VIII. This case IS NOT a refiling of a previously dismissed case.

Signature:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

In the Matter of

Eastern Division

DG( KETE[ U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION
V.

MAR ~

CARL BUDDIG & COMPANY

APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY(S) FOR: U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Employment Opportunity Commission
STREET ADDREss
500 W. Madisonr Suite 2,8,,,00
~lyaldcaSgTo,AILT60E66/Z1 IP

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
ARDC No. 06210804

TRIAL ArrORSEW

YES L~_.I NO L__.!

f? (c)

~tM~an M. M. Cohen

( (J

FI~
Equal ......E. mployment Oppo~ity Commission

STREET ADDRESS
500 W. Madison, Sui[~ 2800

CIT~/STAT~Z[P
Chicago, IL 60661

TELEPHONE NUMBER
(312) 353-7568 ....

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
ARDC No. 06206781

~.~. ~ight ~
~Nuat Employment Oppo~unity Co~ission
STREET ADDRESS
500 ~.,,~,~dison~ Suite 2800
ClTWSTAT~IZIP
Chicago, IL 60661
TELEPHONE NUMBER
_(312) 353-7726
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REvERsE)
ARDC No. 06201433

TRIALAT~fORNEV?

YES L _I No I .... J

... , ill

. . ’--/
ll///

ISAME I V

1/ /

Joht~ C. Hendrl~kson .....

F’~I

Eq~hal Employment Opportunity Commission

STqRT ADDRESS
5~0 W. Madison, Suite 2800
~TVtSTA~&’I~ .... ~’Chicago~ IL 60661

TELEPHONE NUMBER

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
ARDC No. 01187589

DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

Y~’ D

NO ~’~

DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES [’~

NO [’~

 United States District Court, Northern District ofIllinois

Name of A.$~igned Judge Dr MaElstrate Judr:e
CASE NUMBER

Samuel Der-Yeghiayau 02 C 2240

Sitting Judge If Other tha.n Assigned Judge
DATE

6/29/2004

CASE TITLE
MOTION:

EEOC vs. Carl Buddig & Co
(In thl:: following box (a) indicate tht=pw1Y filing the molion. e,g.• p1aintiff, defendant, 3nl party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly thenutllre Qfthe motion being pn=:sented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1 ) o

Filed motion of [ use listing in "Motion" box above.)

(2) o

Brief in support of motion due __..._.

(3) o

Answer brief to moti<m due_._. Reply to answer brief due_ _.

(4) o

RUling/Hcaring on _ _ set for _ _ at _ _.

(5) o

Status hearing[hc1d1continucd to) [set for/re-set tor] on _ . _ set for _._ _ at _.,_.

(6) o

Pretrial confcrcnce[heldleonlinued 10] [sel for/re-set for) on ___ set for ___ at _ _.

(7) o

Trial[set forlre-set for] on _ . _ at _ _.

(8) o

[Bench/Jury trial) [Hearing) heldlcontinued to ___ at _ _._.

(9) o

This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agrccmcnUpursuanl to]
o FRCP4(m) 0 Local Rule 41.1 0 FRCP41 (a)(l) 0 FRCP41 (a)(2).

(10).

[Other docket cntry] For the reasons stated on the revers side of this minute order, plaintiff's

motion to compel complete answers to discovery responses with regard to employee turnover rates [25-

I] is denied. Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery responses [13-1] is denied in pan and granted in part.

Defendant's motion to compel disclosure of EEOC questionnaire, claimant responses and related

interview notes [15-1] is grdIlted in part. Defendant's to exclude certain female claimants [11-1] is

granted. Status hearing set for 07120104 to stand.

(11) •

[For further detail see order on Ihe reverse side of the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open C(lurt.

No notices requited. Notices mailed by judgt='s staff. Notitlcd counsel by telephone.

JUN 3a ".1", ,~, ,1 i,I.);;":i[.

Docketing to mail notices,.

Mail AO 450 fonn.

inilial~

Copy to judgeimagistrntejudgc.

,.

courtroom

MW

deputy's

initials

l\\lIIiling depLtly inililll~

(Re.served for usc by the Court)
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' and Defendant's motions to compel. On January 28, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel complete answers to discovery reSponses in regards to Defendant's employee turnover rates. Plaintiffs have failed to show that the sought information is relevant in this suit. In addition, Plaintiffs did not file this motion to compel until a month after the close of discovery. Plaintiffs' excuses for the untimely filing arc entirely without merit. Plaintiffs failure to seek the information sooner is solely due to their Own lack ofdiligence. We also note Plaintiffs even had more time to complete discovery than originally anticipated because the prior judge in this case even granted the parties' an extension of the discovery cutoff date. Therefore we deny Plaintiffs' motion to compel complete answers to discovery responses with regard to Defendant's employee turnover rates
On December 31, 2003, Defendants filed a motion to compel disclosure of the EEOC questionnaire, claimant responses, and related interview notes. We grant the motion to compel disclosure of the EEOC questionnaire since it is not work product in regards to this action. We grant in part the motion to compel disclosure ofclaimant responses and related interview notes. Plaintiffis authorized to redact all information in the documents other than the claimant's employment history, job qualifications, and application to or employment with Defendant.
On December 16, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendants to respond to interrogatories and discovery requests. In regards to the information relating to the charges of discrimination against Defendant and the personnel records, we agree with Defendant that Plaintiffs' request is overly broad and is seeking confidential information without an adequate basis to do so. Therefore, we deny the motion to compel in regards to those requests. As to the requests for reports, notes and minutes of management meetings, and advisory board meetings, we grant the motion to compel.
m However, since the documents involve confidential and sensitive matters, the documents are to be held
by Plaintiffs' counsel and may be viewed by Plaintiffs' counsel and Plaintiffs' experts. On December 12, 2003, Defendant filed a motion to exclude certain female claimants. Plaintiffs
disclosed the names of female class members during discovery in a piecemeal fashion and Defendants accordingly sought discovery relating to those class members. However, shortly before the close of discovery on November 14, 2003, Plaintiffs inexplicably disclosed approximately 405 additional members of the class offemales. Plaintiffs' excuses for such an untimely disclosure arc whol1y inadequate and the untimeliness is again due solely to Plaintiffs' own lack of diligence. We agree that Plaintiffs' gamesmanship has deprived Defendant of the opportw1ity to engage in meaningful discovery relating to the additional female class members. Therefore, defendant's motion to exclude certain female claimants is granted.

 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326202994759845-L_35...
BOBRICK, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-02240

EEOC v. Carl Buddig & Co Assigned to: Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 03/28/2002 Date Terminated: 09/02/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by AUSA United States Attorney's Office (NDIL) 219 South Dearborn Street Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-5300 Email: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Ethan M.M. Cohen United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568 Email: ethan.cohen@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Hendrickson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800

1 of 7

7/9/2007 10:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326202994759845-L_35...

V. Defendant Carl Buddig & Company

Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Knight United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568 Email: jknight@aclu-il.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael A. Warner Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-4205 (312) 346-8000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Beth Golub Joffe Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-4205 (312) 460-5000 Email: bjoffe@seyfarth.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore C. Stamatakos University of Chicago Office of Legal Counsel 5801 Ellis Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 (773) 702-7516

Date Filed 03/28/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of John C. Hendrickson, Ethan M. Cohen, John A Knight and Grgory Gochanour as

2 of 7

7/9/2007 10:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326202994759845-L_35...

03/28/2002 04/12/2002 05/28/2002 05/28/2002 06/04/2002 06/07/2002 07/23/2002 09/19/2002
03/20/2003
08/05/2003 08/06/2003
09/04/2003

attorney(s) for plaintiff (Documents: (1-1 through 1-3)) (fce) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
2 MINUTE ORDER of 3/28/02 by Hon. Joan Humphrey Lefkow : Status hearing and scheduling conference is set for 9:30 a.m. on 06/03/02. (Entered Order Setting Scheduling Conference.) Mailed notice by judge's staff. (jmp) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
3 WAIVER of service of summons as to defendant sent on 3/28/02 (ntf) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
4 ANSWER and affirmative defenses by defendant to plaintiff's complaint [1-1]; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
5 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Beth T. Golub, Theodore C. Stamatakos, Michael A. Warner. (fce) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 6/4/02 by Hon. Joan Humphrey Lefkow : Status hearing reset to 9:30 6/6/02 . No notice (mad) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 6/7/02 by Hon. Joan Humphrey Lefkow : Status hearing reset to 9:30 7/23/02 . Telephoned notice (mad) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 7/23/02 by Hon. Joan Humphrey Lefkow : Status hearing held and continued to 9:30 9/19/02 for scheduling conference . In court notice (mad) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
6 MINUTE ORDER of 9/19/02 by Hon. Joan Humphrey Lefkow : Status hearing held and continued to 3/20/03 at 9:30 a.m. All fact discovery will close on 3/31/03. The cut-off date for designation of plaintiff's trial expert is 06/01/03; for defendant's trial expert is 08/01/03. Expert depositions to be completed by 09/15/03. Motion(s) for summary judgment shall be presented with a proposed agreed briefing schedule by 11/15/03. (Entered Scheduing Order). Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
7 MINUTE ORDER of 3/20/03 by Hon. Joan Humphrey Lefkow : Status hearing held and continued to 10/9/03 at 9:30 a.m. Joint oral motion to extend discovery cut-off date to 12/31/03 is granted. Cut-off date for designation of plaintiff's trial expert is 03/01/04; for defendant's trial expert is 05/03/04. Expert depositions are to be completed by 06/03/04. Date by which to file dispositive motions is stricken and will be reset at a later time. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
EXECUTIVE committee 8/5/03 This case is reassigned to the Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan Mailed notice (nlf) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
8 MINUTE ORDER of 8/6/03 by Hon. Joan Humphrey Lefkow : The above captioned case has been reassigned to Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan pursuant to the order of the executive committee entered 08/05/03. Therefore, the status hearing of 10/09/03 before Judge Joan H. Lefkow is stricken . Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 9/4/03 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing set for 09/24/03 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan in Courtroom 1719. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report as set out on the

3 of 7

7/9/2007 10:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326202994759845-L_35...

09/23/2003 09/24/2003
12/12/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/17/2003
12/24/2003 12/31/2003 01/05/2004 01/06/2004 01/06/2004 01/08/2004

