Case: EEOC v. Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc

1:96-cv-01192 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Filed Date: April 9, 1996

Closed Date: 2001

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This employment discrimination class action involving women employed at the Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc., Normal, Illinois' facility was filed on April 9, 1996, in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Peoria). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), sought declaratory, monetary and injunctive relief, on behalf of the women, claiming that Mitsubishi violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil …

This employment discrimination class action involving women employed at the Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc., Normal, Illinois' facility was filed on April 9, 1996, in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Peoria). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), sought declaratory, monetary and injunctive relief, on behalf of the women, claiming that Mitsubishi violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, by engaging in a pattern and practice of sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge against female employees.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that, since at least 1990, Mitsubishi had engaged in various unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, including but not limited to, (1) sexual harassment towards female employees by way of a hostile and abusive work environment based on unwelcome verbal and physical sexual conduct, including sexual graffiti, sexually derogatory comments, and unwanted groping and touching; (2) sexual harassment towards female employees by conditioning their employment (including benefits and/or the terms and/or conditions of their employment) "on their acquiesce in sexual harassment and/or sexual relationships;" (3) the failure to take immediate and appropriate corrective action in response to complaints; (4) retaliation against female employees who have opposed such unlawful practices; and (5) constructively discharging female employees by causing them to resign due to complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation.

The EEOC requested a permanent injunction forbidding discrimination or retaliation and requiring Mitsubishi to implement polices protecting equal employment opportunities for women; monetary damages; punitive damages; and costs.

On September 13, 1996, the EEOC sent a letter to all current and former female employees of the defendant, stating that such employees "should know that [they] are not required to discuss any issues relating to this lawsuit with Mitsubishi's Human Resource Department." A month later, Mitsubishi complained that the letter was potentially misleading and filed a motion for clarification of the letter. Additionally, Mitsubishi argued that the letter undermined its policy of addressing and correcting sexual harassment issues, thereby making sexual harassment more difficult to prevent.

In November of 1996, the court ordered the EEOC to send a corrective letter. The EEOC appealed, and sought a stay from the 7th Circuit. In an opinion by Judge Easterbrook, the Court of Appeals refused the stay, and held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, which dealt with an issue that was managerial and was unlikely to cause substantial and irreversible damage. 102 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 1996).

Soon afterwards, Mitsubishi's human resources department began to conduct "scripted interviews" of its employees on topics relating to "claims of sexual harassment that had not previously been brought to the Company's attention," when such claims were revealed through Mitsubishi's litigation-related discovery of the EEOC's administrative files. Mitsubishi stated that the purpose of the interviews was to ensure "no ongoing harassment" in the workplace. Upon the conclusion of each interview, the interviewers would type notes from the interviews and then ask the interviewees to review and sign the notes.

Once the EEOC found out about these interviews, they demanded that they stop immediatly. Mitsubishi agreed in January 1997 "not to engage in any ex parte contacts" with current or former employees who have presented complaints regarding sexual harassment and/or retaliation to the EEOC "prior to the filing of the lawsuit." A month later, instead, the parties came up with a mutually agreeable "mini-deposition" approach regarding information gathering: the EEOC attorneys were to be present and the interviews would be conducted as "notice depositions" according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further contests about communications with employees led to another opinion in January 2008. 960 F.Supp. 164 (C.D.Ill. 1997).

Shortly thereafter, a Consent Decree ("Decree") was entered on June 23, 1998, which also settled two private actions, Evans v. Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc. (1:94-­cv-­1545) and Aeschelman v. Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc. (1:96-­cv-1212), filed against Mitsubishi alleging sex discrimination and harassment. In the Decree, Mitsubishi agreed to pay $34 million to the individuals who had suffered sexual harassment at Mitsubishi's facility in Normal, Illinois; and to comprehensive injunctive relief. The injunction forbade discriminatory acts on the basis of sex and policies or practices that have the effect of harassing or intimidating women on the basis of their sex; and Title VII related retaliation. It required revised sexual harassment policy, training procedures, and complaint procedures and policies designed to promote supervisor accountability and policies reflecting sensitivity to women's needs. And it set up a panel of consent decree monitors and a complaint monitor. The Decree was, in accordance with its plan, in effect for three years, from 1998 to 2001.

According to a press release from the EEOC, the $34 million monetary relief awarded by the Decree, which was distributed among more than 400 women, was "the largest sexual harassment settlement in the history of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" as of the late 1990s.

Summary Authors

Alice Liu (7/14/2013)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4248758/parties/eeoc-v-mitsubishi-motor-mfg/


Judge(s)

Kauffman, Robert J. (Illinois)

McDade, Joe Billy (Illinois)

Mihm, Michael Martin (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Allison, William A (Illinois)

Benassi, Patricia Clarke (Illinois)

Galland, George Freeman Jr. (Illinois)

Garrison, Joseph D. (Connecticut)

Gray, Rosalind D. (Maryland)

Hendrickson, John C. (Illinois)

Palter, Michele Lang (Connecticut)

Judge(s)

Kauffman, Robert J. (Illinois)

McDade, Joe Billy (Illinois)

Mihm, Michael Martin (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Allison, William A (Illinois)

Benassi, Patricia Clarke (Illinois)

Galland, George Freeman Jr. (Illinois)

Garrison, Joseph D. (Connecticut)

Gray, Rosalind D. (Maryland)

Hendrickson, John C. (Illinois)

Palter, Michele Lang (Connecticut)

Schmidt, Randall D (Illinois)

Slevin, John A (Illinois)

Snyder, Deborah Krauss (Connecticut)

Spaits, Kim L (Illinois)

Stewart, C. Gregory (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Brandt, Peter W. (Illinois)

Braskich, Keith J (Illinois)

Connolly, Walter B. Jr. (Michigan)

Davis, Roy G. (Illinois)

DeQuick, Clara G (Michigan)

Donati, Donna J (Michigan)

Haddad, Yvonne R. (New Jersey)

Marshall, Alison B. (District of Columbia)

Other Attorney(s)

Galassi, Julie L (Illinois)

Levine, Steven J (Illinois)

Rock, Jeffrey B (Illinois)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

Evans v. Mitsubishi Motors

July 23, 1999 Docket

Docket [PACER]

May 23, 2001 Docket

Docket

Aeschleman v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg

Jan. 9, 2013 Docket
1

Complaint

April 6, 1996 Complaint

EEOC Chairman Comments on Lawsuit Against Mitsubishi

No Court

April 22, 1996 Press Release

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

102 F.3d 869

Nov. 27, 1996 Order/Opinion
56

Order

960 F.Supp. 164

March 24, 1997 Order/Opinion
154

Order [Denying Motion for S/J]

990 F.Supp. 1059

Jan. 20, 1998 Order/Opinion

EEOC Scores Major Victory in Mitsubishi Lawsuit

No Court

Jan. 21, 1998 Press Release

Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing and EEOC Reach Voluntary Agreement to Settle Harassment Suit

No Court

June 11, 1998 Press Release

Resources

Title Description External URL

Ending Sex and Race Discrimination in the Workplace: Legal Interventions That Push the Envelope

Ariane Hegewisch, Cynthia Deitch, Evelyn Murphy

Race and sex discrimination in employment, covering recruitment, pay and compensation, training and promotion, was made illegal by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Successful employment dis… March 1, 2011 http://www.iwpr.org/...

Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform

Nancy Levit

Structural reform litigation, lawsuits that aim to create systemic change, dates back to the school desegregation cases of the 1950s and today continues with employment discrimination class action su… March 1, 2008 http://heinonline.org/...

Judicial Independence, Employment Discrimination Studies Funded

Ann Nicholson

This brief article describes the Clearinghouse's award of $12,000 to build its collection of employment discrimination class actions brought by private plaintiffs. Nov. 1, 2008 https://law.wustl.edu/...

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4248758/eeoc-v-mitsubishi-motor-mfg/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT case referred to Mag. Judge Robert J. Kauffman - Certificate of Interest/Rule 41/Waiver of Service/Consent to Magistrate forms given to Plaintiff by Clerk (SH, ilcd) (SW, ilcd). (Entered: 04/09/1996)

April 9, 1996 RECAP
2

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff EEOC (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/09/1996)

April 9, 1996 PACER
3

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to transfer case from Judge McDade to Judge Mihm (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 06/20/1996)

June 19, 1996 PACER
4

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST pursuant to Local Rule 11.3 filed by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/24/1996)

June 21, 1996 PACER
5

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES filed by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/24/1996)

June 21, 1996 PACER
6

RESPONSE by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg to motion to transfer case from Judge McDade to Judge Mihm [3-1] (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/28/1996)

June 28, 1996 PACER
7

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade denying motion to transfer case from Judge McDade to Judge Mihm [3-1]. Case set for Initial Pre-Trial/ Rule 16 conference on Friday, 8/16/96 at 9:30am in person in Judge McDade's courtroom at the Federal Building in Peoria, IL. Rule 16 notice enclosed. Parties are to comply with Rule 26(f) by the time of the Rule 16 hearing and bring a proposed order as required by rule 16(b). FURTHER ORDERED that a Joint Hearing for Coordination of Discovery in this case and in 94-1545 (Evans vs Mitsubishi) is set on Friday, 9/6/96 at 3:00pm in person in Chief Judge Mihm's courtroom at the Federal Building in Peoria, IL. Attorneys from both cases are to be present at the 9/6/96 hearing. (cc: all counsel in cases 96-1192 & 94-1545) (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 07/08/1996)

July 3, 1996 PACER
8

NOTICE by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg of change of address of Attorney Roy Davis (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 07/10/1996)

July 9, 1996 PACER
9

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff EEOC by Steven J Levine and Jean P Kamp (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/16/1996)

Aug. 16, 1996 PACER
11

PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN filed by plaintiff, defendant (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/25/1996)

Sept. 23, 1996 PACER
10

PROPOSED JOINT DISCOVERY/SCHEDULING PLAN filed by plaintiff & defendant (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/25/1996)

Sept. 25, 1996 PACER
12

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade. Pursuant to Rule 16 Conference held 9/27/96 the Court enters the following scheduling order: joint agreed confidentiality protective order by 10/15/96; defts motion for confidentiality protective order (if necessary) by 10/25/96; phase I discovery to be completed by 2/1/97; dispositive threshold motions by 4/1/97 misc ddl of 6/15/97 created for amendment to pleadings; submission of pretrial memoranda by 7/1/97; Special Pretrial Conference set on July 11, 1997 at 10:30am-in person; Pltfs expert designations by 8/1/97; defts expert designations by 9/1/97; phases 2,3 & 4 discovery by 10/1/97; pltfs expert reports by 10/1/97; depositions of pltfs experts by 11/1/97; defts expert reports by 11/1/97; depositions of defts experts by 12/1/97; any dispositive motions to be filed by 12/1/97; joint final pretrial order due by 2/2/98; Final Pretrial/ jury instruction conf set at 9:00am on 2/16/98-in person; jury trial set at 9:00am on 3/2/98-in person. In addition 1) the Court waives any limitation of maximum number of interrogatories & depositions 2)all motions for protective order to be filed in written form & will be addressed to Judge McDade 3)Court refers the discovery portion to Mag Judge Kauffman. Motions to reconsider his rulings may be filed with Judge McDade. Case referred to Mag Judge Kauffman. (cc: all counsel) (HK, ilcd) Modified on 12/04/1996 (Entered: 09/30/1996)

Sept. 30, 1996 PACER
13

LETTER from Attorney Waldmeir to Clerk of Court dated 9/26/96 re:9/27/96 hearing w/joint discovery schedule attached (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/30/1996)

Sept. 30, 1996 PACER
14

MOTION by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg to Clarify the EEOC'S September 13, 1996 letter to all of Mitsubishi's Current and Former Female Associates (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 10/24/1996)

Oct. 24, 1996 PACER
15

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of motion to Clarify the EEOC'S September 13, 1996 letter to all of Mitsubishi's Current Former Female Associates [14-1] by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 10/24/1996)

Oct. 24, 1996 PACER
16

UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg to extend time to comply with the protective order provisions of the 9/30/96 scheduling order (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/1996)

Oct. 25, 1996 PACER
17

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Peter Brandt on behalf of defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (LR, ilcd) (Entered: 10/28/1996)

Oct. 25, 1996 PACER
18

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION motion to Clarify the EEOC'S September 13, 1996 letter to all of Mitsubishi's Current and Former Female Associates [14-1] by plaintiff EEOC (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/1996)

Nov. 7, 1996 PACER
19

MOTION by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg for entry of (partially-agreed confidentiality) protective order (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/1996)

Nov. 7, 1996 PACER
20

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of motion for entry of (partially-agreed confidentiality) protective order [19-1] by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/1996)

Nov. 7, 1996 PACER
21

CERTIFICATE of Service (Re: #19 & 20) by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/1996)

Nov. 7, 1996 PACER
22

MOTION by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg to withdraw attorney Roy G Davis (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/1996)

