IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC., d/b/a! HANNABERY HVAC,
Defendant.

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

)

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF ACTION This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Michael Morrone and a class of individuals who were affected by such practices. As described with greater particularity in Paragraph 7 below, the Commission alleges that Defendant subjected older workers to disparate terms and conditions of employment including discharge, loss of raises, bonuses and benefits, negative performance evaluations, and excessive scrutiny oftheir job performance due to their ages. In addition, the Commission alleges that Mr. Morrone and the class members were retaliated against for their complaints of age discrimination, or opposition to acts they believed to be illegal under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Because of the age discrimination and retaliation, Mr. Morrone and the class members suffered damages, including backpay, frontpay, liquidated damages, benefits, bonuses and out of pocket losses.

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 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (the "ADEA"), which incorporates by reference Sections 16(c) and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FSLA"), as amended, 29 U.S.c. §§ 216(c) and 217. 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 Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the ADEA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 626(b), as amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No.1 of 1978,92 Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer, Hannabery Electric, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation d/b/a Hannabery HVAC, (the "Employer"), has continuously been doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Cities of Allentown and/or Quakertown, and has continuously had at least 20 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11 (b), (g) and (h) of the ADEA, 29 US.c. §§ 630(b), (g) and (h).
2

CONCILIATION 6. Prior to the institution of this lawsuit, the Commission's representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with the ADEA through informal methods of conciliation, conference and persuasion within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. Since at least December 200 I, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility at 200 Schwantz Road in Allentown, Pennsylvania, III violation of Section 4(a)(1) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (a)(1) as follows: (a) After Gary Hall, whose date of birth is April 17, 1936, filed a charge with the
EEOC alleging that Defendant violated the ADEA, Defendant's Owner stated to Customer Service Manager Michael Morrone: "I want that SOB fired." Mr. Morrone was ordered to follow Hall and document his every move. Mr. Morrone refused on the grounds that such activity would be retaliation under the ADEA. Mr. Morrone's date of birth is December 1, 1954. (b) Installation Manager Roy Vancamp criticized Mr. Morrone for not being a "team player" and repeated the instruction to "get something on" Gary Hall. Morrone continued to refuse and Vancamp told him that Defendant could find a "22-yearold right out of vocational school" to do his Morrone's job. On his 2004 performance evaluation, Defendant criticized Morrone's performance because he [Morrone] "didn't handle ...well" the matter of "documenting Gary [Hall's] performance." Defendant began to complain about Morrone's work restrictions and Vancamp told Morrone that ifhe could not climb into an attic, Defendant
3

may need to get a "younger guy" to do the job. (c) Defendant began to scrutinize Mr. Morrone's performance, providing him with
raises and bonuses lower than those of his co-workers, issuing negative performance appraisals to him, and placing him on a "Last Chance Agreement" in December 2004. (d) Starting in 2003, Fleet Manager Charles Snyder, whose date of birth is January 9, 1950, was told by Installation Manager Roy Vancamp to document and "get something on" Gary Hall and Larry Dierkes, whose date of birth is October 3, 1956. Snyder, who had previously heard Vancamp refer to older workers as "dead wood," refused to document these workers in the protected age group. Defendant then criticized Snyder's performance, leading to his discharge on or about March 14,2006. (e) Prior to Mr. Snyder's discharge, Vancamp told Snyder of his preference for hiring younger workers, stating that Defendant intended to hire and recruit younger workers just out of vocational school and ordering Snyder to assist in this effort. (f) In 2003, Gary Hall's job was changed and he was told that he would not be given any more raises or bonuses. Manager Lou Gitlin told HVAC Technician James O'Brien that Defendant wanted to "get rid of' Hall and replace him with younger workers. (g) HVAC Technician James 0' Brien, whose date of birth is December 29, 1949, was called "dead wood" by Service Manager Mike Smith in or around June 2005. Approximately one week later, Installation Manager Vancamp called O'Brien "dead wood," and O'Brien protested this insult. Vancamp then informed O'Brien
4

that he should be replaced with "someone younger." As early as 2003, Vancamp had told O'Brien and Morrone that company should get rid of them and hire "younger guys." (h) In or around August 2005, O'Brien protested to Vancamp that Defendant was targeting him because of his age and stated: "Look what happened to Gary Hall. .. is this what you do with your older guys?" Vancamp responded that O'Brien should take time off under the Family Medical Leave Act. (i) Following a December 2005 knee injury to 0' Brien, Defendant caused him to lose approximately $6,000 in Workers' Compensation benefits and stopped paying his medical benefits. Upon information and belief, Defendant continued to pay medical benefits for younger comparators. (j) Customer Service Technician Larry Dierkes, who Defendant had sought to "document" by asking James O'Brien to "get something" on him, was discharged on August 17, 2004, allegedly for not returning an intimidating medical form. Other older workers were discharged for this same alleged reason. 8. The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Michael Morrone and a class of individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their ages andior in retaliation for their participation in activities protected by the ADEA. 9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 7 above were and are willful within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of age against individuals 40 years of age and older or retaliates against employees who have engaged in activities protected by the ADEA. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals 40 years of age and older, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Employer to pay appropriate back wages and benefits in an amount to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest to Michael Morrone and a class of individuals who have been SUbjected to age discrimination and/or retaliatory treatment. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole all individuals adversely affected by the unlawful practices described above, by providing the affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful practices, including but not limited to the hiring of Charles Snyder, Larry Dierkes, and any other class member so affected, or frontpay in lieu thereof if hiring is not feasible. E. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. F. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
6

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel EEOC Wash., D.C. 20507
~,~~ / }71 (:~)ih~_~ IQL)(~
acquelme H. McNair Regional Attorney
QvUL(~) C; I UI&( I,-~
Judith A. O'Boyle Supervisory Trial Attorney
enior Trial Attorney EEOC Philadelphia District Office 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 215.440.2683 PA ID No. 37637
7

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________________________________________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION et al.

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

:

No. 06-CV-04331

Plaintiff,

:

v.

:

:

HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC.

:

d/b/a HANNABERY HVAC

:

:

Defendant.

:

_________________________________________ :

CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT OF INTERVENORS MICHAEL MORRONE, GARY HALL AND JAMES O’BRIEN

The above-named Intervenors hereby complain as follows against the above-named Defendant:

I. Introduction

1. The Intervening Plaintiffs have initiated the instant action to redress age discrimination

by Defendant in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the

Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, as well as other applicable federal and state law. The

Intervening Plaintiffs assert that Defendants subjected them to discrimination on the basis of

their age.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

2. The instant action is initiated pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and

other applicable federal and state law. This Court may properly maintain personal jurisdiction

over Defendant because Defendant’s contacts with this state and this judicial district are

sufficient for the exercise of such jurisdiction to comply with traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice, satisfying the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) and its progeny. 3. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania may exercise original subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(4) because it arises under the laws of the United States and seeks redress for violations of civil rights. 4. The Court may also maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because they are sufficiently related to the claim(s) within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. 5. Venue is properly laid in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and 1391(b)(2) because Defendant resides in and/or conducts business in this judicial district and because a substantial part of the acts and/or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred in this judicial district (The Intervening Plaintiffs were employed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at the time of the illegal actions set forth herein).
III. Parties 6. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in full. 7. Intervenor Michael Morrone is an adult individual and citizen of the United States over the age of 40 with an address at 3501 Spruce Drive, Northampton, PA 18067. 8. Intervenor Gary Hall is an adult individual and citizen of the United States over the age of 40 with an address at 6545 Walnut Lane, Coopersburg, PA 18030. 9. Intervenor Movant James O’Brien is an adult individual and citizen of the United States over the age of 40 with an address at 2733 Valley Woods Road, Hatfield, PA 19440.
2

10. Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation with an office at the above-captioned address. 11. At all times relevant herein, Defendant acted through its agents, servants and employees, each of whom was in the scope of his or her employment at all times relevant herein. 12. Defendant is an “employer” within the meaning of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because it is engaged in an industry affecting commerce and because it maintains or maintained twenty (20) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. 13. Defendants also maintain a sufficient number of employees to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (requiring four or more employees).
IV. Factual Background 14. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in full. 15. Intervenors are each over 40 years of age and a member of the class of persons protected by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). 16. Intervenors hereby incorporate paragraphs 7 (a) – (j), paragraph 8, and paragraph 9 of the EEOC Complaint filed in this matter on September 28, 2006 at docket item no. 1. 17. Defendant has discriminated against Intervenors as a result of their age as set forth in paragraphs 7 (a)- (j), 8, and 9 the Complaint previously filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (docket item no. 1), which is fully incorporated herein.
COUNT ONE VIOLATIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT 18. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in the ir entirety as if set forth in full. 19. Defendant’s actions as aforesaid, in harassing and discriminating against Intervenors based upon their age, also violated the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa.C.S.A. § 959 et. seq.
3

WHEREFORE, Intervenors seek the damages set forth in the ad damnum clause of the instant Complaint, infra.
AD DAMNUM CLAUSE / PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter an Order providing that:
A. Defendant is to be permanently enjoined from harassing, discriminating against or retaliating against Intervenors on the basis of their age, or any other basis forbidden by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and other applicable federal and state law;
B. Defendant is to be prohibited from continuing to maintain its illegal policy, practice, or custom of harassing, discriminating against, retaliating against or refusing to hire employees based on their age, and is to be ordered to promulgate an effective policy against such discrimination and to adhere thereto;
C. Defendant is to compensate Intervenors, reimburse Intervenors, and make Intervenors whole for any and all pay and benefits they would have received had it not been for Defendant’s illegal actions, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, salary, pay increases, bonuses, commissions, medical and other benefits, training, promotions, pension, and seniority. Defendant should be required to pay all benefits illegally withheld from the date Intervenors first suffered discrimination at the hands of Defendant until the date of verdict;
D. Intervenors are to be awarded actual damages, as well as damages for the pain, suffering, and humiliation caused to them by Defendant ’s actions;
E. Double damages are to be awarded for willful violations of the ADEA; F. Defendant is to remove any and all negative references or documents from Intervenors’ employment record(s), if applicable;
4

G. Intervenors are to be accorded any and all other equitable and legal relief the Court deems just, proper, and appropriate;
H. Intervenors are to be awarded the costs and expenses of this action and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by applicable federal and state law;
I. Any verdict in favor of Intervenors is to be molded by the Court to maximize the financial recovery available in light of the caps on certain damages set forth in applicable federal law, as mandated by the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Gagliardo v. Connaught Laboratories, 311 F.3d 565, 570-71 (3d Cir. 2002);
J. The Court will maintain jurisdiction over the instant action to ensure Defendant’s compliance with its Orders therein;
K. The Court will grant such additional legal and/or equitable relief as it deems necessary, just, and/or appropriate.
Respectfully submitted, TIMOTHY M. KOLMAN AND ASSOCIATES

December 21, 2006

By: /s/ Timothy M. Kolman, Esquire Timothy M. Kolman Wayne A. Ely Attorneys for Plaintiff 225 North Flowers Mill Road Langhorne, PA 19047 (215) 750-3134

5

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-433 1 TMG

HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC., d/b/a/HANNABERY HVAC,
Defendant.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF ACTION This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to correct unlawfUl employment practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Michael Morrone and a class of individuals who were affected by such practices. As described with greater particularity in Paragraph 7 below, the Commission alleges that Defendant subjected older workers to disparate terms and conditions of employment including discharge, loss of raises, bonuses and benefits, negative performance evaluations, and excessive scrutiny of their job performance due to their ages. In addition, the Commission alleges that Mr. Morrone and the class members were retaliated against for their complaints of age discrimination, or opposition to acts they believed to be illegal under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Because of the age discrimination and retaliation, Mr. Morrone and the class members suffered damages, including backpay, frontpay, liquidated damages, benefits, bonuses and out of pocket losses.

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 7(b) of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 5 626(b) (the "ADEA"),
which incorporates by reference Sections 16(c) and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(the "FSLA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. $9 216(c) and 217.
-
ppp-p-------------
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawfbl were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the ADEA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 7(b) of the
ADEA, 29 U.S.C. 5 626(b), as amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978,92
Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer, Hannabery Electric, Inc., a
* p--------------
PSiiisyvan~acorporation d/b/a Hannabery HVAC, (the "Employer"), has continuously been doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Cities of Allentown and/or Quakertown, and has continuously had at least 20 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 1l(b), (g) and (h) of
the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. $ 5 630(b), (g) and (h).

CONCILIATION 6. Prior to the institution of this lawsuit, the Commission's representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with the ADEA through informal methods of conciliation, conference and persuasion
within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. 5 626(b).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. Since at least December 200 1, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility at 200 Schwantz Road in Allentown, Pennsylvania, in violation of Section 4(a)(l)and (d) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. $ 623 (a)(l), (d) as follows:
After Gary Hall, whose date of birth is April 17, 1936, filed a charge with the EEOC alleging that Defendant violated the ADEA, Defendant's Owner stated to Customer Service Manager Michael Morrone: "I want that SOB fired." Mr. Morrone was ordered to follow Hall and document his every move. Mr. Morrone refused on the grounds that such activity would be retaliation under the ADEA. Mr. Morrone's date of birth is December 1, 1954. (b) Installation Manager Roy Vancamp criticized Mr. Morrone for not being a "team player" and repeated the instruction to "get something on" Gary Hall. Morrone continued to refuse and Vancamp told him that Defendant could find a "22-yearold right out of vocational school" to do his Morrone's job. On his 2004 performance evaluation, Defendant criticized Morrone's performance because he
[Morrone] "didn't handle ...well" the matter of "documenting Gary [Hall's]
performance." Defendant began to complain about Morrone's work restrictions and Vancamp told Morrone that if he could not climb into an attic, Defendant
3

may need to get a "younger guy" to do the job. Defendant began to scrutinize Mr. Morrone's performance, providing him with raises and bonuses lower than those of his co-workers, issuing negative performance appraisals to him, and placing him on a "Last Chance Agreement" in December 2004. (d) Starting in 2003, Fleet Manager Charles Snyder, whose date of birth is January 9, 1950, was told by Installation Manager Roy Vancamp to document and "get something on" Gary Hall and Larry Dierkes, whose date of birth is October 3, 1956. Snyder, who had previously heard Vancamp refer to older workers as "dead wood," refused to document these workers in the protected age group. Defendant then criticized Snyder's performance, leading to his discharge on or about March 14,2006. (e) Prior to Mr. Snyder's discharge, Vancamp told Snyder of his preference for hiring younger workers, stating that Defendant intended to hire and recruit younger workers just out of vocational school and ordering Snyder to assist in this effort. (f) In 2003, Gary Hall's job was changed and he was told that he would not be given any more raises or bonuses. Manager Lou Gitlin told HVAC Technician James O'Brien that Defendant wanted to "get rid of' Hall and replace him with younger workers. (g) HVAC Technician James 0' Brien, whose date of birth is December 29, 1949, was called "dead wood" by Service Manager Mike Smith in or around June 2005. Approximately one week later, Installation Manager Vancamp called OYBrien "dead wood," and O'Brien protested this insult. Vancamp then informed O'Brien

that he should be replaced with "someone younger." As early as 2003, Vancamp had told O'Brien and Morrone that company should get rid of them and hire "younger guys." In or around August 2005, O'Brien protested to Vancamp that Defendant was
targeting him because of his age and stated: "Look what happened to Gary Hall.. .
is this what you do with your older guys?" Vancarnp responded that O'Brien should take time off under the Family Medical Leave Act. Following a December 2005 knee injury to 0' Brien, Defendant caused him to lose approximately $6,000 in Workers' Compensation benefits and stopped paying his medical benefits. Upon information and belief, Defendant continued to pay medical benefits for younger comparators. Customer Service Technician Larry Dierkes, who Defendant had sought to "document" by asking James O'Brien to "get something" on him, was discharged on August 17,2004, allegedly for not returning an intimidatingmedical form. Other older workers were discharged for this same alleged reason. 8. The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Michael Morrone and a class of individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their ages andlor in retaliation for their participation in activities protected by the ADEA. 9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 7 above were and are willful within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. 626(b).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of age against individuals 40 years of age and older or retaliates against employees who have engaged in activities protected by the ADEA. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals 40 years of age and older, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Employer to pay appropriate back wages and benefits in an amount to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest to Michael Morrone and a class of individuals who have been subjected to age discrimination andlor retaliatory treatment. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole all individuals adversely affected by the unlawful practices described above, by providing the affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful practices, including but not limited to the hiring of Charles Snyder, Larry Dierkes, and any other class member so affected, or frontpay in lieu thereof if hiring is not feasible. E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Charging Party Michael Morrone and all individuals adversely affected by the unlawful practices described above, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices described above, including humiliation, anxiety, depression, pain and suffering, and exacerbation

of physical injuries and conditions, in amounts to be determined at trial.

F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Charging Party Michael Morrone and all

individuals adversely affected by the unlawful practices described above punitive damages for its

malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest.

H. 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.
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Wash., D.C. 20507

~ e ~ i o nAattlorney
' Judith A. O'Boyle
Supervisory Trial Attorney
VSenior Trial Attorney

EEOC Philadelphia District Office 21 S. 5' Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 21 5.440.2683 PA ID No. 37637

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

:

:

vs.

:

:

HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-04331

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This 6th day of December, 2007, it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court , it is
ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.
MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court

BY: /s/ Marcie L. Silfies MARCIE L. SILFIES Deputy Clerk
Copies to:
TIMOTHY M. KOLMAN timothykolman@earthlink.net,timothykolman@earthlink.com,tkolman@kolmanlaw.net,lcrossley @kolmanlaw.net,jnewman@kolmanlaw.net,afiorentino@kolmanlaw.net
CYNTHIA A. LOCKE cynthia.locke@eeoc.gov
JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR jacqueline.mcnair@eeoc.gov
JUDITH A. O'BOYLE judith.oboyle@eeoc.gov
DAVID M. SPITKO DSpitko@SpitkoLawfirm.com

 </s> Case 2:06-cv-04331-TMG Document 38 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC., d/b/a

)

HANNABERY HVAC,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action Nos. 06-4331 (HOD. Thomas J. Golden)

CONSENT DECREE

This Consent Decree is entered into by the Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC" or the "Commission") and the Defendant, Hannabery

Electric, Inc. ("Hannabery") its directors, officers, successors and assigns. The Commission

initiated Civil Action No. 06-4331 on September 28,2006 in the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to enforce the provisions of The Age Discrimination in

Employment Act of 1967,29 U.S.c. § 621 et. ~ ("the ADEA"). In this action, the EEOC

alleged that Defendant violated the ADEA by subjecting Michael Morrone and a class of older

workers to disparate terms and conditions of employment, up to and including discharge, on the

basis of their ages and in retaliation for their complaints of age discrimination or their opposition

to acts they believed to be unlawful under the ADEA.

The Commission further contended that as a result of the discrimination, Mr. Morrone

and four other individuals lost wages, bonuses and other employment benefits. As a result of

settlement discussions, and in order to avoid further litigation costs, the parties to this action do

hereby agree to entry ofthis Consent Decree (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree") which shall

Case 2:06-cv-04331-TMG Document 38 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 2 of 11
resolve fully and finally all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint filed on behalf of Mr. Morrone, Gary Hall, James O'Brien, Charles Snyder, and Lawrence Dierkes. It is the intent of the parties that this Decree shall be a final and binding settlement between the parties signatory hereto, their officers, directors, successors and assigns, in full disposition of all claims alleged in the Commission's Complaint against Hannabery.
The Parties hereby agree that: I. This Decree is entered into in compromise of the claims asserted in this civil action and shall, under no circumstances, be construed or deemed to be evidence or admitted as evidence of (i) any wrongdoing, fault, or liability; or (ii) any infirmity in the defenses that Hannabery asserted. 2. The EEOC is the agency of the United States government authorized by Congress to investigate allegations of unlawful employment discrimination, to bring civil actions based upon these allegations of unlawful practices, and to seek relief for individuals affected by such practices. 3. The parties stipulate that, pursuant to the ADEA, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties in these cases. The parties further stipulate that venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Pennsy Ivania. 4. The rights of Defendant and those for whom the Commission seeks relief are protected adequately by this Decree. 5. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of the ADEA and will be in the best interests of the parties and those for whom the Commission seeks relief.
2

Case 2:06-cv-04331-TMG Document 38 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 3 of 11
NON-DISCRIMINATION 6. Hannabery agrees to comply fully with all of the provisions of the ADEA, and shall be enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which operates to discriminate against employees or to deny equal opportunities to any employee or applicant for employment in violation of the ADEA.
NON-RET ALIA TION 7. Hannabery shall be enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which retaliates in any manner against any person because of that person's cooperation with the EEOC with respect to the Commission's administrative investigation of this or any other civil action. Hannabery agrees to comply with the ADEA's prohibition of retaliation because of the filing ofa charge, the giving of testimony or assistance, or participation in this matter, or in any investigation, hearing or proceeding under the ADEA. Nothing in this Consent Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion, shall be construed to limit Hannabery's obligations under the ADEA or the EEOC's authority to process or litigate any charges of discrimination under the ADEA that may be filed in the future.
NON-ADMISSION 8. This Decree, being entered with the consent of the Commission and Hannabery, shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case and shall not be construed as an admission of liability by Hannabery.
DURATION OF THE DECREE 9. The Consent Decree shall be in effect for an initial period of five (5) years from the date it is entered by the Court.
3

Case 2:06-cv-04331-TMG Document 38 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 4 of 11
MONETARY COMPENSATION 10. Hannabery agrees to pay to Michael Morrone the sum total of $17,000.00. This sum was agreed upon by the parties in order to resolve this matter without the need for further litigation. Hannabery will report the payment described herein on a Form 1099 to Michael Morrone. (A) Hannabery shall issue a check, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions, to Michael Morrone within thirty days (30) days of whichever of the following events occurs later: receipt of a signed Release from Mr. Morrone or the filing of this Consent Decree. This check shall be sent, via United States first class mail return receipt requested, to Timothy M. Kolman, Esquire, 225 North Flowers Mill Road, Langhorne, PA 19047. Hannabery shall mail a copy of the check to Cynthia A. Locke, Trial Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107, concurrent with the mailing of the check to the law offices of Attorney Kolman. Hannabery shall also provide any return receipts returned by the United States Postal Service. (B) In order to receive the monetary relief set forth above, Mr. Morrone will be required to execute a Release through his counsel in a form upon which Mr. Morrone and Defendant mutually agree. 11. Hannabery agrees to pay to Gary Hall the sum total of $50,000.00. This sum was agreed upon by the parties in order to resolve this matter without the need for further litigation. Hannabery will report the payment described herein on a Form J099 to Gary Hall. (A) Hannabery shaH issue a check, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions to Gary Hall within thirty days (30) days of whichever of the following events occurs later: receipt of a signed Release from Mr. Hall or the filing of this Consent Decree. This check shall be sent,
4

Case 2:06-cv-04331-TMG Document 38 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 5 of 11
via United States first class mail return receipt requested, to Timothy M. Kolman, Esquire, 225 North Flowers Mill Road, Langhorne, PA 19047. Hannabery shall mail a copy of the check to Cynthia A. Locke, Trial Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107, concurrent with the mailing of the check to the law offices of Attorney Kolman. Hannabery shall also provide any return receipts returned by the United States Postal Service.
(B) In order to receive the monetary relief set forth above, Gary Han win be required to execute a Release through his counsel in a form upon which Mr. Hall and Defendant mutually agree.
12. Hannal:lt!lry agrees to pay to James O'Brien the sum total of$19,000.00. This sum was agreed upon by the parties in order to resolve this matter without the need for further litigation. Hannabery wilt report the payment described herein on a Form 1099 to James O'Brien.
(A) Hannabery shall issue a check, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions to James O'Brien within thirty days (30) days of whichever of the following events occurs later: receipt of a signed Release from Mr. O'Brien or the filing of this Consent Decree. This check shall be sent, via United States first class mail return receipt requested, to Timothy M. Kolman, Esquire, 225 North Flowers Mill Road, Langhorne, PA 19047. Hannabery shall mail a copy of the check to Cynthia A. Locke, Trial Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107, concurrent with the mailing of the check to the law offices of Attorney Kolman. Hannabery shall also provide any return receipts returned by the United States Postal Service.
(B) In order to receive the monetary relief set forth above, James O'Brien will be required to execute a Release through his counsel in a form upon which Mr. O'Brien and
5

Case 2:06-cv-04331-TMG Document 38 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 6 of 11
Defendant mutually agree. 13. Hannabery agrees to pay to Charles Snyder the sum total of$35,000.00. This sum
was agreed upon by the parties in order to resolve this matter without the need for further litigation. Hannabery will report the payment described herein on a FOml 1099 to Charles Snyder.
(A) Hannabery shall issue a check, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions to Charles A. Snyder, Sr. within thirty days (30) days of whichever of the following events occurs later: receipt of a signed Release from Mr. Snyder or the filing of this Consent Decree. This check shall be sent, via United States first class mail retum receipt requested, to Mr. Snyder at 2365 Old Bethlehem Pike, Quakertown, PA 18951. Hannabery shall mail a copy of the check to Cynthia A. Locke, Trial Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107, concurrent with the mailing of the check to Mr. Snyder. Hannabery shall also provide any return receipts returned by the United States Postal Service.
(B) In order to receive the monetary relief set forth above, Charles Snyder will be required to execute a Release through his counsel in a form upon which Mr. Snyder and Defendant mutually agree. In addition, Defendant will pay up to Three Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($350.00) to Mr. Snyder for the services of an attorney in connection with this Release.
14. Hannabery agrees to pay to Lawrence Dierkes the sum total of$35,000.00. This sum was agreed upon by the parties in order to resolve this matter without the need for further litigation. Hannabery will report the payment described herein on a Form 1099 to Mr. Dierkes.
(A) Hannabery shall issue a check, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions, to Lawrence Dierkes within within thirty days (30) days of whichever ofthe following events occurs later: receipt of a signed Release from Mr. Dierkes or the filing of this Consent Decree.
6

Case 2:06-cv-04331-TMG Document 38 Filed 12121/2007 Page 7 of 11
This check shall be sent, via United States first class mail return receipt requested, to Mr. Dierkes at 739 Topton Road, Kutztown, PA 19530. Hannabery shall mail a copy of the check to Cynthia A. Locke, Trial Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107, concurrent with the mailing of the check to Mr. Dierkes. Hannabery shall also provide any return receipts returned by the United States Postal Service.
(B) In order to receive the monetary relief set forth above, Lawrence Dierkes will be required to execute a Release through his counsel in a form upon which Mr. Dierkes and Defendant mutually agree. In addition, Defendant will pay up to Three Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($350.00) to Mr. Dierkes for the services of an attorney in connection with this Release.
EOUITABLE RELIEF 15. Hannabery agrees to the following:
(A) POSTING OF NOTICE Hannabery agrees that it shall post a copy of the Notice attached as Exhibit A in its Allentown, Pennsylvania facility in areas where employee notices are regularly posted. The Notice shall be posted for five (5) years from the date this Decree is entered by the Court. Should the posted copy of the Notice become defaced, marred or otherwise made unreadable, Hannabery agrees to immediately post a readable copy of the Notice.
(B) TRAINING Hannabery agrees that it will conduct training on the rights of employees and applicants under the ADEA and the obligations of employers toward employees and applicants for employment under the ADEA for its supervisory and management employees within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Consent Decree. This training will also include the rights of employees and the responsibilities of employers under the anti-retaliation provision of the ADEA and the
7

Case 2:06-cv-04331-TMG Document 38 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 8 of 11
rights of employees to work in an atmosphere that is free from comments indicative of a bias against older workers.
Hannabery wiIJ provide EEOC, at least two weeks prior to the training session, with an outline of the topics to be covered and will identifY the instructors who wiIJ provide the training and their qualifications, if the training is to be conducted by an educator other than EEOC. Within fourteen (14) days after the completion of the training, Hannabery wiJJ provide written verification to the Commission that the training was conducted, along with a list of attendees and their job titles, and a statement indicating the duration of the training.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE 16. In the event that the EEOC determines that a violation of this Decree has occurred, it wiJJ, before exercising any remedy provided by law, provide notice to Hannabery identifying the alleged violations. Hannabery will have thirty (30) days in which to investigate and respond to the allegations, unless the Commission determines there to be exigent circumstances. If these exigent circumstances exist, the Commission may immediately apply to the Court for relief. The parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to compliance prior to seeking review by the Court. Upon motion of either party, the Court may schedule a hearing for the purpose of reviewing compliance with this Decree. The party seeking Court intervention shall be required to give notice to the opposing party ten (l 0) days before moving for such review. The Court may conduct expedited discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of determining compliance with this Decree or defending against a claim of non-compliance. The Court will have aIJ equitable powers, including injunctive relief, to enforce this Decree.
MISCELLANEOUS 17. If any provision(s) of the Consent Decree is found to be unlawful, only the specific
8

Case 2:06-cv-04331-TMG Document 38 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 9 of 11 provision(s) in question shall be affected and the other provisions will remain in full force and effect.
18. The terms of the Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future directors, officers, successors and assigns ofHannabery.
19. The Decree constitutes the entire agreement and commitments of the parties. Any modifications to this agreement must be mutually agreed upon and memorialized in a writing signed by Hannabery and the Commission.
20. When this Decree requires the submission by Hannabery of any documents to the Commission, if not otherwise indicated in the Decree or Attachments, they shall be mailed to Cynthia A. Locke, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 21 S. 5th Street, The Bourse, Suite 400, Philadelphia, Pa. 19106.
21. Failure by the Commission to seek enforcement of this Decree with regard to one provision shall not be construed as a waiver of its rights to do so with regard to the same or other provisions of this Decree.
22. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 23. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District Court of PennsyIvania. 24. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case to enforce the terms of the Decree.
9

Case 2:06-cv-04331-TMG Document 38 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 10 of 11

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel
Jrunes L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reruns Associate General Counsel
fiiifo~&R: egioniil Attorney
M1A'aI Ct. OI!h;Z
ludith A. O'Boyle Supervisory Trial Attorney

HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC.
124 Drake Lane North Wales, PA 19454 (610) 248-1388

ior Trial Attorney U.S. EEOC, Philadelphia District Office 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 440-2683

I~J.
DA

J

107
I

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:

~.~ HONORABLETHO~~DEN

10

Case 2:06-cv-04331-TMG Document 38 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 11 of 11
EXHIBIT A NOTICE
This Notice is posted as part of a settlement reached in the case captioned as EEOC v. Hannabery Electric Company, C.A. No. 06-4331 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. EEOC filed this action to enforce provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the "ADEN').
The ADEA prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment based upon their age (over 40) and also prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves of their rights under the ADEA by engaging in protected activities, such as filing a charge of discrimination or participating in an investigation of a claim of unlawful harassment or any other form of discrimination. THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC) is the federal agency which investigates charges of discrimination and, if necessary, brings lawsuits in the federal district courts to enforce the ADEA.
In the lawsuit referenced above, the EEOC alleged as follows: (1) that Hannabery Electric subjected five older workers, including Michael Morrone, to disparate terms and conditions of employment including discharge and the loss or raises or bonuses, and (2) that Hannabery Electric retaliated against these workers when they complained of age discrimination or opposed statements, actions or orders which they perceived as age discrimination. Hannabery Electric does not admit liability in this case.
To resolve the matter, Hannabery Electric and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree to avoid any further proceedings. This Consent Decree provided, among other things, that: (1) Hannabery will train its managers and supervisors regarding the legal rights of employees to be free from age discrimination and retaliation, and the responsibilities of employers in these areas. (2) Hannabery paid monetary relief.
If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (215) 440-2600. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.
UST NOT BE DEFACED OR REMOVED AND MUST REMAIN POSTED ARS ROM THE DATE SET FORTH BELOW.
HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC.
Date Posted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _., 2007

 </s> Case: 2:06-cv-4331 As of: 05/27/2017 04:32 PM EDT 1 of 6
CLOSED,A/R,LEAD,STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−04331−TMG

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC. Assigned to: HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/28/2006 Date Terminated: 12/06/2007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Employment Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by CYNTHIA A. LOCKE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215−440−2683 Email: cynthia.locke@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 801 MARKET ST. PENTHOUSE, SUITE 1300 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 215−440−2666 Email: jacqueline.mcnair@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. O'BOYLE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215−440−2687 Email: judith.oboyle@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff GARY HALL
Intervenor Plaintiff MICHAEL MORRONE

represented by TIMOTHY M. KOLMAN KOLMAN ELY PC 414 HULMEVILLE AVE PENNDEL, PA 19047 215−750−3134 Fax: 215−750−3138 Email: tkolman@kolmanlaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:06-cv-4331 As of: 05/27/2017 04:32 PM EDT 2 of 6

TIMOTHY M. KOLMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff JAMES O'BRIEN

represented by TIMOTHY M. KOLMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC. doing business as HANNABERY HVAC

represented by DAVID M. SPITKO LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SPIITKO 124 DRAKE LANE NORTH WALES, PA 19454 610/248−1388 Fax: 215/542−0806 Email: DSpitko@SpitkoLawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/28/2006
09/28/2006 09/28/2006 10/20/2006 10/20/2006
10/26/2006
10/27/2006 11/02/2006 12/20/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC. , filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet # 2 Designation Form# 3 Case Management Track Designation Form)(ti, ) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
Summons Issued as to HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC. One Original Forwarded To: Counsel on 9/28/06 (ti, ) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (ti, ) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by WAYNE A. ELY on behalf of EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION with Certificate of Service (ELY, WAYNE) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
3 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiffs filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.Memorandum of Law. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit A)(ELY, WAYNE) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; ATTORNEY WILL RE−FILE IN PAPER FORMAT) Modified on 10/25/2006 (np). (Entered: 10/20/2006)
4 Summons Returned Executed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION re: Eric M. Afflerbach served Summons and Complaint upon Barbara Gagney, Legal Department, Managing Agent on behlf of HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC.. HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC. served on 10/16/2006, answer due 11/6/2006. (le, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2007 (cw, ). (Entered: 10/26/2006)
5 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFFS FILED BY GARY HALL, MICHAEL MORRONE, JAMES O'BRIEN WITH MEMORANDUM.(le, ) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
6 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand and Certificate of Service by HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC..(SPITKO, DAVID) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response To Motion To Intervene filed by HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC..Supporting Brief and Certificates of Service.(SPITKO, DAVID) (Entered: 12/20/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-4331 As of: 05/27/2017 04:32 PM EDT 3 of 6

12/21/2006
12/21/2006 12/29/2006
01/12/2007
01/15/2007 01/22/2007 01/26/2007 01/30/2007
01/30/2007 02/13/2007 02/13/2007 03/07/2007 03/07/2007
03/08/2007

8 ORDER THAT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IS GRANTED. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO FILE MOVANTS' COMPLAINT ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT AT TO THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE. . SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 12/19/06.12/22/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(er, ) Modified on 12/22/2006 (er, ). (Entered: 12/22/2006)
9 Intervenor COMPLAINT filed by GARY HALL, MICHAEL MORRONE, JAMES O'BRIEN.(er, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/10/2007 (le, ). (Entered: 12/22/2006)
10 NOTICE of Hearing: RULE 16 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SET FOR WEDNESDAY, KANUARY 24, 2007 AT 09:30 AM BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SHALL INITIATE CALL TO ALL PARTIES AND TO CHAMBERS AT 610−320−5097.(tl, ) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
11 ORDER THAT THE COURT'S ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IS HEREBY VACATED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE IS GRANTED AND DEFENDANT SHALL FILE A RESPONSE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 1/12/07. 1/12/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(le, ) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
12 NOTICE by HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC. (Counsel for the Defendant − Change of lawfirms and contact information) (SPITKO, DAVID) (Entered: 01/15/2007)
13 NOTICE STRIKING HEARING: THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 1/24/2007 @ 9:30 A.M. BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN WAS CANCELLED AT REQUEST OF COUNSEL. (silfies, ) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
14 RESPONSE to Motion re 5 MOTION to Intervene with Memoransum of Law filed by HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC.. (SPITKO, DAVID) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
15 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Amend Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(LOCKE, CYNTHIA) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; SEE #16)Modified on 1/30/2007 (le, ). (Entered: 01/30/2007)
16 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Amend Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(LOCKE, CYNTHIA) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
17 Memorandum of Law Opposing Motion re 16 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC. (SPITKO, DAVID) Modified on 2/14/2007 (np). (Entered: 02/13/2007)
18 That SDaubert be removed as counsel and an attorney to receive notice by HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC.. (SPITKO, DAVID) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
19 NOTICE of Hearing: TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 3/16/2007 AT 11:30 AM BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SHALL INITIATE CALL TO ALL PARTIES AND TO READING CHAMBERS.(tl, ) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
20 REVISED NOTICE of Hearing: STATUS CONFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED FOR 3/16/2007 IS RESCHEDULED TO 3/14/2007 AT 09:30 AM BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SHALL INITIATE CALL TO ALL PARTIES AND READING CHAMBERS.(tl, ) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
21 REVISED NOTICE of Hearing: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SET FOR 3/14/2007 AT 9:30 IS CHANGED TO 09:00 AM BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SHALL INITIATE CALL TO ALL

Case: 2:06-cv-4331 As of: 05/27/2017 04:32 PM EDT 4 of 6

03/14/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007
03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 04/09/2007 04/12/2007 04/12/2007 04/12/2007
05/30/2007 08/14/2007

PARTIES AND TO READING CHAMBERS.(tl, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
22 NOTICE of Hearing: RULE 16 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SET FOR 4/10/2007 AT 11:30 AM BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SHALL INITIATE CALL TO ALL PARTIES AND TO READING CHAMBERS.(tl, ) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge THOMAS M. GOLDEN : Telephone Status Conference held on 3/14/07 Court Reporter: None. (er, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2007 (cw, ). (Entered: 03/15/2007)
24 ORDER THAT HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC. SHALL FILE A CONFORMING DISCLOSURE FORM WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL PROMPT IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 3/14/07. 3/15/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(er, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/15/2007 (er, ). (Entered: 03/15/2007)
25 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, ETC. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 3/14/07.3/15/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED. (er, ) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
26 AMENDED COMPLAINT against HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC. filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(er, ) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
27 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC..(SPITKO, DAVID) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
28 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFFS FILED BY GARY HALL, MICHAEL MONROE, AND JAMES O'BRIEN IS DENIED. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 4/5/07. 4/9/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(er, ) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge THOMAS M. GOLDEN : Telephone Conference held on 4/10/07. Court Reporter: None. (er, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2007 (cw, ). (Entered: 04/12/2007)
30 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT TO SCHEDULE AND CONDUCT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 4/11/07. 4/12/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(er, ) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
31 ORDER THAT COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO RESOLVE DISCOVERY DISPUTES BY THEMSELVES, ETC. ALL FACT DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 10/15/07, ETC. JURY SELECTION WILL COMMENCE ON 1/17/08, AT 9:30 A.M. AT THE U.S. COURTHOUSE, PHILADELPHIA, PA. THE TRIAL WILL CONTINUE 1/22/08 UNTIL COMPLETION AT THE READING STATION, THE MADISON BUILDING, ROOM 401, READING, PA. NO LATER THAN 12/14/07, ALL PARTIES SHALL PREPARE AND FILE WITH THE CLERK OF COURT, WITH 2 COPIES TO THE COURT, THEIR PRETRIAL MEMORANDA, ETC. ALL MOTIONS IN LIMINE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND 2 COPIES SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE COURT NO LATER THAN 1/7/08, ETC. A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 1/10/08 AT 9:30 A.M. AT THE READING STATION, ETC. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 4/11/07. 4/12/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(er, ) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
32 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT : An In Person Settlement Conference held on 5/29/07. Court Reporter: None. (er, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2007 (cw, ). (Entered: 05/30/2007)
33 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT : Telephone Settlement Conference held on 8/13/07. Court Reporter: None. (er, ) (Entered: 08/14/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-4331 As of: 05/27/2017 04:32 PM EDT 5 of 6

11/15/2007 11/27/2007
11/27/2007 12/03/2007
12/06/2007 12/21/2007 01/08/2008 02/26/2008 03/04/2008
04/07/2008 04/11/2008

34 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by HANNABERY ELECTRIC, INC..with Proposed Order.(SPITKO, DAVID) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
35 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES INDICATING NO OPPOSITION, DEFT'S. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE, FILED IN CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 06−4331, IS GRANTED; CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 07−3117 SHALL BE CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 06−4331 FOR PURPOSES OF ALL PROCEEDINGS AFTER THIS DATE, AND ALL PROCEEDINGS, MOTIONS, AND OTHER FILINGS PERTAINING TO ANY OF THE CONSOLIDATED MATTER SHALL BE DOCKETED BY THE CLERK OF COURT UNDER CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 06−4331; AND THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO PLACE ALL DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE FILE FOR CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 07−3117 INTO THE CASE FILE FOR CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 06−4331. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 11/21/07.11/28/07 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(er, ) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
All docket papers from 07−3117 were placed in 06−4331. (er, ) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
36 JURY TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER THAT AMENDED PLEADINGS ARE DUE BY 12/21/2007; DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 3/30/2008; DEFENDANT PRETRIAL MEMO IS DUE BY 7/2/2008; PLAINTIFF PRETRIAL MEMO IS DUE BY 7/2/2008; A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 7/30/2008 AT 9:30 A.M. BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN; ALL MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED AND SERVED BY 7/30/2008; JURY SELECTION IS SCHEDULED FOR 8/14/2008 AT 9:30 A.M. IN COURT BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN AND A JURY TRIAL IS SCHEDULED FOR 8/18/2008 AT 9:30 AM IN COURT BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 11/30/07. (REF. 07−3117) 12/3/07 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
37 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 41.1(b). SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 12/06/2007. 12/06/2007 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(silfies, ) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
38 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (LOCKE, CYNTHIA) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
39 CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER THAT THIS DECREE IS ENTERED INTO IN COMPROMISE OF THE CLAIMS ASSERTED IN THIS CIVIL ACTION AND SHALL, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, BE CONSTRUED OR DEEMED TO BE EVIDENCE OR ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 1/4/08. 1/8/08 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED. (Entered: 01/08/2008)
40 ORDER THAT ALL PARTIES SHALL APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON 3/3/08 AT 10:30 A.M. AT THE U.S. COURTHOUSE (COURTROOM TBA), PHILADELPHIA, PA TO ADVISE THE COURT OF THE PARTIES' STATUS WITH RESPECT TO FULFILLING THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 2/25/08. 2/26/08 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(er, ) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
41 ORDER THAT THE PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED 3/3/08 HEARING IS VACATED PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PARTIES SHALL FILE A JOINT REPORT BY 3/17/08 ADVISING THE COURT OF THE PARTIES' COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 2/28/08. 3/4/08 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(er, ) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
42 First MOTION to Enforce Judgment, First MOTION for Sanctions filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.Memorandum.(O'BOYLE, JUDITH) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
43 EXHIBITS A−N, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE CONSENT DECREE by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(rf, ) (Entered: 04/11/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-4331 As of: 05/27/2017 04:32 PM EDT 6 of 6

04/29/2008
04/30/2008 06/10/2008

44 NOTICE of TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE: A TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR WEDNESDAY, 4/30/2008 AT 10:00 AM BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN. THE COURT DIRECTS PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO INITIATE THE CALL TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED AND TO CHAMBERS AT 610−320−5097.(silfies, ) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
45 Minute Entry for proceedings held before THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN re: A Telephone Status Conference was held on 4/30/08 and was not placed on the record. (ky, ) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
46 ORDER THAT THE EEOC'S MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 6/9/08.6/10/08 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(er, ) (Entered: 06/10/2008)


[CONTENT] September 28, 2006 | the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | EEOC | the U.S. District Court | the Eastern District | Pennsylvania ||| EEOC | Hannabery Electric, Inc. | the Age Discrimination | ADEA ||| EEOC | Hannabery | ADEA ||| Thomas M. Golden ||| March 15, 2007 | EEOC |||  ||| October 20, 2006 | three | Hannabery ||| April 9, 2007 | District | Thomas M. Golden ||| July 30, 2007 | three | one | Golden ||| EEOC | Hannabery (Morrone | Hall et al ||| November 15, 2007 | Golden | EEOC ||| December 21, 2007 ||| 156,700 | five |||  ||| EEOC ||| five years ||| January 8, 2008 | Golden ||| April 7, 2008 | EEOC ||| EEOC | three ||| June 10, 2008 | Golden | EEOC |||  [SUMMARY] On September 28, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The EEOC sued Hannabery Electric, Inc., doing business as Hannabery HVAC, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC sought injunctive relief and back pay on behalf of Hannabery employees alleging that the defendant violated the ADEA by subjecting older workers to disparate terms and conditions of employment, including discharge, loss of raises, benefits and bonuses, negative performance evaluations, and excess scrutiny of their job performances. The case was assigned to Judge Thomas M. Golden.

On March 15, 2007, the EEOC filed an amended complaint. The complaint additionally sought nonpecuniary and punitive damages. 

On October 20, 2006, three Hannabery employees filed a motion to intervene. On April 9, 2007, District Judge Thomas M. Golden denied their motion. In response, on July 30, 2007, those three employees and one other brought their own suit before Judge Golden against their employer. The plaintiffs made the same allegations as the EEOC did in its complaint against Hannabery (Morrone v. Hall et al, EE-PA-0216). On November 15, 2007, Judge Golden consolidated the employees’ suit with the EEOC’s.

On December 21, 2007, the parties submitted a consent decree. The defendant did not admit liability, but agreed to pay a total of $156,700 to the five complainants. The defendant was enjoined from engaging in discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices. The defendant agreed to post notice of its anti-discrimination policy, provide ADEA training to all supervisory and management employees, and report to the EEOC verifying that training was conducted, a list of training attendees, and the duration of training. The consent decree had an initial period of five years. On January 8, 2008, Judge Golden entered the agreement.

On April 7, 2008, the EEOC filed a motion to enforce the consent decree and impose sanctions. The EEOC alleged that the defendant willingly failed to comply with the agreement to pay three of the complainants. However, on June 10, 2008, Judge Golden denied the motion as moot after the EEOC advised that the defendant was in compliance with the terms of the settlement. The case is now closed.