reverse of this order. Mailed notice (mw) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
9 JOINT STATUS REPORT by plaintiff (ntf) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
10 MINUTE ORDER of 9/24/03 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing held and continued to 6/2/04 at 9:00 a.m. Discovery cut-off date of 12/31/03 stands. The plaintiff's expert reports and disclosures are to be served by 02/02/04. The defendant's expert reports and disclosures are to be served by 03/02/04. Expert depositions are to be completed by 04/02/04. All dispositive motions with supporting memoranda are to be filed by 05/04/04. Responses to the dispositive motions are to be filed by 05/18/04. Replies are to be filed by 05/25/04. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
11 MOTION by defendant to exclude certain female claimants (Attachments). (ntf) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
12 AMENDED notice by defendant of motion to exclude certain female claimants [11-1]. (ntf) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
13 MOTION by plaintiff to compel discovery responses (Attachments); Notice (ntf) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
14 MINUTE ORDER of 12/17/03 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Defendant's motion to exclude certain female claimants [11-1] is entered and continued. Plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to exclude certain female claimants [11-1] is to be filed by 01/06/04. Defendant's reply, if any, is to be filed by 01/13/04. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses [13-1] is entered and continued. Defendant's response to the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses [13-1] is to be filed by 01/06/04. Plaintiff's reply, if any, to be filed by 01/13/04. Status hearing set for 06/02/04 stricken and reset to 5/4/04 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
16 JOINT AGREED MOTION by parties to take Rule 30(b)(6) deposition after the close of fact discovery ; Notice (ntf) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
15 MOTION by defendant to compel disclosure of EEOC questionnaire, claimant responses and related interview notes (Attachments). (ntf) (Entered: 01/02/2004)
17 MINUTE ORDER of 1/5/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : The parties joint motion to take Rule 30(b)(6) deposition after the close of fact discovery is granted [16-1]. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
18 RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses [13-1] (Attachments); Notice. (ntf) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
19 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's motion to bar (Attachments). (ntf) Modified on 01/07/2004 (Entered: 01/07/2004)
20 MINUTE ORDER of 1/8/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing set for 05/04/04 is reset to 4/6/04 at 9:00 a.m. Defendant's motion to compel disclosure of EEOC questionnaire, claimant responses and related interview notes [15-1] is entered and continued. The plaintiff's response is to be filed by 01/22/04. The defendant's reply is to be filed by 01/29/04. Defendant's motion for a protective order related to Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is granted as stated on the record. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 01/09/2004)

4 of 7

7/9/2007 10:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326202994759845-L_35...

01/13/2004 01/13/2004 01/22/2004 01/28/2004 01/28/2004 02/02/2004 02/03/2004
02/13/2004 02/17/2004 02/24/2004 06/01/2004 06/29/2004

21 REPLY by plaintiff to defendant's response to plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses [13-1] (Attachments). (ntf) (Entered: 01/15/2004)
22 REPLY brief by defendant in support of its motion to exclude certain female claimants [11-1] (Attachments). (ntf) (Entered: 01/15/2004)
23 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendants' motion to compel disclosure of EEOC questionnaire, claimant responses and related notes [15-1] (Attachments). (ntf) Modified on 01/23/2004 (Entered: 01/23/2004)
25 MOTION by plaintiff to compel complete answers to discovery responses with regard to employee turnover rates (Attachments); Notice (ntf) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
26 AGREED MOTION by defendant to extend the time, by three days, for filing its reply in support of defendant's motion to compel disclosure of EEOC's questionnaire, claimant responses, and related interview notes ; Notice (ntf) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
24 REPLY brief by defendant in support of its motion to compel disclosure of EEOC questionnaire, claimant responses and related interview notes [15-1] (Attachments). (ntf) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
27 MINUTE ORDER of 2/3/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing set for 04/06/04 is reset to 6/2/04 at 9:00 a.m. Defendant's motion to extend the time, by three days, for filing its reply in support of defendant's motion to compel disclosure of EEOC's questionnaire, claimant responses, and related interview notes is granted [26-1]. Plaintiff's motion to compel complete answers to discovery responses with regard to employee turnover rates [25-1] is entered and continued. Defendant's response is to be filed by 02/17/04. Plaintiff's reply is to be filed by 2/24/04. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
28 WITHDRAWL OF APPEARANCE by plaintiff of John A Knight; Notice. (ntf) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
29 RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiff's motion to compel complete answers to discovery responses with regard to employee turnover rates [25-1] (Attachments). (ntf) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
30 REPLY by plaintiff to defendant's response to EEOC's motion to compel complete answers to discovery responses with regard to employee turnover rates [25-1] (ntf) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 6/1/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing set for 06/02/04 is reset to 7/20/04 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed and telephoned notice (mw) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
31 MINUTE ORDER of 6/29/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : For the reasons stated on the reverse side of this minute order, plaintiff's motion to compel complete answers to discovery responses with regard to employee turnover rates is denied [25-1]. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses is denied in part and granted in part [13-1]. Defendant's motion to compel disclosure of EEOC questionnaire, claimant responses and related interview notes is granted in part [15-1]. Defendant's motion to exclude certain female claimants is granted [11-1]. Status hearing set for 07/20/04 to stand. (See reverse of minute order.)

5 of 7

7/9/2007 10:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326202994759845-L_35...

07/20/2004
08/05/2004 09/02/2004 09/30/2004 01/10/2005 01/13/2005 01/18/2005

Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
32 MINUTE ORDER of 7/20/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Status hearing held. The parties are directed to exchange proposed witness lists by 08/03/04. Motions in limine are to be filed by 08/17/04. Responses to the motions in limine, if any, are to be filed by 08/24/04 and replies, if any, are to be filed by 08/31/04. Joint pretrial order to be submitted to this Court's chambers by 09/07/04. The parties are directed to conform to this Court's requirements regarding pretrial orders as set out on this Court's web page. Pretrial conference set for 09/14/04 at 10:30 a.m. Jury trial set to begin on 09/20/04 at 9:30 a.m. In the event the parties believe a settlement conference would be useful before this Court, the parties are to contact this Court's Courtroom Deputy. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
33 MINUTE ORDER of 8/5/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : Settlement conference held . The parties reported to the Court that a settlement has been reached as stated on the record. The parties are to file the appropriate dismissal papers with the Court as stated on the record. All previously set dates are to stand in the event dismissal papers are not submitted to the court. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 08/09/2004)
34 MINUTE ORDER of 9/2/04 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan: Pursuant to the consent decree this matter is hereby dismissed. All pending dates and motion are hereby stricken as moot terminating case (Entered Consent Decree; Order). Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
35 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 08/03/04 Before Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan (ntf) (Entered: 10/04/2004)
36 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/05 by Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : The EEOC's submission pursuant to paragraph 6(f) of the consent decree having contained the social security numbers and addresses of the eligible claimants, the Court is hereby returning to the EEOC its submission with leave to re-file it without the social security numbers and addresses. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 01/11/2005)
37 SUBMISSIONS by plaintiff pursuant to paragraph 6.F. of the consent decree (Attachments); Notice. (ntf) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
38 MINUTE entry before Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : The Court hereby approves the EEOC's list of eligible claimants as set forth in the EEOC's submission pursuant to paragraph 6.f of the consent decree filed on 01/13/05. (mw, ) (Entered: 01/18/2005)

6 of 7

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

07/09/2007 10:52:44

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:02-cv-02240

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

0.32

7/9/2007 10:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326202994759845-L_35...

7 of 7

7/9/2007 10:50 AM

 -, \United States District Court, Northern District oflllinois

II" ;

~ I

',',CASE 1~lJ1VU: ~~,

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan 02 C 2240

SltUnc Judee It Other thin Assigned Judge
DATE

91212004

i i '! CASE
,I" TITLE
MOTION:

EEOC VS. Carl Buddig
Ili'l I [10 the following bo. (a) indicate lbe party filing lbe motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendan~ 3rdpartyplaintiff, and (b) slate briefly lbe nalUrc
,'I I~ o,flbe motion being p.......ed.j

'I!,'i
II,~" !
DOCKET ENTRt: I \~

" (1) 0
(2) , 0

F ~ tipn of ( use lisling in "Motion" bo~ above.]
B '.I~ ~J~~,p"portofmOtiondue _ _.

t (3)' 0

I ~Jr'~heftomotiondue_ _. Replytoanswerbriefdue_ _.

(4) , 0

\ ' I c ~' :
Rulin'giH,earingon _ _ selfor _ _ at _ _.

d!"I 0
(6) 0

stjl~ bCarlng[beldicontinued to) [set for/re-set for) on _ _ set for _ _ at _ _.
! \. i
~tri!ll conference[beldlcontinued to) [sel for/re-set for) on _ _ set for _ _ at _ _.

(7) 0
(8) o

'I , :
Trial[sel for/re-set for) on _ _ at _ _. ! i !
[Bencb/]ury trial] [Hearing] beldlcontinued to _ _ at _ _.

(9) (10) ,

o

I
Thls casois dismissed [with/wilbout) prejudice and wilbout costs[by/agreement/pursuant toJ

o \"RCI'4(m) 0 Local Rule 41.1 0 FRCP41(a)(I) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

i

!

'

•

[Other'ciocket entry] Pursuant to the consent decree this matter is hereby dismissed. AIl pending

I , I ' "~I
dates and motions are hereby stricken as moot. Enter Consent Decree; Order.

I '

!

'c.(11)

[For further 'detail see order attached to Ibe original minute order.)

. ' +__ 1

~~Inotices required, advised i~ open court.

~"i'\'1

j J

Nd :notices required.

:J:ii,'f-- ,',
N~t;ces mailed by judge's stalf.

,j , f - - l '~i~~ified counsel by telephone.'

, 7~eling to mail noticetl.

,~'-'~l!l

i. r--- ,~HI AO 450 fonn.

•

do~f to judgeJmagistnlte judg~:

;"

"I

:., :,
MW

courtroom depuly~. initi. . . .'!i
il
,I

i I
! '

nurOOcr ofnotiees
SEE..91.2004
_1 "''''

-,'

IN THE UNITED STATES DlSTRICI' COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DMSION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

Iv. !

BUDDIG & COMPANY

)
)
) )

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

)

Case No. 02 C 2240 Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

ORDER

This action shall be and hereby is dismissed in accordance with the Consent Decree entered by

\

thf Court and annexed hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

!

, ,j

ENTER: "...~ .~_~~/a •

The Honorable Samuel ~ghiayan

United States District Judge

, '
,.\ '

•

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

CARL BUDDING & COMPANY

)

)

Defendant.

)

----------------------------)

Case No. 02 C 2240 Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

CONSENT DECREE

TIIE LlTIGATION

1. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") filed this

action aJleging that since at least January 1, 1991, Defendant, Carl Buddig & Company,

("Defendant" or "Buddig"), violated Section 703(a) ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), by discriminating against a class of Black

applicants in hiring, against a class of female applicants in hiring, and against a class offemale •

employees in job assignment (known collectively as ''the claimants"). Buddig filed its Answer

to the Complaint on May 28, 2002, denying the allegations.

2. In the interest ofresolving this matter, and as a result ofhaving engaged in

comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be finally

resolved by entry of this Consent Decree (hereafter "Decree"). This Decree fully and fmally

resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaint filed by the EEOC in this

action. Nothing in this Decree should be c0tJ~ed as an admission by either party regarding

either liability or non-liability.

•

."'

FINDINGS 3. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings, record, and stipulations ofthe parties, the Court finds the following:
a. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties.
b. The terms of this Decree are adequate, fair and reasonable. The rights of the parties, the claimants, and the public interest are adequately protected by this Decree.
c. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Tide VII and is not in derogation ofthe rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the parties, the claimants, and the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: NON-DISCRIMINAnON
4. Buddig, its officers, agents (including management personnel), successors, and assigns are enjoined from discriminating on the basis ofrace or sex in hiring and job assigmnent.
NON-RETALIATION 5. Buddig, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons acting
in concert with it shall not engage in any form of retaliation against any person because such
person has opposed any practice ofrace or sex discrimination in hiring or job assigmnent made unlawful under Title VII, filed a Charge ofDiscrimination under Title VII alleging race or sex discrimination in hiring or job assigmnent, testified or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII with respect to such a Charge, or asserted any rights under this Decree.

2

. -
MONETARY RELIEF
6. Buddig shall pay the gross sum of two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) (''the Settlement Fund") to the claimants. Distribution shall be as follows:
a. The payments are to be made as payment for damages. Each claimant
whom the EEOC determines (with the Court's approval) is entitled to receive relief under this Decree shall receive an equal pro rata share of the settlement fund. None of the money shall be
considered compensation for lost wages, so no withholdings shaH be made from the pro rata
share of the settlement paid to said claimants. Buddig will issue IRS Form 1099'8 with respect to the money paid. Inclusion of claimants in the class of claimants entitled to reliefunder this Decree and the division of the total amount among the claimants has been at the sale discretion of the EEOC, subject to Court approval. In exercising such discretion, EEOC will take into account the evidence and information available to it through the investigation and litigation of
this matter. Buddig will have no part in determining how the monetary relief will be divided among the claimants and it had no part in determining who the claimants were and which are
entitled to relief. b. Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Decree, EEOC shall mail to each
eligible claimant a letter informing them of the settlement (Exhibit B, attached) and a blank release (Exhibit A, attached).
c. In order to be eligible to receive payment through this Decree, each race
class claimant must: a) be Black; b) have unsuccessfully applied for employment at Carl Buddig & Company between January 1, 1991 and August 14, 2000; c) have been identified by EEOC as a potential claimant prior to August 5, 2004; d) have provided EEOC with documentation supporting hislher claim as requested by EEOC; and, e) have returned a signed release agreement which was actually received by the EEOC within the time frame provided in this Decree.
3

·

d. In order to be eligible to receive payment through this Decree, each gender

class claimant must: a) be female; b) have unsuccessfully applied for ajob at Carl Buddig &

Company or worked as a packer at Carl Buddig & Company; c) have been identified by EEOC

as a potential claimant prior to August 5, 2004; d) have provided EEOC with documentation

supporting her claim as requested by EEOC; and, e) have returned a signed release agreement

which was actually received by the EEOC within the time frame provided in this Decree.

e. EEOC shall require all claimants to submit signed releases in the form of

Exhibit A, attached, to EEOC within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Decree. ANY

CLAIMANT WHOSE EXECUTED RELEASE IS NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY

EEOC WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THIS DECREE SHALL BE

DEEMED, WITHOUT FURTHER ACT OR DEED BY ANY PERSON OR THE COURT,

TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR AND FOREVER BARRED FROM RECEMNG ANY

PAYMENTS OR OTHER RELIEF UNDER THIS DECREE.

r.

Within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree, EEOC shall file with

the Court, for the Court's consideration, its list of eligible claimants. EEOC shall also file with

the Court a list of claimants excluded by EEOC and a short statement of the reason for the

exclusion.

g. Within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree EEOC shall serve

Buddig with its list of eligible claimants and their current addresses along with their executed

Releases and a statement as to whether each claimant wishes to be considered for future

employment at Buddig.

h. Within thirty (30) days after entry of this Decree, Buddig shall establish

and maintain a segregated account on its books, as a liability, for the Settlement Fund in

4

•
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Settlement Fund shall accrue interest, compounded daily, at a rate equal to the thirty (30) day Treasury Bill Rate (or the closest comparable rate thereto) as published in the Wall Street Journal on the date of entry of this Decree. The Settlement Fund shall accrue interest beginning thirty (30) days after entry of this Decree and continuing until the day prior to the date checks are issued, as provided for by subparagraph 6.i. of this Decree, and the interest will be credited to the account at least once per month.
i. Within fifteen (15) business days after Court approval ofEEDC's list of eligible claimants, Buddig shall issue and mail by certified mail to each EEOC claimant, by check, a pro rata share of the amount in the Settlement Fund Account. I In the event that a check is deemed undeliverable, Buddig shall advise the EEOC. The EEOC shall then have an additional thirty (30) days to provide an alternative address for the mailing ofsuch check. Ifany checks remain undeliverable (including any returned from the alternate address), then Buddig shall issue a check in the aggregate amount thereof to Chicago Commons. Upon issuance ofany such check to Chicago Commons, Buddig shall be released from all obligations under this Decree to make any payment to such claimants, and the right ofsuch claimants to receive any monetary or other relief under this Decree shall be extinguished and forever barred. No portion of the monetary relief provided for by this Decree shall revert to Buddig.
POSTING OF NOTICE 7. Within ten (10) business days after entry of this Decree, Buddig shall post samesized copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit C to this Decree on bulletin boards usually used by
Buddig may chose to round the amount paid to each claimant down to the nearest whole dollar. In the event that Buddig chooses to do so, any amount remaining after disbursement due to such rounding shall be paid to the charity agreed to by the parties in this Paragraph 6.i. of this Decree.
5

•
Buddig for communicating with employees at its South Holland, Illinois production facilities. The Notices shall remain posted for three (3) years from the date of entry of this Decree. Buddig shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the postings are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Buddig shall certify to the EEOC in writing within ten (10) business days after entry of the Decree that the Notices have been properly posted. Buddig shall permit a representative of the EEOC to enter Buddig's premises for purposes ofverifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during normal business hours without prior notice.
HIRING RELIEF 8. Within one hundred fifty (150) days of the entry of this Decree, EEOC shall provide Buddig with a list of claimants eligible for relief who still wish to be considered for employment by Buddig. Thereafter, for the duration of the period of this decree, when Buddig fills production positions at its South Holland facilities, it shall alternate hiring one employee from the list of interested claimants and one employee from its usual applicant flow. IfBuddig exhausts the list of interested claimants prior to the expiration of this Decree, its duty to hire from the list of interested claimants is fulfilled. 9. Buddig shall exercise its best efforts to assure that non-discriminatory hiring from its applicant pool reflects the racial and sexual diversity of its applicant pool. 10. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 8 and 9, above, Buddig shall have no obligation to hire an unqualified claimant. II. For the duration of this Decree, no more than two-thirds of Buddig hires shall be made through employee referrals. 12. All vacancies within Buddig's South Holland production facilities shall be posted throughout the facilities, in areas accessible and generally viewed by all production workers regardless of their position. Postings for all vacancies shall state any minimum qualifications.
6

•
13. Buddig shall attempt to recruit new employees from local vocational schools and community colleges in order to recruit diverse groups ofqualified applicants. The number of schools contacted and the nature of the relationships established shall be within the sole discretion ofBuddig.
14. Women who apply for employment at Buddig's production facilities and who do not specifically indicate an interest in packing jobs will be considered on a non-discriminatory basis for all vacant production positions at the time of application.
RECORD KEEPING 15. For a period of three (3) years following entry ofthis Decree, Buddig shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying by the EEOC records (including name, race, sex, social security number, address, telephone number (to the extent the applicant provides this information on hislher application and/or self-identification form), position applied for, date of application, whether or not the applicant received an offer ofemployment, whether those offered employment began working, and if they did not, the reason why they did not) of each person applying for employment in Buddig's South Holland production facilities. 16. In the event that Buddig determines that an interested claimant on the alternate hire list contemplated by Paragraph 8, above, is not qualified for employment with Buddig, Buddig shall keep records of the claimant's application and the basis for Buddig's determination that the claimant is not qualified for employment. 17. In the event that a female applies for a position in utility, sanitation, shipping, maintenance or as a line operator and is not hired for that position, Buddig shall record the basis for the decision and any facts supporting its decision not to hire the female applicant. 18. Buddig shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17, above, available for inspection and copying within fifteen (15) business days after the EEOC
7

so requests. In addition, Buddig shall make available for interview all persons within its employ whom the EEOC reasonably requests for purposes of verifying compliance with this Decree and shall permit a representative of the EEOC to enter Buddig's premises for such purposes on ten (10) business days advance notice by the EEOC.
19. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed to limit any obligation Buddig may otherwise have to maintain records under Title VII or any other law or regulation.
REPORTING 20. Buddig shall furnish to the EEOC the following written reports every nine (9) months for a period of three (3) years following entry ofthis Decree. The first report shall be
due nine (9) months after entry of the Decree. The finaJ report shall be due ten (10) days prior to
thirty-six (36) months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain: a. A summary of the information recorded by Buddig pursuant to Paragraphs
IS, 16 and 17 during the preceding nine (9) month period; b. A certification that all vacancies have been posted in accordance with
Paragraph 10 during the preceding nine (9) month period;
c. A description of the contacts made pursuant to Paragraph 13 during the preceding nine (9) month period; and,
d. A certification by Buddig that the Notice required to be posted in Paragraph 7, remained posted during the entire preceding nine (9) month period.
TRAINING
21. Buddig shall provide training on the requirements of Title VII on the following
terms:
8

•
a. Buddig hereby represents and warrants that the law finn of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP provided training with respect to Title VII's requirements for equal opportunity in hiring and job assigrunent with regard to race and sex in March 2004.
b. Buddig further represents and warrants that the training was provided to all Buddig employees in any way involved in the hiring process, including employees responsible for providing applications to the public.
c. Buddig shall submit to the EEOC any and all information that was provided to the attendees of the March 2004 training within ten (10) business days ofthe entry of this Decree.
d. Buddig shall also provide such training on at least one occasion during the final six (6) months of the Decree period (March 2, 2007 through September 2, 2007).
22. Buddig shall obtain the EEOC's approval of its proposed trainer prior to the training session which is to occur in the final six (6) months of the Decree. Buddig shall submit the name, address, telephone number and resume of the proposed trainer, together with the date(s) of the proposed training sessions to the EEOC within sixty (60) calendar days prior to the [ust day of the proposed date(s) of training. The EEOC shall have thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the information described above to notify Buddig in writing if it does not accept the proposed tralner(s). In the event the EEOC does not approve Buddig's designated trainer(s), Buddig shall have thirty (30) calendar days to identify an alternate trainer. The EEOC shall have fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of receipt ofthe information described above to notify Buddig in writing ifit does not accept the proposed alternative trainer(s). In the event the EEOC does not approve Buddig's alternate trainer, the EEOC shall designate the trainer to be retained and paid for by Buddig. EEOC acceptance of a proposed trainer designated by Buddig
9

shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the EEOC does not approve the original or alternative trainer provided by Buddig, the time limits designated in paragraph 22 (d) shall be tolled until Buddig has received written notice that a trainer has been approved or designated by the EEOC and the Court's jurisdiction over this Decree shall be extending until the training has been completed and certified.
23. Buddig shall certity to the EEOC in writing with ten (10) business days after the trainings have occurred that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification shall include: (i) the dates, location and duration of the trainings; and, (ii) a copy of the registry of attendance, which shall include the name and position of each person in attendance.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 24. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) ofthe Decree, the complaining party shall notifY the other party of the alleged non-compliance within thirty (30) days oflearning of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the noncompliance or to satisfY the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within ten (10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATION OF TIlE DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 25. All provisions of this Decree shall be in effect (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree) for a period of three (3) years immediately following entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of the three (3) years period, any disputes under Paragraph 24, above, remain unresolved, the term ofthe Decree shall be
10

automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Decree) until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 26. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 27. The tenDS of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, assigns, and successors ofBuddig in their capacities as representatives, agents, directors and officers of Buddig, and not in their individual capacities. This paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit on remedies available to the Court in the event that any individual is found to be in contempt for a violation ofthis Decree. 28. When this Decree requires the submission by Buddig of reports, certifications, notices, or other materials to the EEOC, they shall be mailed to: Buddig Settlement, clo Ethan M. M. Cohen, Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois, 60661. When this Decree requires submission by the EEOC of materials to Buddig, they shall be mailed to: Beth T. Golub, Seyfarth Shaw, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603.
11

For ilieEQUAL ENWLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 I Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20507

For CARL BUDDIG & CONWANY:

Eric Dreiband

General Counsel

Vice President for Human Resources

Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel

}MIic.l~~ Seyfarili Shaw LLP

EQUAL ENWLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200

ChiC~603~ ~

Beth~olub

~

Seyfarili Shaw LLP

55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200
Chic:ago, IL 60603

M.M.Cohen Trial Attorney

ENTER:
The Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghlayan United States District Judge

'.
'.
EXHIBIT A RELEASE AGREEMENT I, ~ for and in consideration of the sum to be paid to me pursuant to the terms ofthe Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Carl Buddig & Company, No. 02 C 2240 (N.D. Ill.), on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby forever release, waive, remise, acquit, and discharge Carl Buddig & Company ("Buddig"), and all past and present shareholders, officers, agents, employees, and representatives of Buddig. as well as alI successors and assignees ofBuddig, from any and all claims and causes ofaction of any kind which I now have or ever have had under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964. as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as a result ofor arising from the subject matter and claims which were or which could have been asserted in EEOC v. Carl Buddig & Company, No. 02 C 2240.
Date

'.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~,20~

EXHIBITB

xxxxxxxxxxx.
XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX,XXXXX

Re: EEOC v. Carl Buddig & Company No. 02 C 2240 (N.D. Ill.)

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX:

A Consent Decree resolving the above-referenced lawsuit was signed by the parties and entered by the Court on September 2, 2004. Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree, enclosed you will find a copy of a Release to be signed by you. All eligible claimants will receive an equal share of the settlement - approximately xxxxx thousand dollars ($X,OOO) per claimant.

In order to obtain any monetary relief under the Consent Decree in this case, you must sign the Release and EEOC must receive it by XXXXXX. IfEEOC does not receive your signed Release by this date, for any reason, you will not receive a payment from the settlement fund. Please mail the signed Release to me at the following address:

Buddig Settlement c/o Ethan Cohen Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661

I have enclosed a pre-addressed envelope for your convenience. You may, of course, wish to make and keep a copy of the signed Release for your own records.

If you have any questions about the Release or cannot sign and return the enclosed documents within seven days, please contact me at (312) 353-0910.

Sincerely,

Encls.

Ethan M. M. Cohen Trial Attorney

EXHIBITC
NOTICE TO ALL CARL BUDDIG EMPLOYEES
This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in EEOC y. Carl Buddig & Company. No. 02 C 2240 (N.D. III.), resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Carl Buddig & Company, ("Buddig'').
In its suit, the EEOC alleged that Buddig discriminated against Blacks in hiring and against
women in hiring andjob assignment, in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title
VII"). Buddig denied these allegations.
To resolve the case, and without admitting liability or non-liability by either party Buddig and the
EEOC have entered in to a Consent Decree which provided, among other things, that:
1) Buddig provide monetary relief to claimants;
2) Buddig will not discriminate on the basis ofrace and sex in hiring or job assignment during the period of the Consent Decree;
3) Buddig will not retaliate against any person because he or she opposed any practice of race .or sex discrimination in hiring or job assignment made unlawful by Title VII, filed a Title VII charge ofdiscrimination alleging race or sex discrimination in hiring or job assignment, participated in any Title VII proceeding with respect to such a charge, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree,:
The EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (312) 353-8195. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English. If you believe you have been discriminated against you may contact the EEOC.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for three years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other materiaL Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to: Buddig Settlement, EEOC 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661.

Date

John Rowe District Director

 EEOC Settles Discrimination Suit Against Carl Buddig for $2.5 Million

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-7-04.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 7, 2004

CONTACT: Ethan Cohen Trial Attorney (312) 353-7568
TTY: (312) 353-2421
John Hendrickson Regional Attorney (312) 353-8551

EEOC SETTLES DISCRIMINATION SUIT AGAINST CARL BUDDIG FOR $2.5 MILLION

Federal Court Order Also Mandates Bias-Free Hiring At Leading Chicago-Area Meat Processor
CHICAGO - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced this morning that a federal judge in Chicago has entered a $2.5 million Consent Decree ending two and one-half years of litigation by the EEOC against major meat processing company Carl Buddig & Company of South Suburban Homewood, Ill.
The EEOC's lawsuit, which was filed March 28, 2002, alleged that Buddig had excluded blacks from its meat processing plants in the Morgan Park neighborhood of Chicago and in South Holland, Ill., during the 1990s, and that women factory workers were hired into only one lower-paying job. Buddig, with over $100 million in sales in 2003, operates three plants and its products are known under the brand names Old Wisconsin, Country Cupboard and Wisconsin Maid as well as Carl Buddig.
In addition to providing for the distribution of $2.5 million in monetary relief to the victims of discrimination, the Consent Decree enjoins the company from discriminating in the future and mandates the hiring of certain claimants who come forward and still want jobs at Buddig. The EEOC said that in the range of 300 black and female class members may receive relief under the Decree.
Eric Dreiband, the General Counsel of the EEOC, speaking at EEOC Headquarters in Washington, D.C., said, "The Consent Decree in this Buddig case goes to the heart of what we do as an agency. With the cooperation of the employer, the challenged hiring practices have been corrected, the employment discrimination suffered by African Americans and women in the past is being remedied, and measures to assure bias-free hiring in the future are now in place."
The General Counsel's comments were echoed by John Rowe, Director of the EEOC Chicago District Office, who stated, "We are pleased with the way this case has worked out. Buddig began improving its hiring practices during our investigation and continued to do so during the litigation."
Rowe added: "Now the company has joined with us in putting together a Consent Decree which the federal court has entered. The Decree will compensate and provide jobs for victims of the past discrimination, and make certain that the company's employment practices going forward comply with federal anti-discrimination laws. This is a winning combination for everyone."
Rowe noted that the Decree's measures designed to prevent future discrimination include a hiring relief component that Buddig alternate hiring between its normal applicant pool and a list of qualified claimants. In addition, the company will recruit from schools in the area of its plants and periodically report to the EEOC.
The claims process under which the $2.5 million will be distributed to class members will be administered by the EEOC subject to the supervision of the court. Class members eligible to participate in the claims process were identified during pre-trial discovery prior to the Court's entry of the Consent Decree.
The Consent Decree was entered September 2, 2004, by District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, and copies are being mailed to the parties. The EEOC's lawsuit, EEOC v. Carl Buddig & Co., N.D. Illinois No. 02 C 2240, was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after the agency exhausted its efforts to voluntarily conciliate the matter with the company.
The EEOC brought its lawsuit, according to John Hendrickson, EEOC Regional Attorney in Chicago, because its administrative investigation had revealed that substantial numbers of African Americans were applying for jobs but were rarely hired at Buddig, and that women who were hired were being steered to the lowest-paying jobs. "Our expectation," Hendrickson said, "is that today's Consent Decree memorializes the end of this kind of discrimination at Buddig. The company had done the right thing in providing for monetary and hiring relief and in agreeing to bias-free hiring processes. We are pleased to have partnered with Buddig in getting today's Consent Decree in place, and we have confidence in the company's determination to implement it."

1 of 2

7/9/2007 11:04 AM

EEOC Settles Discrimination Suit Against Carl Buddig for $2.5 Million

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-7-04.html

Ethan Cohen, the EEOC trial attorney who led the government litigation effort, said that it appeared Buddig had experienced discrimination problems at least in part because of a reliance on employee referrals in making hiring decisions. "It's important that employers realize that while there are arguably some benefits to using employee referrals when hiring, if the process leads applicants or hires who all share the same race or ethnicity, an employer may be steering into rocky waters." Cohen added, "Buddig has demonstrated that whatever their histories, companies can move away from such practices and successfully develop a more diverse applicant pool and workforce."
In addition to enforcing Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation, the EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects workers age 40 and older from discrimination based on age; the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits gender-based wage discrimination; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the federal sector; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on September 7, 2004.

Return to Home Page

2 of 2

7/9/2007 11:04 AM

 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - September 2004

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement09-04.html

EEOC Litigation Settlements September 2004
EEOC v. Carl Buddig & Co. No. 02-C-2240 (N.D. Ill. September 7, 2004)
The Chicago District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that the defendant, which processes and packages meat and deli products in South Holland, Illinois, a Chicago suburb, denied employment to African American applicants because of their race and segregated female applicants into lower paying jobs. Defendant's hiring practices included reliance on referrals of its almost all white workforce, many of whom were Eastern European immigrants, and physically segregating the employment applications of women, considering them only for packing line jobs in which periodic raises were characteristically lower than in other unskilled jobs. The case arose out of a Commissioner's Charge filed in 1998 which referenced discriminatory practices occurring since 1991.
The suit was resolved by a three-year consent decree under which the defendant will pay $2.5 million in damages to approximately 325 claimants. The decree enjoins defendant from race or sex discrimination in hiring and job assignments; requires that defendant use its best efforts to assure that the race and sex of its hires, on an annual basis and in the aggregate, reflect the racial and sexual makeup of its applicant pool; and requires that female applicants at production facilities who do not specifically indicate an interest in packing jobs be considered for all vacant production positions. Further, during the term of the decree, defendant will fill production positions by alternating hires between interested claimants and its usual applicant flow.

1 of 1

7/9/2007 11:08 AM

Output:
In March 2002, the Chicago District Office filed this lawsuit in the the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendant has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against a class of African American applicants for employment by failing or refusing to hire them because of their race and against a class of female employees and applicants because of their sex by segregating them into job positions based upon sex and failing or refusing to hire females for certain jobs due to their sex.  After some scheduling orders and discovery, the parties settled in August 2004 through a settlement agreement.

The three-year settelement decree, containing a non-discrimination and non-retaliation clause, required the defendant to: post its anti-discrimination policy, provide training to all employees involved in the hiring process of certain facilities, comply with specified hiring requirements requiring posting of vacancies and hiring of a class of acceptable persons previously denied employment, permit EEOC representatives to inspect and copy employment data and interview employees, keep hiring records, write regular reports to the EEOC, and pay $2.5 million dollars to the class of persons discriminated against.

The decree was entered in 2004 and scheduled to last until 2007. No further docket entries exist, so the case is closed.