Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 1 of 43

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

RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON and RICHARD CSUKAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,
Defendant.

) ) Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01283 ) ) ) ) Judge Nora Barry Fischer ) ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) ) ELECTRONICALLY FILED

FIRST AMENDED COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT AND NOW come Representative Plaintiffs, Rudolph A. Karlo, Mark K. McLure, William S. Cunningham, Jeffrey Marietti, David Meixelsberger, Benjamin D. Thompson and Richard Csukas (collectively, the “Representative Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, by and through their counsel, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, and file this First Amended Collective Action Complaint against Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC (“PGW” or “Defendant”), pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq (“ADEA”), in conformity with this Court’s February 8, 2011 Order [Doc. 48]. The Representative Plaintiffs’ amendments relate to Count III of the original Complaint [Doc. 1], and facts supporting the claim for retaliation filed on behalf of Plaintiffs Karlo and McLure (¶¶145-178, 200-213). In all other respects, the original Complaint has not been altered.

4501195

1

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 2 of 43
THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Rudolph A. Karlo is an indivi dual who is currently 52 years old and resides in Creighton, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff Mark K. McLure is an individual who is currently 56 years old and resides in Lower Burrell, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff William S. Cunningham is an individual who is currently 54 years old and resides in Springdale, Pennsylvania. 4. Plaintiff Jeffrey Marietti is an individual who is currently 56 years old and resides in Tarentum, Pennsylvania. 5. Plaintiff David Meixelsberger is an individual who is currently 53 years old and resides in Lower Burrell, Pennsylvania. 6. Plaintiff Benjamin D. Thompson is an individual who is currently 57 years old and resides in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. 7. Plaintiff Richard Csukas is an individual who is currently 59 years old and resides in Evansville, Indiana. 8. Defendant PGW is a Pennsylvania limited liability corporation with its principal place of business located at 30 Isabella Street, Suite 500, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212. Before its creation in late 2008, the underlying business operations and assets of PGW were formally part of the automotive glass and services business of PPG Industries, Inc.(“PPG”), which is also headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PPG retains a 40% ownership interest in PGW, with the other 60% being owned by a private equity firm, Kohlberg & Company, L.L.C. (“Kohlberg”).

4501195

2

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 3 of 43

9. At all relevant times, PGW has continuously been an “employer” within the
meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 623 of the ADEA.
10. The Representative Plaintiffs are all former employees of PGW and were
previously long-time PPG employees.
11. Once the discovery process in this matter is underway, the roles of other unknown
conspirators and participants in the wrongdoing identified herein will likely be revealed, and
plaintiffs reserve their right to seek leave of court to further amend this Complaint to add new
parties and/or new claims.
NATURE OF THIS ACTION AND CORE ALLEGATIONS
12. This is an action brought by the Representative Plaintiffs, with nearly 130 years of
combined experience and dedicated service to PPG and/or PGW, seeking redress on a collective
basis for systemic practices engaged in by PGW resulting in discrimination against its older work
force in conducting Reductions-in-Force (“RIFs”) and forced retirements over an extended
period of time, which practices are continuing in nature. Plaintiffs bring this collective action on
behalf of themselves and all other present and former similarly situated salaried employees (the
“ADEA Class Members”) against PGW for discrimination in employment, by:
a. Adopting and em ploying methods for ev aluating, ranking and selecting employees for termination in its RIFs, which methods were highly subjective, unreliable, invalid, and served as mere pr etext, resulting in the term ination of disproportionately high num bers of olde r workers who were never inform ed of the clandestine criteria used to select them for termination;
b. Failing to exercise appropriate superv ision or control over m anagers who select older workers for termination;
c. Maintaining a corporate culture which fosters and encourages pervasive ageist stereotypes, implicit age bias, and age-related animus, and which pe rmits managers to practice age discrim ination in evaluating older employees and in selecting employees for termination;

4501195

3

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 4 of 43
d. Failing to establish policies to ensu re compliance with the requirements of ADEA, and to guard against age discrim ination, and implicit age bias, including, without limitation, policies requiring proper training of supervisory employees;
e. Willfully failing to examine or evaluate, in advance of the completion of RIFs (or at any time thereafter), whether the RIFs routinely result in the elimination of a disproportionately high num ber of older workers, or to otherwise employ safeguards or exercise oversight of the RIF process to prevent or mitigate such discriminatory outcomes, in violati on of ADEA, as well as PGW ’s own internal RIF policies;
f. Failing and refusing to reinstate, retrain and/or relocate older em ployees into positions that matched their job qu alifications which beca me available af ter their termination, and f ailing to notify them of such positions when they became available;
g. Retaliating against employees who oppose PGW’s unlawful policies, practices or procedures, in contravention of the ADEA; and
h. Extracting from e mployees invalid a nd improper waivers of claim s for liability which are pa rt of its sche me to intimidate and discrim inate against older workers and attempt to prevent th em from asserting valid claim s under ADEA arising from their terminations.
13. The above-described policies, patterns, practices, and omissions which adversely
impact older employees constitute willful violations of ADEA. PGW arbitrarily and routinely
employs such policies and practices systematically and continuously to discriminate against
older workers and select them for termination, in order to replace them with younger workers,
without any credible excuse or justification.
JURISDICTION
14. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal question subject matter of this civil
rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), as made applicable by 29
U.S.C. § 626(b).

4501195

4

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 5 of 43
15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over PGW because PGW systematically and continuously engages in substantial interstate commercial conduct and business activity within Pennsylvania and maintains its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, and because the case arises in part out of PGW’s unlawful conduct within this District.
16. Plaintiffs have complied with all conditions precedent to filing a suit under ADEA.
17. The Representative Plaintiffs each filed charges of employment discrimination based on age against PGW with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”): Messrs. Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Thompson and Csukas filed their respective charges on January 22, 2010. Mr. Meixelsberger filed his charge on January 25, 2010. Copies of Plaintiffs’ EEOC charges are attached as Exhibit A.
18. More than 60 days have elapsed since the Representative Plaintiffs filed charges with the EEOC.
19. Each of the Representative Plaintiffs has received a Dismissal and Notice of Rights from the EEOC. Copies of these EEOC Notices are attached hereto as Exhibit B and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
20. The Complaint was filed within 90 days of receipt of the first Dismissal and Notice of Rights issued by the EEOC to a Representative Plaintiff.
VENUE 21. Venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the unlawful employment acts and practices complained of by the Plaintiffs were committed or occurred, and continue to occur, within this District. Moreover, PGW maintains its

4501195

5

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 6 of 43

principal place of business in this District, and all but one of the Representative Plaintiffs, as well as a large concentration of the Class Members, reside and/or worked for PGW in this District.
22. In addition, the unlawful employment policies and practices which are the subject of this action, were and are centrally implemented and/or controlled from PGW’s principal place of business in this District, and remain in effect in this District and nation-wide in continuous, systematic violation of the ADEA.
23. Because a large number of the illegal terminations by PGW took place in Pittsburgh and because PGW is headquartered in Pittsburgh, this District is an appropriate forum for this collective action.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Mr. Karlo’s Tenure at PGW
24. Mr. Karlo began working for PPG Industries, Inc., whose automotive glass division was the predecessor to Defendant PGW, on October 9, 1978 as a Construction and Maintenance Research Specialist II.
25. In 1983, Mr. Karlo was promoted to Construction and Maintenance Research Specialist I and continued to work in that position until 1990.
26. Mr. Karlo continued to receive several promotions over the subsequent years: to Senior Technical Assistant in 1990; to Engineering Specialist in 1995; and finally, to Senior Engineering Specialist in 2001, a position which he continued to fill following the transition of the automotive glass division to PGW.
27. During Mr. Karlo’s career with PPG, he worked with different teams of PPG personnel to develop eight shared patents related to glass processes that have inured to the benefit of PPG and its 40%-owned subsidiary, Defendant PGW.

4501195

6

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 7 of 43

28. Throughout his more than 30-year career with PPG and/or PGW, Mr. Karlo received consistently positive performance reviews, commendations and awards, commensurate increases to his salary, bonuses (known at PPG as “Personal Performance Grants”) and, as described above, multiple promotions.
29. In the last decade or so of Mr. Karlo’s employment with PPG, the employee evaluation process was referred to as the Performance & Learning Plan (“P&LP”). Prior to the implementation of the P&LP process, which relies on highly subjective criteria which are not easy to quantify, PPG had employed a numeric system involving more objective criteria, known as “Accountability.”
30. A review of Mr. Karlo’s P&LP and Accountability documents dating back to 1992 confirm that he was an excellent performer. His past Accountability evaluations consistently reflected that Mr. Karlo “Meets” or “Meets +” expectations or “Exceeds Requirements.” His P&LP forms were equally impressive.
31. In fact, Mr. Karlo never received a low performance rating or bad review during his entire tenure at PPG and/or PGW—from October 9, 1978 to March 31, 2009—before he was abruptly terminated at the age of 51.
Mr. McLure’s Tenure at PGW 32. In 1974, Mr. McLure started his career with PPG as a contract employee at the
Glass Research & Technology Laboratory (“GRTL”) facility, a division of PPG. On September 1, 1975, Mr. McLure became a full-time, direct PPG employee at the GRTL facility.
33. While at the GRTL facility, Mr. McLure was involved in projects related to fiberglass production. Thus, when PPG closed the GRTL facility in 1980, it transferred Mr. McLure to its Fiberglass Research facility in RIDC Park in O’Hara Township, Pennsylvania.

4501195

7

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 8 of 43
34. In 1990, Mr. McLure was promoted to the position of Senior Technician for the Fiberglass Reinforcement Group. Although this group was based out of the RIDC Park location, Mr. McLure’s position entailed significant travel time to service different PPG facilities, particularly a PPG facility located in Shelby, North Carolina.
35. On June 1, 1999, PPG closed the RIDC Park facility. At that time, Mr. McLure was slated to be transferred permanently to Shelby, North Carolina. However, rather than relocate, Mr. McLure pursued another opportunity within PPG.
36. Mr. McLure was hired by the Automotive Glass/OEM Products Group at PPG’s Harmarville, Pennsylvania facility. As an employee of the automotive glass division of PPG— and later as a separate entity, Defendant PGW—Mr. McLure was responsible for conducting validation testing, traveling to satellite facilities for problem-solving and troubleshooting, and providing customer support and technical service directly to customers at their facilities.
37. Throughout his tenure with PPG and/or PGW Mr. McLure was a dedicated and hard-working employee. He consistently received positive performance evaluations, which denoted that he either met or exceeded job requirements.
38. Mr. McLure also received regular salary increases, bonuses and multiple awards and commendations for his service to his employer, and is a named contributor on a patent developed for PPG.
39. Despite his contributions to PPG and/or PGW over a career spanning more than 34 years, Mr. McLure was terminated by PGW without notice or warning on March 31, 2010 at the age of 55.

4501195

8

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 9 of 43
Mr. Cunningham’s Tenure at PGW 40. Mr. Cunningham began his career with PPG as a contract employee at PPG’s
Glass Research & Development Center in Harmarville, Pennsylvania. 41. In April 1996, Mr. Cunningham applied for a position with PPG’s automotive
glass division and was hired on as a direct, full-time PPG employee. 42. Mr. Cunningham’s work at PPG was largely devoted to the Laminated Glass
Project which he saw through from its initial product validation study through every aspect of testing until the final product, known as Sungate Coated Laminate, was ready for production at PPG’s manufacturing facilities in Crestline, Ohio and Tipton, Pennsylvania. Mr. Cunningham continued to be responsible for monitoring and supporting the launch efforts at these two facilities.
43. Based on Mr. Cunningham’s considerable contributions to the Sungate Coated Laminate process, he was promoted on September 1, 2004 to the position of Senior Technical Assistant in the OEM New Product & Process Development Group. The announcement of his promotion was accompanied by numerous accolades acknowledging that Mr. Cunningham had “made significant contributions to the recent success of two key automotive product/process developments” and had made “important technical contributions, technology transfer, productivity improvements and training of manufacturing personnel that led to the success.”
44. Mr. Cunningham continued as the Senior Technical Assistant, performing the same job functions after PPG and Kohlberg partnered in the joint venture that came to be known as PGW.

4501195

9

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 10 of 43

45. During his tenure at PPG and/or PGW, Mr. Cunningham never received a bad review as part of any employee evaluation process. He consistently rated high for performance and routinely received merit bonuses for outstanding performance and annual pay increases, including one year in which he received a 9% salary increase.
46. Despite this demonstrated record of success, Mr. Cunningham was terminated by PGW on March 31, 2010 at the age of 53.
Mr. Marietti’s Tenure at PGW 47. Mr. Marietti began his career at PPG as a contract employee in the construction
and maintenance shop at PPG’s Harmarville automotive glass facility in 1984. 48. In 1990, Mr. Marietti transferred to the Mold Shop at the Harmarville facility,
where he was then responsible for building tooling and doing division maintenance. 49. In 1994, Mr. Marietti became a direct PPG employee. He continued to work in
the Mold Shop, but was given a PPG title of Construction & Maintenance (“C&M”) Research Specialist II.
50. Mr. Marietti was promoted to C&M Research Specialist I in 1996 and was again promoted in 2002 to the position of Senior C&M Specialist in the OEM Technology Transfer Group.
51. In 2003, although his job title did not change, Mr. Marietti was given greater responsibility and was, essentially, performing the job functions of a Technical Assistant, a role in which he continued after the transition to PGW.
52. Over the course of his career as a PPG employee, Mr. Marietti received high ratings on his P&LPs, and never during his tenure with PPG and/or PGW did he receive a poor performance review.

4501195

10

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 11 of 43
53. Mr. Marietti was abruptly terminated, without explanation, by PGW on March 31, 2009 at the age of 55.
Mr. Meixelsberger’s Tenure at PGW 54. Mr. Meixelsberger began his career with PPG in 1987. 55. Over the course of the next 22 years, Mr. Meixelsberger came to be regarded as
one of the industry’s leading experts in the windshield bending process. 56. Although it was customary for employees in Mr. Meixelsberger’s job
classification to work in tandem with a research engineer, Mr. Meixelsberger was routinely trusted to address production issues alone while working in PPG’s various production plants.
57. Throughout his tenure at both PPG and PGW, Mr. Meixelsberger received excellent performance evaluations and commendations for a job well done. In fact, at one point, Mr. Meixelsberger was hand-selected by Gary Cannon—who at the time had just been named the Director of Manufacturing Technology—to serve in a specialized manufacturing group made up of five employees plucked out of the automotive division at PPG’s Harmarville facility.
58. In fact, Mr. Meixelsberger was consistently in high demand at PPG’s facilities around the country because of his well-known expertise and demonstrated record of success. Even though this demand meant significant travel, long work days and time away from his family, Mr. Meixelsberger never faltered in his commitment to PPG and/or PGW.
59. However, despite Mr. Meixelsberger’s track-record of valuable contributions, first to PPG and then to PGW, on March 31, 2009, he was terminated by PGW, without explanation, at the age of 52.