Nov. 7, 1996 PACER
23

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade granting in part and denying in part the motion to Clarify the EEOC'S September 13, 1996 letter to all of Mitsubishi's Current and Former Female Associates [14-1]. FURTHER ORDERED that within 7 days of the date of this Order, EEOC shall send out the corrective notice on EEOC letterhead to all current and former female associates of Mitsubishi. (SEE ORDER); deadline for EEOC to send out corrective notice is 11/25/96. FURTHER ORDERED that all future proposed nonprivileged communications between counsel for either side and the potential class members in this case shall be forwarded to opposing counsel for a period of ten (10) calendar days for review. If opposing counsel has any objections to the content or form of such communications, they shall file an objection with the Court within such time. No communications shall be distributed to potential class members before the ten-day time period expires without objection or, if objections are filed, before the Court rules on them. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff EEOC is barred from relying upon any information gathered from managerial employees of Mitsubishi as the direct result of the September 13, 1996 letter. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff EEOC is barred from using any second-hand information gathered as a result of the September 13, 1996 letter in order to seek out and persuade other employees to join the plaintiff class. (SEE ORDER) (cc: all counsel) (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 11/14/1996)

Nov. 14, 1996 PACER
24

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC & Evans Plaintiffs for order to set uniform briefing schedule and for joint hearing on Mitsubishi's motion for protective order (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/18/1996)

Nov. 18, 1996 PACER
25

NOTICE by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg of taking deposition duces tecum of Scott Sommers on 11/20/96 (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/18/1996)

Nov. 18, 1996 PACER
26

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for reconsideration (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/1996)

Nov. 20, 1996 PACER
27

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade granting in part & denying in part the motion for reconsideration [26-1]. The corrective notice, as revised, shall read: See Order. Notice shall be sent out on EEOC letterhead on or before 11/27/96. (cc: all counsel) (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/21/1996)

Nov. 21, 1996 PACER
28

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to stay pending appeal (original of fax copy filed 11/25/96) (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 11/26/1996)

Nov. 26, 1996 PACER
29

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of motion to stay pending appeal [28-1] by plaintiff EEOC (original of fax copy filed 11/25/96) (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 11/26/1996)

Nov. 26, 1996 PACER
30

NOTICE of APPEAL by plaintiff EEOC from Dist. Court decision [30-1] (original of fax copy filed 11/25/96) (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 11/26/1996)

Nov. 26, 1996 PACER
31

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade denying motion to stay pending appeal (original of fax copy filed 11/25/96) [28-1] . The corrective notice shall be sent out on November 27, 1996, as originally scheduled. (cc: all counsel by fax and mail) (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 11/27/1996)

Nov. 26, 1996 PACER
32

Notification by USCA of Appellate Docket Number 96-3957 (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/02/1996)

Nov. 29, 1996 PACER
33

RESPONSE by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg to joint motion of Evans Pltfs & EEOC for order to set uniform briefing schedule [24-1] and motion hearing on Mitsubishi's motion for protective order [24-2] (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/1996)

Dec. 3, 1996 PACER
34

ORDER from USCA - Ordered that the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/06/1996)

Dec. 5, 1996 PACER
35

Notification by USCA of Appellate Docket Number 96-3988 (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/09/1996)

Dec. 9, 1996 PACER
36

MOTION by plaintiff to extend time in which to respond to defendant Mitsubishii's objections to the EEOC's Proposed Letter to Mitsubishi Employees and preliminary response to correct immediately certain flase statements made by Mitsubishi (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/09/1996)

Dec. 9, 1996 PACER
37

JOINT MOTION by EVANS plaintiffs and EEOC to exceed page limitation in response to Mitsubishi's Motion for Protective Order (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/10/1996)

Dec. 10, 1996 PACER
38

RESPONSE by plaintiff EEOC to motion for entry of (partially-agreed confidentiality) protective order [19-1] (filed as Joint Memorandum of the Evans Plaintiffs and EEOC on Contested Protective Order Issues) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/11/1996)

Dec. 11, 1996 PACER
39

MOTION by intervenor Peoria Journal Star to intervene by Peoria Journal Star and for leave to file response to motion for entry of amended confidentiality protective order (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/1996)

Dec. 12, 1996 PACER
40

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of motion to intervene by Peoria Journal Star [39-1] by intervenor Peoria Journal Star (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/1996)

Dec. 12, 1996 PACER
41

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to file certificate of service to joint memorandum of the Evans Plaintiffs and EEOC on contested protective order issues and joint motion of Evans Plaintiffs and EEOC to file an oversize brief in response to Mitsubishi's motion for protective order (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/1996)

Dec. 12, 1996 PACER
42

RESPONSE by intervenor Peoria Journal Star to motion for entry of (partially-agreed confidentiality) protective order [19-1] (HK, ilcd) Modified on 12/13/1996 (Entered: 12/13/1996)

Dec. 12, 1996 PACER
43

CERTIFICATE by plaintiff EEOC regarding joint memorandum of the Evans/EEOC pltfs on Contested Protective Order Issues and joint motion of Evans/EEOC to file an oversized brief in response to Mitsubishi's motion for protective order (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 12/17/1996)

Dec. 16, 1996 PACER
44

TRANSCRIPT of joint hearing ( w/94-1545) held 12/12/96 on proposed protective order filed (CL, ilcd) Modified on 03/11/1997 (Entered: 12/27/1996)

Dec. 27, 1996 PACER
45

MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE by plaintiff EEOC to defendant's objections to the EEOC's proposed letter to Mitsubishi employess (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 12/31/1996)

Dec. 31, 1996 PACER
46

Memorandum in RESPONSE by plaintiff EEOC to Defendant's Objections to the EEOC's Proposed letter to Mitsubishi Employees - NOTE: This is a copy of the Memorandum filed on 12/31/96, but has Exhibit A attached, which was not attached to the filing on 12/31/96. (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/07/1997)

Jan. 6, 1997 PACER
47

MANDATE from USCA dismissing the appeal [30-1] - 96-3988 is DISMISSED as duplicative of appeal no. 96-3957 (SH, ilcd) Modified on 03/14/1997 (Entered: 01/28/1997)

Jan. 27, 1997 PACER
48

MANDATE from USCA - motion for stay was denied, and the appeal dismissed [30-1], with costs, for want of jurisdiction (SH, ilcd) Modified on 03/14/1997 (Entered: 02/11/1997)

Feb. 10, 1997 PACER
49

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade : SEE ORDER (original filed in Case No. 94-1545). (cc: all counsel) (LR, ilcd) Modified on 02/12/1997 (Entered: 02/12/1997)

Feb. 12, 1997 PACER
50

NOTICE by plaintiff EEOC of change of Fax Number (new Fax Number is 312-353-8555 (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/18/1997)

Feb. 18, 1997 PACER
51

Defendant Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc's Objections to the EEOC's Third Proposed Letter to Mitsibishi Employees and MOTION by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg for order to Enforce Scheduling Order (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/18/1997)

Feb. 18, 1997 PACER
52

RESPONSE by plaintiff EEOC to Defendant's Objections to EEOC's Third Proposed Letter to Mitsubishi Employees and Motion to Enforce Scheduling Order [51-1] (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/1997)

March 3, 1997 PACER
53

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC, defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg for order (filed as Stipulation for Temporary Suspension of Case) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/1997)

March 11, 1997 PACER
54

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade granting motion for order (filed as Stipulation for Temporary Suspension of Case) [53-1]. This matter shall be placed in temporary suspense until 3/20/97. (cc: all counsel) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/1997)

March 13, 1997 PACER
55

MOTION by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg for leave to file reply memorandum in support of its objections to the EEOC's 3rd Proposed Letter to Mitsubishi Employees & Motion to Enforce Scheduling Order (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/20/1997)

March 20, 1997 PACER
56

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade granting in part and denying in part motion for order to Enforce Scheduling Order [51-1]. EEOC's 3rd proposed letter may be sent out immediately with the following redactions: (1) the phrase "observed or" in the first sentence of paragraph two; (2) the phrase "or who witnessed" in the second sentence of paragraph two; (3) the phrase "or to other employees" in the last sentence of paragraph three; and (4) paragraphs four and six in their entirety. FURTHER ORDERED that EEOC shall turn over its list of alleged victims to Mitsubishi within 5 days of the date it sends out the letter discussed above. FURTHER ORDERED that any future attempt by Mitsubishi to engage in discussions with alleged victims concerning past incidents of harassment must be done by a noticed deposition in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall prioritize and depose as soon as practicable any alleged victim who has information about ongoing harassment at Mitsubishi's Normal, IL plant. Likewise, the parties shall expedite those depositions which Mitubishi can justify by its need to investigate and remedy any previously unreported incidences of harassment. Specific disputes shall be taken up with Magistrate Kauffman. FURTHER granting motion for leave to file reply memorandum in support of its objections to the EEOC's 3rd Proposed Letter to Mitsubishi Employees & Motion to Enforce Scheduling Order [55-1] (cc: all counsel) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/24/1997)

March 24, 1997 PACER
57

REPLY by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg to response to motion for order to Enforce Scheduling Order [51-1] (filed as Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Objections to the EEOC's Third Proposed Letter to Mitsubishi Employees and Motion to Enforce Scheduling Order) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/24/1997)

March 24, 1997 PACER
58

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for reconsideration (FAX DOCUMENT) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/1997)

March 27, 1997 PACER
59

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for reconsideration (original of fax document #58) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/1997)

March 27, 1997 PACER
60

MOTION by plaintiff, defendant for order to Modify Joint Discovery/Scheduling Plan (filed as Stipulation to Modify) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/01/1997)

April 1, 1997 PACER
61

MOTION by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg for leave to file response to the EEOC's Motion to Reconsider (original of fax documenet #61) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/1997)

April 1, 1997 PACER
62

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade granting motion for order to Modify Joint Discovery/Scheduling Plan [60-1]. Ordered that the deadlines for Phase I Discovery and Dispositive Threshold Motions, except as otherwise ordered, shall be extended to 6/1/97. (cc: all counsel) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/1997)

April 2, 1997 PACER
63

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade granting motion for reconsideration [59-1] [58-1]. The second paragraph is reworded to reflect EEOC's concern, as indicated in this order. Further ordered that Defendant's motion for leave to file response to the EEOC's Motion to Reconsider [61-1] is granted. (cc: all counsel) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/1997)

April 2, 1997 PACER
64

RESPONSE by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg to motion for reconsideration [59-1] (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/1997)

April 2, 1997 PACER
65

NOTICE by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg of change of address of law firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/1997)

April 25, 1997 PACER
69

LETTER to court from defendant counsel requesting status conference (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/19/1997)

May 8, 1997 PACER
66

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for order to disregard Deft Counsel's 5/7/97 letter to Judge McDade and to require Deft to communicate with the Court by motion (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/13/1997)

May 12, 1997 PACER
67

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT of motion for order to disregard Deft Counsel's 5/7/97 letter to Judge McDade and to require Deft to communicate with the Court by motion [66-1] by EEOC (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/13/1997)

May 12, 1997 PACER
68

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff EEOC by Michelle A. Caiola as additional counsel (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/16/1997)

May 16, 1997 PACER
70

MOTION by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg for reconsideration of minute entry granting plaintiff's motion to disregard defendant counsel's 5/7/97 letter to Judge McDade and to require counsel to communicate with the Court by motion and in the alternative, motion to regard defendant's 5/7/97 as a motion for a telephonic status conference (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/20/1997)

May 19, 1997 PACER
71

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of motion for reconsideration of minute entry granting plaintiff's motion to disregard defendant counsel's 5/7/97 letter to Judge McDade and to require counsel to communicate with the Court by motion and in the alternative, motion to regard defendant's 5/7/97 as a motion for a telephonic status conference [70-1] by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/20/1997)

May 19, 1997 PACER
72

CERTIFICATE of Service re: #70 & #71 by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/20/1997)

May 19, 1997 PACER
73

MOTION by EEOC, Mitsubishi Motor Mfg for order to modify joint discovery/scheduling plan (filed as Stipulation to Modify) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/02/1997)

May 30, 1997 PACER
74

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade Ordered that the deadlines for Phase I Discoverey and Dispositive Threshold Motions, except as otherwise ordered, shall be extended to 8/1/97. (cc: all counsel) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/1997)

June 3, 1997 PACER
75

MOTION by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg to exceed page limitation in support of its motion to dismiss and/or for partial summary judgment (SH, ilcd) Modified on 09/17/1997 (Entered: 07/23/1997)

July 23, 1997 PACER
76

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of motion to exceed page limitation in support of its motion to dismiss and/or for partial summary judgment [75-1] by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/23/1997)

July 23, 1997 PACER
77

CERTIFICATE of Service re: #75 & 76 by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/23/1997)

July 23, 1997 PACER
78

MOTION by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg for partial summary judgment (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997 PACER
79

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of motion for partial summary judgment [78-1] by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997 PACER
80

MOTION by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg for leave to file materials under seal in connection with its motion for partial summary judgment (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997 PACER
81

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of motion for leave to file materials under seal in connection with its motion for partial summary judgment [80-1] by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997 PACER
82

STATEMENT OF FACTS ( undisputed) by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg in support of motion for partial summary judgment [78-1] (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997 PACER
83

EXHIBITS for defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg stored in file in support of defendant's memorandum in support of motion for partial summary judgment (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997 PACER
84

EXHIBITS for defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg stored in file to affidavit of Paul Betts filed in support of defendant's memorandum of law in support of motion for partial summary judgment (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997 PACER
85

STATEMENT OF THEORY OF CASE by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997 PACER
86

IN CAMERA documents by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg sealed and placed in vault in accordance with the Court's pretrial protective order dated 2/12/97 in support of motion for partial summary judgment (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997 PACER
87

CERTIFICATE (PROOF OF SERVICE) by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg re: documents #78-#85 (VB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/1997)

Aug. 1, 1997 PACER
88

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for order to set briefing schedule (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/11/1997)

Aug. 11, 1997 PACER
89

RESPONSE by defendant Mitsubishi Motor Mfg to motion for order to set briefing schedule [88-1] (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/11/1997)

Aug. 11, 1997 PACER
90

Joint MOTION by plaintiff, defendant to reset status conference (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/11/1997)

Aug. 11, 1997 PACER
91

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade granting motion for order to set briefing schedule [88-1]. Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment [78-1] due 9/15/97; Defendant's reply due 10/2/97. No further threshold motions or briefs shall be filed without prior leave of this Court. Further, court is denying motion to reset status conference [90-1]. At this point, the hearing remains set for 9/18/97 at 9:30 AM in person in Peoria. However, at the request of the parties, the hearing may be delayed until after Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment has been resolved by the Court. (cc: all counsel) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/1997)

Aug. 13, 1997 PACER
92

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade - Upon further consideration, the Court is changing the 9:30 AM, Thurs., 9/19/97 hearing to a telephone status conference rather than requiring the parties to appear in person. The Court will set up the call. The parties should be prepared to discuss the present status of the case as well as any issues that may require the Court's intervention or guidance, such as discovery or other scheduling matters. However, because Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment will not be resolved by the time of the hearing, the Court will leave it to another day to schedule the special pretrial conference referenced in the Court's original scheduling order in this case. (cc: all counsel) (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/1997)

Aug. 14, 1997 PACER
93

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to file first amended complaint (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/1997)

Aug. 14, 1997 PACER
94

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for protective order (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/1997)

Aug. 20, 1997 PACER
95

Memorandum of Law in RESPONSE by defendant to motion for leave to file first amended complaint [93-1] (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/1997)

Aug. 22, 1997 PACER
96

RESPONSE by defendant to motion for protective order [94-1] (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/1997)

Aug. 22, 1997 PACER
97

ORDER by Judge Joe B. McDade granting in part motion for protective order [94-1] and suspends the taking of depositions in this case by either party until 9/18/97. All further discovery matters will be discussed at the telephone status hearing scheduled for 9/18/97, including EEOC's suggestion that depositions be limited to six per week until the partial summary judgment motion is resolved. Court is granting motion for leave to file materials under seal in connection with its motion for partial summary judgment [80-1]. Ruling on motion for leave to file first amended complaint [93-1] is deferred because that motion is apparently tied up with the merits of Defendant's partial summary judgment motion. (cc: all counsel) (SH, ilcd) Modified on 09/17/1997 (Entered: 08/25/1997)

Aug. 22, 1997 PACER
98

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to file reply memorandum in support of motion of EEOC for leave to file First Amended Complaint (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/27/1997)

Aug. 27, 1997 PACER
99

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to file, instanter, an overlength memorandum in opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/15/1997)

Sept. 15, 1997 PACER
100

STATEMENT OF FACTS (disputed) by plaintiff EEOC in opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [78-1] (SH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/15/1997)

Sept. 15, 1997 PACER

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 9, 1996

Closing Date: 2001

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are all current and former female employees of Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc. at the Normal, Illinois plant.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc. (Normal, Peoria), Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Retailer

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

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: $34,000,000

Order Duration: 1998 - 2001

Content of Injunction:

Retaliation Prohibition

Reporting

Reinstatement

Provide antidiscrimination training

Monitoring

Monitor/Master

Discrimination Prohibition

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Pattern or Practice

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

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

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits