Case: Max v. Maytag Corp

1:04-cv-04617 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: July 14, 2004

Closed Date: 2005

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 14, 2004, a 62-year-old employee filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northeast District of Illinois. The plaintiff sued Maytag Corporation, his former employer, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). he plaintiff claimed that he was demoted and denied a promotion because of his age. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sought lost profits, liquidated damages, reinstatement to his former position, attorney’s fees, and pre-judgement inte…

On July 14, 2004, a 62-year-old employee filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northeast District of Illinois. The plaintiff sued Maytag Corporation, his former employer, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). he plaintiff claimed that he was demoted and denied a promotion because of his age. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sought lost profits, liquidated damages, reinstatement to his former position, attorney’s fees, and pre-judgement interest. The case was assigned to Judge William Hart and subsequently transferred to Judge Ronald A. Guzman.

On September 20, 2004, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to follow the necessary procedures of first filing a claim of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The court denied this motion on September 22, 2004 because it consolidated this case with EEOC v. Maytag, 1:04-cv-04632, a class-wide age discrimination against a group of Regional Sales Managers already begun by the EEOC. The court found that both cases involved the same issues and requested the plaintiffs to jointly file a new complaint. The defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the consolidation was denied on October 28, 2004.

As requested by the court, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 2, 2004. The amended complaint alleged that the defendant demoted a class of employees over the age of 50 from Regional Sales Managers to Zone Managers. The defendant again filed a motion to dismiss the original individual plaintiff's claims on November 12, 2004, claiming he had failed to file his claims within the statutorily mandated time period. The defendant also claimed that the EEOC never filed charges of discrimination, and so their claims also required dismissal.

On May 12, 2005, the court disagreed. It denied the motion to dismiss because the EEOC had provided sufficient notice to the defendant of alleged age discrimination involving an entire class of employees. The EEOC's action was triggered by the individual plaintiff's complaint, sufficient to inform the defendant of the possibility of a class-wide issue. As to the time bar, the plaintiffs did not assert at what time the individual became aware of the fact that he was being discriminated against. This event, and not when the discriminatory action was alleged to have actually occurred, would trigger the time limit. The motion to dismiss was denied in its entirety. 2005 WL 1563109.

The parties reached a settlement agreement on September 7, 2005 and a consent decree was entered on December 2, 2005 resolving both cases. The defendant agreed to pay class members a total of $334,500, to post notice of the decree on non-public bulletin boards used for employee communication, to provide training in age discrimination law for its managers and supervisors, and to report semi-annually to the EEOC on the age of employees promoted and demoted. The defendant also agreed its employees would not retaliate against any person who opposed practices that were unlawful under the ADEA. The parties incurred their own attorneys' costs and fees and the settlement agreement remained in effect for two years.

This case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Kevin Wilemon (8/19/2008)

Hannah Greenhouse (10/30/2018)

Related Cases

EEOC, et al v. Maytag Corp, Northern District of Illinois (2004)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4251305/parties/max-v-maytag-corp/


Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Cohen, Ethan M.M. (Illinois)

Dreiband, Eric S. (District of Columbia)

Gochanour, Gregory M. (Illinois)

Hendrickson, John C. (Illinois)

Lee, Jason (District of Columbia)

Reams, Gwendolyn Young (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Cohen, Ethan M.M. (Illinois)

Dreiband, Eric S. (District of Columbia)

Gochanour, Gregory M. (Illinois)

Hendrickson, John C. (Illinois)

Lee, Jason (District of Columbia)

Reams, Gwendolyn Young (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:04-cv-04617

Docket (PACER)

Max, et al v. Maytag Corp

Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

Docket
1

1:04-cv-04617

Complaint

Max, et al v. Maytag Corp

July 15, 2004

July 15, 2004

Complaint
1

1:04-cv-04632

Nature of the Action

EEOC v. Maytag Corporation

July 15, 2004

July 15, 2004

Complaint
8

1:04-cv-04617

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Max, et al v. Maytag Corp

Sept. 22, 2004

Sept. 22, 2004

Order/Opinion
16

1:04-cv-04617

Consolidated Amended Complaint

Max, et al v. Maytag Corp

Nov. 2, 2004

Nov. 2, 2004

Complaint
37

1:04-cv-04617

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Max, et al v. Maytag Corp

2005 WL 1563109, 2005 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 136

May 12, 2005

May 12, 2005

Order/Opinion
62

1:04-cv-04617

Consent Decree

Max, et al v. Maytag Corp

Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

Settlement Agreement

EEOC Litigation Settlement Report (December 2005)

Max, et al v. Maytag Corp

No Court

Dec. 31, 2005

Dec. 31, 2005

Press Release

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4251305/max-v-maytag-corp/

Last updated Aug. 10, 2022, 3:05 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT; jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of Jeffrey Irvine Cummings and Marni J. Willenson as attorney(s) for plaintiff (1 original and 1 copy of summons(es) issued.) (Documents: 1-1 through 1-3) (rmm) (Entered: 07/15/2004)

July 14, 2004

July 14, 2004

RECAP
2

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Mark L. Shapiro, Todd David Steenson, Merideth C Nagel, Jolynn C Caroline; Notice (cdy) (Entered: 09/10/2004)

Sept. 9, 2004

Sept. 9, 2004

PACER
4

AGREED MOTION by defendant for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint ; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 09/15/2004)

Sept. 9, 2004

Sept. 9, 2004

PACER
3

JOINT INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by plaintiff and defendant; Notice (rmm) (Entered: 09/13/2004)

Sept. 10, 2004

Sept. 10, 2004

PACER
5

MINUTE ORDER of 9/13/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman : Defendant's agreed motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint [4-1] is granted to and including 9/20/04. Status hearing is reset from 9/15/04 to 9/22/04 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's own motion. Telephoned notice (rmm) (Entered: 09/15/2004)

Sept. 13, 2004

Sept. 13, 2004

PACER
6

RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION by Maytag Corporation's to dismiss ; Notice. (gcy) (Entered: 09/23/2004)

Sept. 20, 2004

Sept. 20, 2004

PACER
7

MEMORANDUM in support by Maytag Corporation in support of its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss [6-1] (Attachments). (gcy) (Entered: 09/23/2004)

Sept. 20, 2004

Sept. 20, 2004

PACER
8

MINUTE ORDER of 9/22/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing and to 10/22/04 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is stricken with prejudice [6-1]. Court adopts parties proposed discovery schedule. All Discovery completed by 5/31/05. Dispositve motions to be filed on or before 6/30/05. Mailed notice (gcy) (Entered: 09/23/2004)

Sept. 22, 2004

Sept. 22, 2004

PACER
9

MINUTE ORDER of 9/27/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman: Minute order dated 9/22/04 is corrected as follows: Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is stricken without prejudice [6-1]. The remainder of the order stands. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 09/28/2004)

Sept. 27, 2004

Sept. 27, 2004

PACER
10

MOTION by movant EEOC for reassignment and consolidation case no. 04 C 4632 pending before Judge Hart with case no. 04 C 4617 (Attachment); Notice. (hp) (Entered: 10/20/2004)

Oct. 15, 2004

Oct. 15, 2004

PACER
11

MINUTE ORDER of 10/19/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman : The Court grants EEOC's motion for reassignment of 04 C 4632 [10-1] and for consolidation with 04 C 4617 because the cases involve some of the same issues of fact or law, both cases are pending before this Court, my handling of both cases will substantially save judicial time and effort, reassignment will not delay progress in 04 C 4617, and the cases are susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding. 04 C 4632 is consolidated with 04 C 4617 for all purposes, 04 C 4632 is terminated, and all future filing shall be made in 04 C 4617 for all purposes, 04 C 4632 is terminated, and all future filings shall be made in in 04 C 4617. [10-2] Max and EEOC shall file a consolidated complaint in ten (10) days. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 10/20/2004)

Oct. 19, 2004

Oct. 19, 2004

PACER
13

MOTION by defendant Maytag Corp for reconsideration of order granting motion for consolidation (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 11/01/2004)

Oct. 25, 2004

Oct. 25, 2004

PACER
12

RESPONSE by EEOC to defendant's motion for reconsideration of order granting and conolidation (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 10/28/2004)

