Case: EEOC v. ALLIED SIGNAL, INC.

2:98-cv-01409 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: July 31, 1998

Closed Date: Nov. 16, 1999

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 31, 1998, the Chicago District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 against AlliedSignal, an aerospace, automotive, and engineering company. (AlliedSignal was purchased by Honeywell International, Inc. in 2009.) The EEOC claimed that AlliedSignal had engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination in relation to its reduction in force at i…

On July 31, 1998, the Chicago District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 against AlliedSignal, an aerospace, automotive, and engineering company. (AlliedSignal was purchased by Honeywell International, Inc. in 2009.) The EEOC claimed that AlliedSignal had engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination in relation to its reduction in force at its Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona facilities between 1993 and 1994. EEOC sought relief for a group of over 300 former employees aged forty or older,

On October 13, 1998, this case was consolidated with a private action (98-cv-01233) against the same defendant that alleged age discrimination.

The Consent Decree, which was signed on November 16, 1999, stipulated that AlliedSignal was enjoined from discriminating in violation of the ADEA and from retaliating against persons who participated in any way in the lawsuit or in the EEOC's investigation, or who received monetary relief. AlliedSignal was obligated to provide training for its employees regarding the ADEA and the company's "Reduction in Force" policy. The Consent Decree further required the defendant to allow charging parties to reapply for positions, and to provide neutral references for those who choose not to. The plaintiff class received $8 million, part of which was set aside for increased monthly pension benefits to be distributed over time.

Summary Authors

Jennifer Gitter (3/20/2013)

Related Cases

Balzer v. Honeywell Intl Inc, District of Arizona (1998)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:98-cv-01409

Docket (PACER)

EEOC v. Honeywell Intl Inc

Nov. 16, 1999

Nov. 16, 1999

Docket
10

2:98-cv-01409

Consent Decree

EEOC v. Allied Signal

Nov. 16, 1999

Nov. 16, 1999

Order/Opinion

2:98-cv-01409

Student Memo on Consolidation

EEOC v. Honeywell Intl Inc

No Court

None

None

Other

Resources

Docket

Last updated March 24, 2024, 3:11 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT FILED (MAP) (Entered: 08/03/1998)

July 31, 1998

July 31, 1998

2

RESPONSE (Statement) by pla EEOC of non-opposition to Dft's motion to consolidate cases CIV-98-1311-PHX-SMM, CIV-98-1312-PHX-RCB, CIV-98-1337-PHX-RCB, CIV-98-1369-PHX-RCB, CIV-98-1370-PHX-EHC, CIV-98-1374-PHX-ROS, CIV-98-1233-PHX-RGS and CIV-98-1409-PHX-RCB (motion not on the docket) (MAP) (Entered: 08/21/1998)

Aug. 19, 1998

Aug. 19, 1998

3

RESPONSE (STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION) to dft's Alliedsignal, Inc's Motion to Consolidate (Note: Motion to Consolidate has only been filed in CIV 98-1233-PHX-RGS) by Roger Balzer (plt in CIV 98-1233) (KMG) (Entered: 08/25/1998)

Aug. 21, 1998

Aug. 21, 1998

4

1st AMENDED COMPLAINT by pla EEOC; jury demand [1-1] ; (former emp) (Entered: 09/03/1998)

Sept. 1, 1998

Sept. 1, 1998

5

RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED by personal service of summons and First Amended Complaint upon statutory agent, C.T. Corporation System for dft Alliedsignal Inc on 9/2/98 (KMG) (Entered: 09/08/1998)

Sept. 8, 1998

Sept. 8, 1998

6

STIPULATION for extension of time for dft to answer by thirty days or until 10/22/98 by attys for plt and dft (KMG) (Entered: 09/28/1998)

Sept. 24, 1998

Sept. 24, 1998

7

ORDER by Judge Robert C. Broomfield granting stipulation that dfts answer or other response to the complaint be file on or before 10/22/98. (cc: all counsel) (KMG) (Entered: 09/28/1998)

Sept. 28, 1998

Sept. 28, 1998

9

ORDER by Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt: Case reassigned to PGR and consolidated into CIV 98-1233-PHX-PGR. (cc: all counsel) re: order [9-1] (former emp) (Entered: 12/11/1998)

Oct. 13, 1998

Oct. 13, 1998

8

ORDER by Judge Robert C. Broomfield Case reassigned to Judge H. R. Holland (cc: all counsel) (LAD) (Entered: 11/17/1998)

Nov. 17, 1998

Nov. 17, 1998

10

CONSENT DECREE: by Judge H R. Holland terminating case ; AlliedSignal shall pay an aggregate gross sum of $8,000,000.00 to the charging parties and eligible claimants.... (cc: all counsel/jgm drawer) (LAD) (Entered: 11/16/1999)

Nov. 16, 1999

Nov. 16, 1999

Case Details

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 31, 1998

Closing Date: Nov. 16, 1999

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a class of over 300 former employees of an engineering company who complained of age discrimination.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Institute for Justice

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

AlliedSignal, Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Retailer

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

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

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Retaliation Prohibition

Provide antidiscrimination training

Amount Defendant Pays: 8,000,000

Order Duration: 1999 - 2001

Issues

Discrimination Area:

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination Basis:

Age discrimination

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits