Case: Mathers v. Northshore Mining. Co.

0:99-cv-01938 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: Dec. 3, 1999

Closed Date: April 22, 2006

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On December 3, 1999, a female employee of the Northshore Mining Company filed a class action complaint under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq., and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Minn. Stat. § 363.01 et. seq. against the Minnesota corporation Northshore Mining Company in the United States District Court of the District of Minnesota. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked the court for both monetary damages and injunctive relief, charging…

On December 3, 1999, a female employee of the Northshore Mining Company filed a class action complaint under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq., and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Minn. Stat. § 363.01 et. seq. against the Minnesota corporation Northshore Mining Company in the United States District Court of the District of Minnesota.

The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked the court for both monetary damages and injunctive relief, charging the Company with discriminating against women in terms of training, promotions and overtime pay. The plaintiffs claimed through expert statistical analysis that between 1994 and 2000, female hourly workers at Northshore on average received $2,920 less regular pay and $821 less overtime pay than their male counterparts. Also, on average it took women longer to receive promotions at Northshore than it did male employees.

During the summer of 2002, the parties briefed and filed motions for class certification and summary judgment. On September 15, 2003, the court (Judge Michael J. Davis) conditionally granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The class was conditionally certified as: All hourly and non-exempt females employed by Northshore Mining Company on or after April 24, 1998, who had been, were being or would be discriminated against with regard to the terms and conditions of their employment because of their gender. Also on that date, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

On February 21, 2006, the court (Judge Davis) issued the Order for Final Approval of Class Settlement. The agreement provided for injunctive and monetary relief, consisting of implementing a variety of changes relating to its training, promotion and job assignment policies, to be effective no later than sixty days after the Final Approval Date. Northshore Mining Company also agreed to pay the sum of $1,300,000.00 to be divided accordingly amongst interested parties. The details of the distribution were specified in the Settlement Agreement.

Summary Authors

Nathaniel Koslof (4/8/2008)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4676688/parties/mathers-v-northshore-mining-co/


Judge(s)

Davis, Michael James (Minnesota)

Erickson, Raymond L. (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Mihalek, Joseph J. (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bray, Kathleen S. (Minnesota)

Judge(s)

Davis, Michael James (Minnesota)

Erickson, Raymond L. (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Mihalek, Joseph J. (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bray, Kathleen S. (Minnesota)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

0:99-cv-01938

Docket

Mathers v. Northshore Mining Co.

Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

Docket
59

0:99-cv-01938

Certification of Class and Denial of Motion for Summary Judgment

Mathers, et al v. Northshore Mining Co.

217 F.R.D. 474

Sept. 18, 2003

Sept. 18, 2003

Order/Opinion
96

0:99-cv-01938

STIPULATION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL CLASS NOTICE AND RIGHT TO EXCLUSION AND ORDER

Mathers v. Northshore Mining Company

Jan. 29, 2004

Jan. 29, 2004

Order/Opinion
93

0:99-cv-01938

Memorandum in Support of Stipulation for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement And Class Action Settlement Notice

Mathers, et al v. Northshore Mining Co.

Oct. 31, 2005

Oct. 31, 2005

Settlement Agreement
94

0:99-cv-01938

Order for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement

Mathers v. Northshore Mining Co.

2005 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 40424

Nov. 7, 2005

Nov. 7, 2005

Order/Opinion
96

0:99-cv-01938

AMENDED ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Mathers v. Northshore Mining Co.

Nov. 10, 2005

Nov. 10, 2005

Order/Opinion
102

0:99-cv-01938

Order for Final Approval of Class Settlement

Mathers, et al v. Northshore Mining Co.

2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 6980

Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4676688/mathers-v-northshore-mining-co/

Last updated Aug. 5, 2022, 3:22 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
94

ORDER for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J Davis on 11/07/2005. (SMS)

Nov. 7, 2005

Nov. 7, 2005

RECAP
96

AMENDED ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J Davis on 11/10/2005. (SMS)

Nov. 10, 2005

Nov. 10, 2005

RECAP
102

ORDER for Final Approval of Class Settlement(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J Davis on 02/21/2006. (SMS)

Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Minnesota

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 3, 1999

Closing Date: April 22, 2006

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All hourly and non-exempt females employed by Northshore Mining Company on or after April 24, 1998, who had been, were being or would be discriminated against with regard to the terms and conditions of their employment because of their gender.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Northshore Mining Company, Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $1,300,000.00

Content of Injunction:

Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Promotion

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination-area:

Hiring

Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)

Pay / Benefits

Promotion

Training

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female