Oct. 27, 2004

Oct. 27, 2004

PACER
14

MINUTE ORDER of 10/28/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman: Maytag Corporation's motion for reconsideration of order granting motion for consolidation is denied as stated in open court [13-1]. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 11/01/2004)

Oct. 28, 2004

Oct. 28, 2004

PACER
16

CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by plaintiffs; jury demand; adding plaintiff US EEOC; Notice (ar) Modified on 11/05/2004 (Entered: 11/05/2004)

Nov. 2, 2004

Nov. 2, 2004

PACER
15

MINUTE ORDER of 11/3/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing held and continued to 3/2/05 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant not in court. Defendant to respond to amended complaint on or before 11/18/04. Mailed notice (gma) (Entered: 11/04/2004)

Nov. 3, 2004

Nov. 3, 2004

PACER
17

RULE 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) MOTION by Maytag Corp to dismiss certain claims of plaintiffs ; Memorandum in support (Attachments); Notice (rmm) (Entered: 11/16/2004)

Nov. 12, 2004

Nov. 12, 2004

PACER
18

MINUTE ORDER of 11/15/04 by Hon. Ronald A. Guzman: Response to defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) motion to dismiss certain claims of plaintiffs [17-1] is to be filed on or before 12/6/04. Reply is to be filed on or before 12/20/04. Ruling to be by mail. Telephoned notice (rmm) (Entered: 11/16/2004)

Nov. 15, 2004

Nov. 15, 2004

PACER
19

RESPONSE by EEOC and plaintiff Matthew Max to defendant's motion to dismiss certain claims of plaintiffs [17-1] (Attachments); Notice (rmm) (Entered: 12/07/2004)

Dec. 6, 2004

Dec. 6, 2004

PACER
20

AGREED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for leave to file instanter its reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss (rmm, ) Modified on 1/25/2005 (rmm, ). (Entered: 01/25/2005)

Jan. 21, 2005

Jan. 21, 2005

PACER
21

NOTICE of Motion by Maytag Corporation for presentment of MOTION to file for leave to file instanter its reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss 20 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 1/25/2005 at 09:30 AM. (rmm, ) (Entered: 01/25/2005)

Jan. 21, 2005

Jan. 21, 2005

PACER
22

UNOPPOSED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for leave to file instanter its reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in support)(gma, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)

2 Memorandum in support

View on PACER

Jan. 25, 2005

Jan. 25, 2005

PACER
23

NOTICE of Motion by Mark L. Shapiro for presentment of UNOPPOSED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for leave to file instanter its reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss 22 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 1/27/2005 at 09:30 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)

Jan. 25, 2005

Jan. 25, 2005

PACER
25

REPLY memorandum by Defendant Maytag Corporation in support of its Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. (rbf, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)

Jan. 28, 2005

Jan. 28, 2005

PACER
24

MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Motions terminated: MOTIONS by Defendant Maytag Corporation to file instanter its reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss are granted. 22, 20 Advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 01/31/2005)

Jan. 31, 2005

Jan. 31, 2005

PACER
26

UNOPPOSED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation to withdraw and to substitute counsel for Maytag Corporation (rmm, ) (Entered: 02/10/2005)

Feb. 8, 2005

Feb. 8, 2005

PACER
27

UNOPPOSED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation to withdraw and to substitute counsel. (amb, ) (Entered: 02/15/2005)

Feb. 14, 2005

Feb. 14, 2005

PACER
28

NOTICE of Motion by Maytag Corporation for presentment of unopposed motion to withdraw and to substitute counsel 27 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 2/17/2005 at 09:30 AM. (amb, ) (Entered: 02/15/2005)

Feb. 14, 2005

Feb. 14, 2005

PACER
29

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Maytag Corporation by James Edwin Bayles, Jr, Charis A. Runnels, Nina G. Stillman (rmm, ) (Entered: 02/22/2005)

Feb. 17, 2005

Feb. 17, 2005

PACER
30

MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Defendant's unopposed Motions to withdraw 26 and to substitute counsel 27 are granted. Mark L. Shapiro; Todd David Steenson; Jolynn C Caroline and Merideth C Nagel of Holland and Knight are granted leave to withdraw their appearances. Nina G. Stillman, James E. Bayles, Jr., and Charis A. Runnels of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP are granted leave to file their appearances. Telephoned notice (rmm, ) (Entered: 02/25/2005)

Feb. 17, 2005

Feb. 17, 2005

PACER
31

MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing set for 3/2/05 is stricken, motion to dismiss pending. Telephoned notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)

March 1, 2005

March 1, 2005

PACER
32

AGREED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for entry of revised pre-trial schedule (rbf, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)

March 28, 2005

March 28, 2005

PACER
33

NOTICE of Motion by Charis A. Runnels for presentment of agreed motion for entry of revised pre-trial schedule 32 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 3/31/2005 at 09:30 AM. (rbf, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)

March 28, 2005

March 28, 2005

PACER
34

MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Motion hearing held. MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for entry of revised pre-trial schedule 32 is granted. Parties are advised that no further extensions will be allowed. No notice, advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 03/31/2005)

March 31, 2005

March 31, 2005

PACER
35

MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : The agreed motion to extend the pretrial schedule is granted. All fact discovery shall be completed by 8/15/05. Plaintiff shall comply with FRCP(26)(a)(2) by 9/15/05. Defendant shall comply with FRCP(26)(a)(2) by 10/17/05. Plaintiff shall comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) as to any rebuttal experts by 11/7/05. All expert discovery shall be completed by 11/30/2005. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 1/30/2006. The parties are advised that no further extensions will be allowed. No notice, advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 03/31/2005)

March 31, 2005

March 31, 2005

PACER
36

MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. This Court denies Maytag's Motion to dismiss in its entirety 17 . Status hearing set for 8/17/2005 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (rmm, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)

May 12, 2005

May 12, 2005

PACER
37

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge Ronald A. Guzman on 5/12/2005:(rmm, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)

May 12, 2005

May 12, 2005

RECAP
38

ANSWER to amended consolidated complaint by Maytag Corporation(rmm, ) (Entered: 06/28/2005)

June 22, 2005

June 22, 2005

PACER
39

AMENDED Answer by Defendant Maytag Corporation to amended consolidated complaint 16 (rmm, ) (Entered: 06/28/2005)

June 23, 2005

June 23, 2005

PACER
40

AGREED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for entry of protective order (gma, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)

July 1, 2005

July 1, 2005

PACER
41

NOTICE of Motion by Charis A. Runnels for presentment of AGREED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for entry of protective order 40 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/7/2005 at 09:30 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)

July 1, 2005

July 1, 2005

PACER
42

UNOPPOSED MOTION by Plaintiffs to adjust the pre-trial discovery schedule(gma, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)

July 5, 2005

July 5, 2005

PACER
43

NOTICE of Motion by Jeffrey Irvine Cummings for presentment of UNOPPOSED MOTION by Plaintiffs to adjust the pre-trial discovery schedule 42 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/7/2005 at 09:30 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)

July 5, 2005

July 5, 2005

PACER
44

MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Motion hearing held on 7/7/2005. Plaintiffs' motion to adjust the pretrial discovery schedule 42 is granted. All fact discovery shall be completed by 9/15/05. Plaintiffs' expert report is due by 9/30/05. Defendant's expert report is due by 10/24/05. Plaintiffs' rebuttal reports, if any, are due by 11/7/05. All expert discovery shall be completed by 11/30/2005. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 1/30/2006. Status hearing is reset for 10/7/2005 at 09:30 AM. No notice, advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 07/07/2005)

July 7, 2005

July 7, 2005

PACER
45

MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Settlement Conference set for 7/13/2005 at 09:30 AM. before Magistrate Judge Nolan in courtroom 1858. Magistrate Judge Nolan requires compliance with the enclosed standing order before conducting a settlement conference. For further details see enclosed standing order. Judicial staff mailed notice. (hmb, ) (Entered: 07/08/2005)

July 8, 2005

July 8, 2005

PACER
48

EXECUTIVE COMMITTE ORDER: case referred to Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan pursuant to Local Rule 72.1. Signed by Judge Charles P. Kocoras. (gcy, ) (Entered: 07/18/2005)

July 8, 2005

July 8, 2005

PACER
47

MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference held on 7/13/2005. A status hearing is set for 7/21/05 at 10:30 AM. if necessary. If the parties settle the case prior to the status, they are to contact Judge Nolan's chambers, and the status hearing will be stricken. Judicial staff mailed notice. (hmb, ) (Entered: 07/14/2005)

July 13, 2005

July 13, 2005

PACER
49

MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 7/21/2005 at which the court set a settlement Conference for 7/25/2005 at 09:00 AM. Judicial staff mailed notice. (hmb, ) (Entered: 07/21/2005)

July 21, 2005

July 21, 2005

PACER
51

CONSENT by Maytag Corporation to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (rmm, ) Modified on 7/29/2005 (rmm, ). (Entered: 07/29/2005)

July 25, 2005

July 25, 2005

PACER
52

CONSENT by Matthew Max to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (rmm, ) Modified on 7/29/2005 (rmm, ). (Entered: 07/29/2005)

July 25, 2005

July 25, 2005

PACER
53

CONSENT by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (rmm, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)

July 25, 2005

July 25, 2005

PACER
50

MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference held on 7/26/2005 at which the parties reached a settlement agreement. Parties consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. Status hearing set for 9/7/2005 at 09:00 AM. Judicial staff mailed notice. (hmb, ) (Entered: 07/26/2005)

July 26, 2005

July 26, 2005

PACER
54

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to Judge Nan R. Nolan for all further proceedings. Parties have consented to have the designated magistrate conduct any and all proceedings including entry of a final judgment in accordance with Local Rule 73.1(b). Signed by Executive Committee on 7/27/2005. (rmm, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)

July 27, 2005

July 27, 2005

PACER
55

MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for enforcement of the July 25, 2005 settlement agreement (gma, ) (Entered: 08/05/2005)

Aug. 5, 2005

Aug. 5, 2005

PACER
56

NOTICE of Motion by Maytag Corporation for presentment of MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for enforcement of the July 25, 2005 settlement agreement 55 before Honorable Nan R. Nolan on 8/10/2005 at 09:00 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 08/05/2005)

Aug. 5, 2005

Aug. 5, 2005

PACER
58

AMENDED MOTION by Defendant Maytag Corporation for enforcement of the 07/25/05 settlemnt agreement. (lcw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2005)

Aug. 8, 2005

Aug. 8, 2005

PACER
57

MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated in open court, defendant's motion for enforcement of the 7/25/05 settlement agreement 55 is withdrawn with leave to refile. A continued settlement conference is set for 9/7/2005 at 09:30 AM. Judicial staff mailed notice (hmb, ) (Entered: 08/10/2005)

Aug. 10, 2005

Aug. 10, 2005

PACER
59

MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Settlement conference held on 9/7/2005 at which the parties were able to reach a settlement agreement. Parties are to file papers with the court by 3/31/06. Until that time the case will remain open. Judicial staff mailed notice. (hmb, ) (Entered: 09/08/2005)

Sept. 7, 2005

Sept. 7, 2005

PACER
60

MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing set for 4/7/2006 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 10/28/2005)

Oct. 28, 2005

Oct. 28, 2005

PACER
63

LETTER to Magistrate Judge Nolan from plaintiff's counsel Ethan M. M. Cohen dated 12/01/2005. (hp, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)

Dec. 1, 2005

Dec. 1, 2005

PACER
61

MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Enter Consent Decree. Notices mailed by judge's staff (hp, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)

Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

PACER
62

CONSENT DECREE re 61 Signed by Judge Nan R. Nolan on 12/2/2005:Mailed notice(hp, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)

Dec. 2, 2005

Dec. 2, 2005

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 14, 2004

Closing Date: 2005

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A 62-year-old regional sales manager, with the EEOC intervening on behalf of similarly situated regional sales managers over the age of 50

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Maytag Corporation, 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.

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

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: 334,500

Order Duration: 2005 - 2007

Content of Injunction:

Training

Discrimination Prohibition

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Provide antidiscrimination training

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Retaliation Prohibition

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Demotion

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

Pay / Benefits

Promotion

Discrimination-basis:

Age discrimination

EEOC-centric:

Private Suit Related / Consolidated with EEOC Suit