4501195

11

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 12 of 43
Mr. Thompson’s Tenure at PGW 60. Mr. Thompson began his career with PPG as a part-time employee, while
attending college, in June 1971 at PPG’s Works 25 facility in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. 61. Although Mr. Thompson’s part-time position was eliminated in January 1972, a
few short months later, in April 1972, Mr. Thompson was hired by PPG as a permanent production employee at the Greensburg facility.
62. Mr. Thompson continued his employment at the Greensburg facility until it was closed in January 1994. During his tenure at that location, he held various positions in the production and warehouse departments and was involved in a variety of projects, committees and work teams. He also served as a production supervisor for seven years.
63. While at the Greensburg facility, Mr. Thompson was regularly awarded the maximum yearly salary increases, along with additional merit-based performance increases.
64. In September 1996, Mr. Thompson was retained as a bender operator at PPG’s Works 1 facility in Creighton, Pennsylvania. The bender operator holds one of the highest paid positions in production at PPG.
65. Not long after starting at Creighton, Mr. Thompson was offered the position of hourly Production Supervisor in March 1997.
66. In 2000, Mr. Thompson was made a salaried Production Supervisor. 67. In 2003, Mr. Thompson was again promoted, this time to the position of Shift Supervisor, and in 2004, he was asked by the Plant Manager to take on additional responsibilities assisting the plant’s Lean Practitioner.

4501195

12

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 13 of 43
68. Between 2006 and 2008, during the time PPG was seeking a buyer for its automotive glass division, before it entered into the joint venture with Kohlberg to form PGW, Mr. Thompson served as a Warehouse Supervisor, a Final Supervisor and the Ergonomics Team Leader.
69. Throughout his time at the Creighton facility, Mr. Thompson received various awards and commendations, served on the Safety team and was involved in employee training and environmental health.
70. Unlike his fellow Plaintiffs, Mr. Thompson’s job title and job duties changed in the wake of the formation of and transition to PGW. In November 2008, Mr. Thompson was told that he was being reassigned to a supposedly newly created position—Storeroom Supervisor and Maintenance Planner. Although Mr. Thompson was told that this new role was an acknowledgment of his superior skills and experience, which would purportedly be vital to PGW’s transition to a new inventory and purchasing system, Mr. Thompson was skeptical.
71. Mr. Thompson’s skepticism, in part, arose from the fact that this so-called “new” position was, in fact, was comprised of job duties nearly identical to a previously existing position formerly filled by another employee Phyllis Ligda. Ms. Ligda, at the age of approximately 56, previously had been terminated, supposedly because her job had been eliminated during a “re-organization” in the glass division.
72. Given that Mr. Thompson was, himself, just 56 years-old and the oldest tenured production supervisor, he had concerns that essentially he was being phased out.

4501195

13

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 14 of 43
73. This concern only increased when PGW retained new, younger employees—or made younger temporary employees full-time salaried employees—to fill the production supervisory role that Thompson had been forced to vacate when he was relegated to the storeroom position.
74. In the weeks that followed, Mr. Thompson was repeatedly called upon to fill in as a production supervisor when other employees were absent or increased production warranted additional assistance. Mr. Thompson willingly and gladly fulfilled these duties, which he had ably accomplished during his many successful years as a production supervisor.
75. Then, on March 31, 2009, like Phyllis Ligda before him, Mr. Thompson was told that his position with PGW had been eliminated and he was terminated from employment at the age of 56.
Mr. Csukas’ Tenure at PGW 76. Mr. Csukas started working at PPG as a member of the controller Trainee
Program (in Computer Systems & Finance) in June of 1973. The position was located at PPG’s Creighton, Pennsylvania facility.
77. In March, 1974, Mr. Csukas was promoted to the position of General Accountant for PPG’s flat glass facility in Wichita Falls, Texas.
78. Three years later, in 1977, Mr. Csukas returned to Pennsylvania to take the position of Project Accountant at PPG’s Greensburg facility for automotive replacement windshield fabrication.
79. In July 1978, Mr. Csukas was promoted to Supervisor of Cost Accounting for PPG’s flat glass facility in Meadville, Pennsylvania, where he was responsible for all of the

4501195

14

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 15 of 43
activities related to the cost accounting function at the plant, as well as for managing three controller trainees.
80. In 1981, Mr. Csukas was given another promotion, to the position of Financial Analyst in the Glass Controllers Department, located at PPG’s general office headquarters in downtown Pittsburgh.
81. A few years later, in March, 1984, Mr. Csukas was elevated to the role of Director of Information & Financial Services and was moved to PPG’s automotive fabrication plant in Evansville, Indiana. As the Director, Mr. Csukas managed the entire Accounting & Information Systems departments and supervised eight direct reports.
82. Mr. Csukas continued in the Director position at the Evansville facility until 1994. However, in 1985, not long after assuming that role, PPG asked Mr. Csukas to take on certain additional responsibilities by assuming the leadership position for the Quality Leadership Team. In that capacity, Mr. Csukas attended the Phillip Crosby Quality College and was certified as a Quality Education System trainer/facilitator. Thereafter, Mr. Csukas became responsible for managing the QES training efforts (which involved 10 hour sessions) for 450 employees at the plant.
83. Realizing that he had a real talent for and strong interest in quality control and efficiency management at PPG, in November, 1994, Mr. Csukas applied for and was awarded the position of Manager of Breakthrough Process in the Automotive OEM Quality Department. In this job, Mr. Csukas was certified as a Breakthrough Process trainer/facilitator by a consulting company Rath & Strong. Thereafter, he conducted over 60 Breakthrough teams throughout the Automotive OEM business unit, collectively achieving productivity improvements valued in

4501195

15

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 16 of 43
excess of $15 Million in savings to PPG. Mr. Csukas’ efforts also opened up new business opportunities for the company.
84. In November, 1997, Mr. Csukas became the Manager of Value Focus for Enterprise Excellence & Quality. He was certified as a Rapid Improvement Workshop trainer/facilitator by a consulting company, Delta Point Corporation, and conducted over 70 workshops throughout the automotive business unit, and achieved savings for PPG upward of $8 Million from productivity improvements.
85. While in this latest managerial role, Mr. Csukas was designated as PPG’s representative at the Bluegrass Automotive Manufacturing Association (“BAMA”), which is sponsored by Toyota. Ultimately, Mr. Csukas became the Chair of the BAMA Heartland Region 6 group in 2006.
86. As the Manager of Value Focus for Enterprise Excellence & Quality, Mr. Csukas reported to a director position initially held by John Banks. When Banks retired in or about 2004, Mr. Csukas was an obvious candidate for Mr. Bank’s replacement. However, PPG passed over Mr. Csukas and appointed Dave King, a man nearly 10 years his junior with far less experience or expertise in quality control or productivity/efficiency analysis and management.
87. Despite being unfairly denied this opportunity for advancement, Mr. Csukas continued as a dedicated and well regarded PPG employee until 2008 when, by virtue of PPG’s partial sale of its interests in the automotive glass division to Kohlberg, he became an employee of PGW—with the same job title and job functions.
88. Although he had a well-established track record of top performance and measurable success in making the business operate more efficiently and had historically saved

4501195

16

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 17 of 43
the company tens of millions of dollars, Mr. Csukas was terminated by PGW on March 30, 2009 at the age of 58.
The Joint Venture Between PPG and Kohlberg to Form PGW 89. Upon information and belief, at some point in 2006, PPG formed an intention to
divest itself, in full or in part, of its automotive glass division. 90. At that time, PPG instituted a “transfer freeze” in automotive glass, which meant
that all the employees in that division were supposedly barred from applying for open positions in other business units at PPG. Employees in the automotive glass division were told that they were essentially human capital, an “asset of the automotive glass division and, as such, would be sold with them,” because whatever company acquired the division would need good personnel in place after the sale. PPG further emphasized to its employees in automotive glass that it was marketing the division as a “world class company” with an experienced research organization possessing fine-tuned skills and expertise.
91. During this time, PPG also dispensed with the P&LP employee evaluative process, which was declared by PPG Management to be “non-essential.” Employees were instructed to stay focused on working hard and making improvements in the business in order to make it marketable to prospective buyers.
92. In 2007, PPG originally brokered a deal for the sale of the automotive glass division to a California-based firm, Platinum Equity. However, in the last days of December 2007, the sale was abruptly cancelled by the prospective purchaser.
93. Thereafter, PPG leadership discontinued open discussions with its employees about the possible sale of the business unit, in part, because the failed deal with Platinum Equity

4501195

17

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 18 of 43
had spawned litigation between the two organizations in which Platinum Equity alleged that PPG had made fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with the failed sale.
94. PPG, however, clearly remained determined to negotiate some deal whereby it would divest itself of its automotive glass division.
95. Some time in 2008, PPG began negotiations with Kohlberg, which culminated in a joint venture agreement between the two entities, pursuant to which PPG retained a 40% ownership interest in automotive glass and Kohlberg acquired the remaining 60% ownership interest. In November 2008, PPG and Kohlberg established a jointly owned successor entity— PGW.
96. Following the formation of PGW, the general operations of the business remained the same. The former PPG employees essentially worked for the same supervisors, managers and other leadership personnel.
97. However, there were certain notable changes. Even as rumors that PGW intended to conduct a RIF or multiple RIFs arose, PGW began populating the production facilities with younger, less experienced workers, who were provided with minimal training. The more seasoned employees found themselves being marginalized.
98. In or about early December 2008, PGW held a mandatory meeting for all employees at which they described its intent to engage in a so-called “forced ranking” process.
99. At that time, PGW management (which was comprised of the same individuals as the management team in place when the automotive glass division was still exclusively part of PPG) indicated that the forced rating and ranking process was being implemented in order to make decisions about employee raises and promotions.

4501195

18

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 19 of 43

100. It was unclear to most employees how the rating and ranking could be effectuated, given that employee evaluations had not been performed by PPG since 2006 and were not resumed by PGW after its formation. PGW did little to offer much of an explanation of the mechanics of the ranking process beyond advising employees that their respective supervisors would gather together in a single meeting and attempt to simply rate and rank all the employees against each other.
101. However it was to be accomplished, the announcement that something was being done to effectuate salary increases was welcome news to many employees, given that these automotive glass employees had been subject to a salary freeze both before and after the acquisition. However, some employees, including a number of the Plaintiffs, silently questioned whether this was the real purpose of the forced ranking process.
102. In late December 2008, Plaintiffs’ suspicions that the forced ranking might actually be used for a more nefarious purpose were sadly confirmed when PGW unexpectedly conducted a RIF among employees at several facilities.
103. Then, over a two-day period in March 2009, PGW conducted another RIF, affecting more than 100 employees working in a number of different facilities, including each of the Representative Plaintiffs.
Mr. Csukas’ Termination by PGW 104. Of the Representative Plaintiffs, Mr. Csukas was the first to be terminated. 105. On March 30, 2009, Mr. Csukas was summoned to an office at the Evansville,
Indiana facility where he was met by PGW supervisor (and former PPG supervisor), Dave King. Immediately upon Mr. Csukas’ entry into the office, King unceremoniously tried to hand Mr. Csukas an envelope with his name on it.

4501195

19

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 20 of 43
106. Mr. Csukas was initially reluctant to take the envelope, when no explanation as to its contents had been offered by King, although Mr. Csukas suspected in that moment that he was being terminated.
107. After he had succeeded in getting Mr. Csukas to physically take possession of the documents, King told him that his job had been “eliminated.”
108. When Mr. Csukas challenged that explanation, stating that he thought it “impossible” that his job would be eliminated given that his function had become even more critical in the face of the downturn in the economy, King responded only that Mr. Csukas’ job had been eliminated and that his termination was “not based on performance.”
109. Among the papers that were provided to Mr. Csukas in this termination session with King was a severance agreement, which Mr. Csukas was expected to sign in order to get his full severance. The agreement also came with a document entitled “Information Regarding Employment Termination Program,” which stated that it was attaching a list of the job titles and ages of all those who were terminated in the RIF, and a similar list for all those who were retained. What Mr. Csukas did not immediately realize was that the lists of employees provided to him were missing every other page.
110. After more than 35 years with the organization, that comprised the sum total of the information provided to Mr. Csukas when he was terminated by PGW.
Mr. Thompson’s Termination by PGW 111. On March 31, 2009, Mr. Thompson was called into a meeting with the Creighton
Plant Manager, Craig Barnett, and the Human Resources Manager, Myrtle Smith (both of whom had occupied those positions at PPG before the formation of PGW). At this meeting, Mr.

4501195

20

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 21 of 43
Thompson was told that he was being terminated because the “new” position into which he had been involuntarily transferred had been eliminated.
112. When Mr. Thompson inquired whether he was being let go because of something he did—or something he failed to do—the PGW representatives assured him that the decision had nothing to do with job performance and simply repeated that his position had been eliminated.
113. Mr. Thompson specifically asked why it was he had been selected to be terminated from a position that PGW had forced him to take, while the person then occupying the position from which he had been displaced just months before was retained. Mr. Thompson received no answer to this question.
114. Instead, Barnette and Smith presented Mr. Thompson with a document entitled Separation Agreement and Release which stated that he would receive a lump sum severance payment of $76,962.09 if he signed the Agreement and release any and all claims against PGW. Sixteen days later, Smith called Mr. Thompson and informed him that PGW had made a calculation error and that his lump sum payment would be reduced by $22,000, but that it would still require him to sign the agreement and waive his claims.
115. Notably, Mr. Thompson was not provided with any of the “Information Regarding Employment Termination Program,” including the accompanying lists, which was given to Mr. Csukas, despite the fact that PGW was engaging in a full-scale RIF across its organization and had, in fact, terminated three other employees at the Creighton facility (including two in their fifties) on the same day that Mr. Thompson was terminated.

4501195

21

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 22 of 43
PGW’s Termination of Messrs. Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Marietti and Meixelsberger 116. On the same day that Mr. Thompson was terminated, and the day after Mr.
Csukas was terminated, the other Representative Plaintiffs were also terminated by PGW. 117. Because many of its employees travel to other facilities and/or customer plants as
part of their job duties, PGW took steps to insure that all those to be affected by the RIF would be on-site for their termination sessions. On March 26, 2009, Jim Schwartz sent out an email on behalf of Gary Cannon (the Director of Manufacturing) to all of the auto-glass associates commanding them to be present at the facility on Tuesday, March 31 and Wednesday, April 1, 2009 for mandatory “organizational meetings.”
118. This email, although certainly not revealing the true nature of the purported “organizational meetings,” triggered rumors of an impending RIF—rumors which, by the morning of March 31, proved to be true at the Harmarville facility.
119. However, because PPG—and thereafter PGW—historically conducted its termination sessions in the morning, by the afternoon, Messrs. Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Marietti and Meixelsberger began to believe that they had been spared in the latest round of RIFs at PGW.
120. At approximately 3:00 on the afternoon of March 31, 2009, these five Representative Plaintiffs were summoned to a meeting with Gary Cannon and each of their respective upper-level Supervisors (Phil Sturman, Julie Bernas and Jim Schwartz). None of their immediate supervisors were present, nor was anyone there from Human Resources.
121. Cannon immediately explained that there had been a delay due to last minute ministerial problems and that the “lawyers were working on the paperwork,” but that the five of them were in fact losing their jobs.

4501195

22

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 23 of 43
122. Thereafter, Cannon simply read from a script and informed the Representative Plaintiffs present in the meeting that they were being eliminated. At no time did Cannon offer any explanation for how or why they were selected for termination.
123. Instead, each of these Plaintiffs was handed a package of documents—only after Cannon excused himself several times from the session to try to collect all the proper paperwork from the printer—including, among other things, a Separation Agreement and Release, as well as a document entitled “Information Regarding Employment Termination Program” which stated that it was attaching a list of the job titles and ages of all those who were terminated in the RIF, and a similar list for all those who were retained.
124. Each of the Representative Plaintiffs found it, not only degrading, but also stressful and confusing to have to sit in a room with their other terminated coworkers while they waited for PGW representatives to try to gather all the termination papers with which they were supposed to be provided. Moreover, there was no human resources representative present to answer questions about the documents and what they were intended to convey.
125. With nearly 130 years of combined experience and dedicated service to PPG and/or PGW, Messrs. Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Marietti and Meixelsberger were summarily dismissed, without any explanation, among a flurry of shuffling papers that might have been almost humorous were it not for the tragic circumstances of their lost careers.
PGW’s RIF Was Conducted in a Manner Giving Rise to an Inference of Age Discrimination 126. PGW uniformly concealed from the Representative Plaintiffs—and presumably
all other employees terminated in the RIFs it has conducted—the basis by which they were selected for termination.

4501195

23

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 24 of 43
127. At no time has PGW articulated for its current or former employees (including the Representative Plaintiffs) the selection criteria utilized in conducting the RIF. Even as it attempted to extract waivers of ADEA claims, PGW failed to apprise its terminated employees of the factors relied upon in selecting them for termination, in direct contravention of the OWBPA and its supporting regulations. (In fact, given that PGW has not been forthcoming about these factors or criteria, the Representative Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to amend their claims to address any further unlawfulness that might be revealed when the selection process is revealed more fully through the discovery process.)
128. To date, the Representative Plaintiffs are at a loss to understand how and why they were selected, particularly given that fact that there had been almost no formal review process at PPG for nearly two years prior to the formation of PGW, and no such process at all after PGW became their employer.
129. This absence of data regarding employee performance, which, if the selection process is to be considered legitimate at all, must have been present, would alone raise the inference that improper considerations, such as age, may have been at work.
130. Moreover, despite the general discontinuation of employee evaluations as a “nonessential” function or process, there were at least a handful of preferred PPG/PGW employees who were specifically instructed to complete the P&LP process by their supervisor, Jim Willey. Willey revealed this information to another PGW employee, John Bender, but immediately attempted to retreat from his comment, indicating that he had “said too much.”
131. Similarly, the “transfer freeze” that was purportedly imposed on all employees of the automotive glass division during the time leading up to the sale was not uniformly applied. A number of younger employees were spared the RIF because they were permitted to pursue

4501195

24

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 25 of 43
other opportunities at PPG, while the chance to transfer was specifically denied to the older, Representative Plaintiffs—and perhaps others who were also ultimately terminated in the RIFs conducted by PGW.
132. Specifically, the Representative Plaintiffs are aware, at a minimum that Debby Almasy, Dennis O’Shaughnessy, Gary Donowski, Dave Claasen, Bob Evans, Harry Nasaab, and Steve Harman were spared because they were not subject to the transfer freeze.
133. By contrast, a number of the Representative Plaintiffs were repeatedly told that they would not be permitted to seek alternative employment elsewhere in PPG. In fact, when Mr. Csukas expressly pointed out this inconsistency to his superior, Dave King, King responded that “there is a fence around the automotive business with a few holes in it.” To which Mr. Csukas replied that he could only presume that he was “too old to get through one of those holes.”
134. In addition to concealing the method by which employees were selected for termination or retention, PGW also provided the unsupported and fabricated explanation to many of the Representative Plaintiffs that their jobs had been “eliminated.” In most instances, this proffered explanation—the only one given by PGW—is demonstrably false.
135. For example, with respect to the position last held by Mr. Csukas—Manager of Value Focus for Enterprise Excellence & Quality—PGW claimed that the job had been eliminated. In reality, PGW moved a younger employee, Mark Soderberg into the position, which it had renamed “Manager of Enterprise Excellence” in an attempt to conceal the falsity of its statements to Mr. Csukas at his termination session. However, the job duties for the two positions are identical.

4501195

25

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 26 of 43
136. A similar bait-and-switch occurred with respect to the work that had previously been performed by Mr. Thompson. After his termination, Mr. Thompson learned that the day he was let go Ed Watson, the man who had replaced him as Final Supervisor (before Mr. Thompson was moved into the storeroom position that had purportedly been “eliminated” when it was held by Ms. Ligda) had also been terminated. Instead of moving Mr. Thompson back to his prior position, PGW replaced Mr. Watson with another employee, Chuck Weleski, who had been transferred from his position as CVS Supervisor. Weleski’s prior position of CVS Supervisor was filled by Bob Pinchock, who was simultaneously given responsibilities for the storeroom functions that were previously being managed by Ms. Ligda and then Mr. Thompson. Upon information and belief, Mr. Pinchock, similar to Ms. Ligda and Mr. Thompson before him, has since been terminated. That position is now filled by Bill Sickenberger. Thus, the revolving door from the storeroom to unemployment continues to turn at PGW.
137. Likewise, the critical job functions being performed by Mr. Karlo with respect to managing the mold shop bending rolls are still being performed. In fact, after terminating Mr. Karlo, while retaining younger employees to whom PGW hoped to transition his work, PGW came to realize that it had lost a valuable and experienced employee. Thereafter, PGW re-hired Mr. Karlo as a contract employee through an agency in order to avail itself of the knowledge and experience it had been so quick to toss away. However, when Mr. Karlo refused to withdraw his charge of discrimination against PGW, the defendant summarily dismissed him again after the EEOC closed its investigation and notified Mr. Karlo of his right to proceed with his claims before this Court.
138. Similarly, Mr. McLure was later retained as a contract employee after PGW discovered that it could not make do with the younger employees it elected to retain in the RIF.

4501195

26

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 27 of 43

Like Mr. Karlo, Mr. McLure was again terminated by PGW after the EEOC closed its investigation and notified him of his right to sue.
139. Mr. Meixelsberger was also called back to PGW service when the employees retained in his stead were unable to perform his job functions satisfactorily. Fortunately, Mr. Meixelsberger was able to retain alternative employment, so PGW was not given the opportunity to retaliate against him further for his participation in this lawsuit.
140. PGW’s own documents support a conclusion that an unlawful age bias is at play in its RIF decisions. The decisional unit information, complete versions of which were not provided to any of the Representative Plaintiffs with their respective Separation Agreement and Release documents, reveal that the RIF had a more deleterious impact on the older members of the PGW workforce, affecting them in far greater numbers than would be likely to occur in the absence of some unlawful bias.
PGW’s Invalid and Unenforceable Waiver Agreements 141. The Representative Plaintiffs anticipate that PGW will attempt to shield its
unlawful conduct from this Court’s scrutiny by arguing that the Plaintiffs have waived their ADEA claims by signing Separation Agreements.
142. PGW has already invoked these agreements, which do not contain valid or enforceable ADEA waivers, to dissuade the EEOC investigation from conducting a thorough or complete investigation, in direct contravention of the OWBPA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(4).
143. As the Representative Plaintiffs have already explained to the EEOC, the Separation Agreements fail to comply with the OWBPA in a number of respects. See Plaintiffs’ May 27, 2010, Letter to EEOC, attached as Exhibit C, which is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

4501195

27

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 28 of 43

144. Principally, the Separation Agreements failed to provide the Representative Plaintiffs with complete decisional unit information for the group termination program conducted in the RIF, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(H). Mr. Thompson was not provided any such information, despite the fact that he was terminated at the same time as more than 100 other PGW employees, including the Representative Plaintiffs. The other Representative Plaintiffs were given only half of the requisite information, as the decisional unit information that PGW purported to provide to them was missing every other page. Thus, the waivers in the Separation Agreements are wholly invalid and entirely unenforceable as to the Plaintiffs’ ADEA claims.
PGW’s Retaliation Against Plaintiff Karlo 145. On September 11, 2009, less than six months after Plaintiff Karlo was terminated
by PGW, the PGW HR Manager for the Creighton facility, John Felker, telephoned Mr. Karlos’ home to ascertain whether Mr. Karlo would be available and willing to return to work at PGW’s Creighton facility on September 14, 2009. Felker reported directly to the plant manager of the PGW Creighton facility, Craig Barnette.
146. However, Plaintiff Karlo was not then available to take Felker’s call and the two were unable to speak about the position until September 14, 2009. At that time, Felker indicated that PGW wanted Mr. Karlo to return to PGW as a “temporary” maintenance supervisor, and agreed to Mr. Karlo’s request that he be compensated at a rate of $30.00/hour, which came close to the salary Mr. Karlo had previously received, exclusive of benefits.
147. Once Mr. Karlo and PGW reached agreement on these terms, Felker arranged for Mr. Karlo to be retained through an outside, third-party contractor, Belcan Corporation, in its TechServices Division.

4501195

28

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 29 of 43
148. Thereafter, a Belcan employee, Kathryn (“Katie”) Robison, located in Belcan’s offices on Greentree Road in Pittsburgh, emailed to Mr. Karlo documents related to his employment by Belcan, including, e.g., a W-4 form, an I-9 form, a copy of Belcan’s Employment Handbook for the TechServices Division (which was not actually provided to Mr. Karlo until November 2009), a Drug and Alcohol Policy and Agreement, a Confidential and Intellectual Property Agreement, and Accident Report form, a Direct Deposit Enrollment form, instructions regarding submitting time cards, and an “Acknowledgement and Agreement,” regarding particular conditions of employment and which specifically noted that Mr. Karlo’s employment by Belcan would be at will. Although Mr. Karlo retained blank copies of these forms as they were transmitted by Belcan, attached as Exhibit D, he does not have any executed copies.
149. Other than completing those administrative functions necessary to commence his employment with Belcan (i.e., the completion and submission of the forms identified above) and to secure payment from Belcan for the hours he worked, Mr. Karlo had no contact with Belcan during the course of his work at the PGW Creighton facility. He did not interview with Belcan for placement at PGW and he did not receive job duties or assignments from Belcan. In fact, even the decision to terminate Mr. Karlo was communicated to him by PGW employees, not by Belcan.
150. When Mr. Karlo began working at the PGW Creighton facility on September 17, 2009, he reported to the PGW Maintenance Manager, Bill Easterlin, who told Mr. Karlo that the assignment was, in fact, “long term,” rather than “temporary,” as described by Felker.
151. Under Bill Easterlin, Mr. Karlo was made a shift maintenance supervisor on the PGW windshield production lines. After a three-week orientation in which he became

4501195

29

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 30 of 43
acquainted with the glass bending lines, which ran 24-hours per day, the maintenance personnel who would report to him, and the computer program utilized to track maintenance work orders, equipment and other critical data, Mr. Karlo was assigned as the maintenance supervisor on Crew C. See 10/08/09 PGW Announcement regarding Supervisor’s Assignments, attached as Exhibit E.
152. As the maintenance supervisor for Crew C, Mr. Karlo had four PGW maintenance employees reporting to him, whom he tasked with maintenance work orders designed to keep the production lines running. Mr. Karlo was responsible for assigning work orders to the appropriate employee, ensuring timely completion of work orders, keeping track of all equipment upkeep and repair, documenting all work and ensuring that the shift following his own had a sufficient crew to complete the tasks on that subsequent shift.
153. At the end of each week, Mr. Karlo would print out a time sheet e-mailed by Belcan, fill in the hours he worked for PGW, have the time sheet approved by Easterlin and then fax it back to Belcan in order to be paid. Later, when Mr. Karlo’s reporting structure changed, his time cards were approved by a different PGW Manager. See, e.g., sample time sheet, attached as Exhibit F.
154. On February 1, 2010, following Mark Soderberg’s replacement of Barnette as the Creighton plant manager, a supervisor and crew realignment was implemented. Mr. Karlo was then reassigned as a production supervisor in charge of windshield Line 1 at the plant. See 1/26/10 e-mail announcing alignment of Supervisors and Crews, attached as Exhibit G. In this position, Mr. Karlo reported to PGW’s Line 1 Value Stream Manager, Tom Showers.
155. As a production supervisor, Mr. Karlo was responsible for the satisfactory production of each windshield run from Line 1 at the Creighton facility during his shift. This

4501195

30

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 31 of 43
meant that Mr. Karlo was expected to coordinate all aspects of producing a marketable windshield, including ensuring the right kind of glass was being used; the right thickness and color was being produced; the edgework was seamed and ground to the proper specifications; the right paint for the blackband was utilized; the correct trademark was printed on the glass; the glass was the proper size and form after it was bent; and the correct vinyl was applied based on the automotive customer for whom the windshield was being produced. Like his first contract position at PGW, Mr. Karlo was also responsible for ensuring that the line was at all times properly staffed with the requisite manpower and that all the equipment and supplies were properly maintained.
156. Notably, Mr. Karlo continued to be responsible for all the duties he had as the maintenance supervisor as well as those new responsibilities associated with being the production supervisor.
157. Mr. Karlo’s job duties clearly related to general production of windshields from PGW’s Creighton facility, not to a special, short-term project. The Creighton facility continues to operate and produce windshields.
158. However, in the last week of June, 2010, after Mr. Karlo finished delivering a routine summary of shift activities to his supervisor, Tom Showers, and another PGW Manager, Bob Pinchok, Mr. Karlo was approached by Pinchok who indicated that he wanted to talk to Mr. Karlo about an important issue.
159. Pinchok informed Mr. Karlo that PGW wanted to retain him as a production supervisor, perhaps even as a direct employee at PGW, but that “there is an issue out there that needs to go away.” When Mr. Karlo attempted to ask Pinchok whether he was referring to his EEOC charge, which had been filed less than six months earlier and was then still pending

4501195

31

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 32 of 43
before the agency, Pinchok would only say that Karlo knew “what issue [he was] referring to,” and that Karlo just needed to “make the whole thing go away.”
160. Pinchok indicated that, if Mr. Karlo wanted the job at the Creighton facility, Felker, the HR manager, or Soderberg, the plant manager, would be waiting to hear from Mr. Karlo and that Karlo “knew what he had to do.”
161. Roughly one week later, Mr. Karlo was approached Showers, who asked Karlo whether he had spoken to Felker or Soderberg yet. When Mr. Karlo sought clarification as to what the subject of that conversation was supposed to be, Showers responded evasively: “You know.” When Mr. Karlo queried further whether this related to the “issue” that had been addressed to him by Pinchok a week or so earlier, Showers responded, “Yes,” but then indicated that he didn’t want to know anything more about it. Mr. Karlo could then only advise Showers that he had not spoken to Felker or Soderberg.
162. Almost immediately thereafter, on July 12, 2010, as Mr. Karlo was reporting to work at PGW at the beginning of his shift, he was escorted to the HR office by Pinchok. As the two proceeded to HR, Pinchok, without revealing what was to come, simply reminded Mr. Karlo that he had “tried to tell [him] about this a couple of weeks back.”
163. When Mr. Karlo entered the plant manager’s office, he was greeted by Soderberg, the plant manager, and Felker, the HR manager. Soderberg informed Mr. Karlo that he was, for a second time, being terminated by PGW and that “downtown made this decision.”
164. Mr. Karlo was not told that the assignment for which he had been retained through Belcan had ended – nor could it have ended, given that his work related to the production line of the windshield products manufactured at a plant that remains fully operative. In fact, Mr. Karlo observed that work that the job he had filled at the Creighton facility was

4501195

32

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 33 of 43

posted for hire on monster.com in August 2010. See job postings printed on 8/15/10 and 8/29/10, attached as Exhibit H.
PGW’s Retaliation Against Plaintiff McLure 165. On April 13, 2009, Plaintiff McLure began working for his predecessor employer,
PPG, as a contract employee. At that time, Mr. McLure was paid for his PPG work by a thirdparty contractor, Carol Harris Services, who paid him at a rate of $17.00 per hour.
166. In July 2009, Mr. McLure was contacted by a PGW employee, Mark Bulger, who wanted Mr. McLure to return to PGW to do some model number testing on behalf of PGW. Mr. Bulger advised Mr. McLure that he would be paid $20.00 per hour for the PGW work. PGW also decided to retain Mr. McLure through Carol Harris Services.
167. Because Mr. McLure continued to work for PPG, he worked out a schedule where he would provide 16 hours of work each week to PPG, and the remaining 24 hours of work in the week to PGW.
168. Mr. McLure began working for PGW on July 26, 2009. He was tasked with doing validation testing and reporting, equipment set-up and upkeep for validation studies and compression testing, assisting with solder failures, performing vinyl adhesion testing and ball drop testing, all on behalf of a number of different supervisors, including Bulger, Bruce Bartrug, Julie Bernas, and Pete Dishart. To perform these functions, Mr. McLure would often travel to various PGW facilities, including those located in Harmarville, Creighton and Tipton.
169. Much of the work that Mr. McLure performed on behalf of PGW was work that he had done previously as a full-time PGW employee before his termination on March 31, 2009. In fact, when Mr. McLure would submit reports regarding his findings, he was instructed by Bartrug to use his former PGW title – Senior Technical Assistant – when signing the reports.

4501195

33

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 34 of 43
170. On June 7, 2010, at PGW’s specific request, Mr. McLure was instructed to discontinue his relationship with Carol Harris Services, and instead to enter into a direct employment relationship with Belcan. Apparently, PGW had decided that it wanted all its contractors to be employed through Belcan, because they charged a lower premium for their contracted workers. In fact, PGW raised Mr. McLure’s hourly rate to $22.00 per hour because of the savings it attained by using Belcan. Notably, PPG also elected to make the switch to Belcan – at least with respect to Mr. McLure – although his hourly rate for the work at PPG did not change.
171. Thus, not unlike Mr. Karlo, Mr. McLure’s “employment” by Belcan was directed by PGW, the actual beneficiary of the work Mr. McLure performed. Mr. McLure’s contact with Belcan – also through Robison – was limited largely to fax or email communications, including the transmission of several of the same documents that Mr. Karlo was required to complete. See Belcan hiring documents for Mr. McLure, attached as Exhibit I.
172. Tellingly, Belcan relied on Mr. McLure to provide it with the identity of his PGW supervisors, the facility locations at which the work would be performed, and even his rate of pay. See email communications between Belcan and Mr. McLure, attached as Exhibit J.
173. During the course of his employment on behalf of PGW, in or around June 2010, Mr. McLure was informed by Bartrug and another PGW employee, Steve Parsons, that on of the other supervisors to whom Mr. McLure reported, Pete Dishart, intended to hire a full-time technician and that Mr. McLure was his top candidate for the job. This conclusion seemed to be confirmed when, on June 27, 2010, Dishart directed Bartrug to send Mr. McLure to fork truck training to renew his license, which Mr. McLure did on July 13, 2010.

4501195

34

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 35 of 43

174. However, as with Mr. Karlo, no offer of employment came from PGW. And, in fact, Mr. McLure watched his assignments mysteriously dwindle despite the fact that the work at PGW that Bartrug and Dishart required remained at the same level.
175. Then, on August 19, 2010, Mr. McLure learned that a project for Bulger, involving the testing of model numbers to which he had previously been assigned, had been taken away from him completely. Mr. McLure contacted Bulger, on August 26, 2010, for an explanation and to determine whether he had done anything wrong in completing his other assignments. Bulger informed Mr. McLure that the directive to have the work removed from Mr. McLure was not his own, but came from the “people downtown.”
176. These decisions, and the phasing out of Mr. McLure’s work at PGW, are temporally proximate to the termination of Mr. Karlo by PGW.
177. On September 12, 2010, Mr. McLure was let go from his position at PGW. The work that Mr. McLure did was necessary to PGW’s ongoing production operations, and, thus, remain a necessary function at PGW, rather than a short-term project.
178. Mr. McLure has continued to perform work, however, a few days each week on behalf PPG, through his employment by Belcan.
COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 179. The Representative Plaintiffs bring this action as a collective action under the ADEA pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (“FLSA”). 180. The Representative Plaintiffs have instituted claims for disparate treatment and disparate impact pursuant to ADEA arising out of the previously described systemic practices engaged in by PGW to discriminate against its older work force in conducting RIFs.

4501195

35

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 36 of 43
181. Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, the Representative Plaintiffs bring this ADEA claim on behalf of themselves and all former salaried employees of PGW whose employment with PGW within the United States was terminated by PGW and who were at least 50 years of age at the time of such termination (the “ADEA Class Members”).
182. The Representative Plaintiffs and the ADEA Class Members are similarly situated in that they have been the victims of the challenged policies, practices and procedures through which PGW has violated the ADEA.
183. Under Section 216(b), ADEA Class Members must specifically opt-in to this collective action in order to be benefited or bound by the outcome. Thus, this Court need not make any inquiries beyond whether the Representative Plaintiffs and the ADEA Class Members are similarly situated.
COUNT I Disparate Treatment Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. 184. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 183 above as if fully set forth herein. 185. Because the Representative Plaintiffs ranged in age from 51 to 58 years-old at the time of their terminations, the Representative Plaintiffs are all members of a class of individuals protected under the ADEA. 186. Each of the Representative Plaintiffs was well-qualified for his position with PGW and had a demonstrated and well-established record of success with the company prior to termination.

4501195

36

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 37 of 43
187. Each of the Representative Plaintiffs suffered an adverse employment action when his employment was terminated by PGW, while other, substantially younger employees were treated more favorably—either because they were retained by PGW, were permitted to transfer to positions at PPG in order to continue in employment, or were hired to replace the older workers terminated in the RIF.
188. Thus, each of the Representative Plaintiffs’ termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference that PGW terminated them because of their age, in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.
189. To date, PPG has not offered any explanation for its decision to terminate the Representative Plaintiffs and other older workers in the March 2009 RIF, other than to state that their positions had been eliminated. However, the job duties being performed by each of the Representative Plaintiffs were critical to the ongoing operations of PGW. Therefore, while their job titles may have been “eliminated,” their job functions certainly were not. Thus, this stated explanation for the terminations of the Representative Plaintiffs was merely a pretext designed to disguise PGW’s true motive—the elimination of older workers.
190. PGW has similarly discriminated against all ADEA Class Members in the terms and conditions of employment, on the basis of their age, in violation of ADEA.
191. As a consequence of the unlawful policy, pattern and practice, and unlawful conduct of PGW as described herein, Representative Plaintiffs and ADEA Class Members have suffered damages in the form of lost compensation and seek front-pay and back pay, attorneys’ fees and costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, lost pension benefits, liquidated damages, and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

4501195

37

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 38 of 43
COUNT II Disparate Impact Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. 192. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 191 above as if fully set forth herein. 193. The Representative Plaintiffs are members of a protected class under the ADEA. 194. Each of the Representative Plaintiffs suffered an adverse employment action when his employment was terminated by PGW in a RIF, while younger employees were treated more favorably. 195. Upon information and belief, in identifying the Representative Plaintiffs and other PGW employees for termination in the RIF, PGW utilized selection criteria that appear neutral on their face, but which, based on the outcome of the selection process, clearly had an adverse impact on older workers. 196. Moreover, PGW utilized subjective and standard-less evaluation practices in a secretive and inherently unfair, unreliable and invalid RIF ranking process which were applied unchecked by any established ADEA compliance policies or training programs, and failed to properly credit the employees’ historical performance and length of tenure with the company. 197. The group termination information which should have been provided to each of the Representative Plaintiffs at the time of his termination—but which, as discussed above, was incomplete, thereby invalidating any waiver—will demonstrate that the selection process had a demonstrably significant impact upon older workers during the RIF. 198. Plaintiffs plead that their terminations were the direct result of the application of one or more facially neutral policies that had a disparate impact on older workers.

4501195

38

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 39 of 43
199. As a consequence of PGW’s unlawful an secretive use of policies or selection criteria that have a disproportionate effect on older workers, the Representative Plaintiffs—and other ADEA Class Members—have suffered damages in the form of lost compensation and, therefore, seek front-pay and back pay, attorneys’ fees and costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, lost pension benefits, liquidated damages, and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT III (Plaintiffs Karlo and McLure v. PGW)
Retaliation Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) 200. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 199 above as if fully set forth herein. 201. As described above, Plaintiffs McLure and Karlo were both contacted by PGW to return to work in April and September 2009, respectively. 202. Although they were called to work by PGW employees, negotiated their rates of pay with PGW employees, supervised and directed by PGW employees on work performed on behalf of PGW at PGW facilities, they were compensated through an arrangement with an outside, third-party contractor of PGW’s choosing – Belcan. 203. While Plaintiffs Karlo and McLure were working on behalf of PGW, they each filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC on January 22, 2010, complaining of and opposing employment practices at PGW – namely terminations conducted in a RIF in March 2009 – as violations of the ADEA. As such, they were engaging in activity that is protected under the ADEA

4501195

39

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 40 of 43
204. PGW was well aware during this time that Messrs. Karlo and McLure, along with the other five Representative Plaintiffs, had initiated an EEOC investigation into their charges of discrimination.
205. In fact, as described in detail above, while the Plaintiffs’ charges were pending (and less than six months after they had been initiated), PGW, through a series of managers and supervisors, attempted to pressure Plaintiff Karlo to withdraw his charge or face losing employment by PGW.
206. When Mr. Karlo refused to succumb to such pressure, he was, indeed, terminated. 207. Although PGW took a more subtle approach with Mr. McLure, he too found himself forced out of his employment arrangement with PGW within less than eight months of his initiation of the EEOC proceedings, and only two weeks before the instant lawsuit was commenced. 208. Although their paychecks were issued by Belcan, as evidenced by the averments in this Amended Complaint, the employment relationship between Plaintiffs Karlo and McLure cannot be ignored. Their re-employment, albeit as “contract employees,” at PGW was initiated by PGW, supervised and directed by PGW for its exclusive benefit, and was ultimately controlled by PGW, including the termination thereof. 209. In fact, PGW personnel, not Belcan representatives, were the ones who advised Plaintiffs Karlo and McLure that they would no longer be employed at the PGW facilities. 210. Moreover, Belcan has continued to retain Mr. McLure for the work he performs on behalf of PPG. 211. The timing of these second terminations by PGW, in such close temporal proximity to the filing of the EEOC charges, but before the filing of this Complaint, as well as

4501195

40

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 41 of 43

the specific statements made to Plaintiff Karlo, supports not only a finding of a direct nexus
between these Plaintiffs’ protected activity and the adverse employment action, but also the
conclusion that PGW hoped to discourage the Plaintiffs from filing this lawsuit.
212. PGW has discriminated against Plaintiffs Karlo and McLure because they have
opposed PGW’s unlawful and discriminatory conduct, because they filed charges with the
EEOC, and because PGW anticipated that they would further pursue their claims by filing this
Complaint.
213. As a consequence of PGW’s unlawful retaliation against Plaintiffs Karlo and
McLure for the exercise of their rights under the ADEA, Plaintiffs Karlo and McClure have
suffered damages in the form of lost compensation and, therefore, seek front-pay and back pay,
attorneys’ fees and costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, lost pension benefits, liquidated
damages, emotional distress, punitive damages, and such other relief as the Court may deem
appropriate
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Representative Plaintiffs, on behalf of them selves and prospective
members of this collective action, pray that this Court:
a. Enter a judgment declaring this action to be a collective action properly maintained pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), that the Representative Plaintiffs be designated as representatives of the ADEA Class, and that their counsel of record be designated as ADEA Class Counsel;
b. Enter a judgment declaring that PGW’s patterns, practices and omissions, as above-described, in terminating the employment of ADEA Class Members of the collective action who were 50 years of age or older at the time of their termination or forced retirement violates ADEA;
c. Enter a judgment declaring that PGW’s extraction of purported releases in connection with the terminations of ADEA Class Members of the collective action are non-compliant with the requirements of OWBPA and controlling authority, and are invalid and unenforceable;

4501195

41

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 42 of 43

d. Issue a permanent prohibitory injunction ordering PGW and its officers, agents, employees and successors to cease and desist from the unfair discriminatory employment patterns, practices, policies and omissions complained of herein, which result in the termination of employees fifty-years of age or older;

e. Issue a permanent mandatory injunction requiring PGW to take such affirmative action as will effectuate the purposes of ADEA, including adopting employment practices in accord with ADEA’s requirements;

f. Enter a judgment and award in favor of the Representative Plaintiffs and the ADEA Class Members, and against PGW for reasonable monetary damages, including back pay (plus interest or an appropriate inflation factor and an enhancement to offset any adverse tax consequences associated with lump sum receipt of back pay), front pay, benefits and all other damages owed to the Representative Plaintiffs and the ADEA Class Members, in an amount proven at trial, resulting from PPG’s unlawful and discriminatory acts or omissions, including unlawful retaliation for opposing such practices;

g. Enter a judgment and award in favor of each of the Representative Plaintiffs and each ADEA Class Member for the maximum statutory amount of liquidated damages available under ADEA;

h. Enter a judgment and award in favor of the Representative Plaintiffs and the ADEA Class for costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees, experts’ fees, and other costs and expenses of this litigation;

i. Enter a judgment and award in favor of the Representative Plaintiffs and the ADEA Class for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

j. Award such other and further legal and equitable relief as may be found appropriate and as this Court may deem just and proper; and

k. Retain jurisdiction over this action until such time as it is satisfied that PGW has remedied the practices complained of and is determined to be in full compliance with the law.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE

Respectfully submitted,

OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP

Date: February 15, 2011

s/Melissa L. Evans_____________________ Bruce C. Fox, Esquire Pa. I.D. No. 42576

4501195

42

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 54 Filed 02/15/11 Page 43 of 43
bruce.fox@obermayer.com Melissa L. Evans, Esquire Pa. I.D. No. 85978 melissa.evans@obermayer.com BNY Mellon Center, Suite 5240 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 566-1500 Fax: (412) 566-1508
Counsel for Plaintiffs, Rudolph A. Karlo, Mark K. McLure, William S. Cunningham, Jeffrey Marietti, David Meixelsberger, Benjamin D. Thompson and Richard Csukas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

4501195

43

 </s> Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 1 of 35

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

RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON and RICHARD CSUKAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,
Defendant.

) ) Civil Action No. ___________ ) ) ) ) Judge ____________________ ) ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) ) ELECTRONICALLY FILED

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT AND NOW come Representative Plaintiffs, Rudolph A. Karlo, Mark K. McLure, William S. Cunningham, Jeffrey Marietti, David Meixelsberger, Benjamin D. Thompson and Richard Csukas (collectively, the “Representative Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, by and through their counsel, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, and file this Collective Action Complaint against Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC (“PGW” or “Defendant”), pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq (“ADEA”), and aver as follows:
THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Rudolph A. Karlo is an individual who is currently 52 years old and resides in Creighton, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff Mark K. McLure is an individual who is currently 56 years old and resides in Lower Burrell, Pennsylvania.

4501195

1

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 2 of 35
3. Plaintiff William S. Cunningham is an individual who is currently 54 years old and resides in Springdale, Pennsylvania.
4. Plaintiff Jeffrey Marietti is an individual who is currently 56 years old and resides in Tarentum, Pennsylvania.
5. Plaintiff David Meixelsberger is an individual who is currently 53 years old and resides in Lower Burrell, Pennsylvania.
6. Plaintiff Benjamin D. Thompson is an individual who is currently 57 years old and resides in Greensburg, Pennsylvania.
7. Plaintiff Richard Csukas is an individual who is currently 59 years old and resides in Evansville, Indiana.
8. Defendant PGW is a Pennsylvania limited liability corporation with its principal place of business located at 30 Isabella Street, Suite 500, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212. Before its creation in late 2008, the underlying business operations and assets of PGW were formally part of the automotive glass and services business of PPG Industries, Inc.(“PPG”), which is also headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PPG retains a 40% ownership interest in PGW, with the other 60% being owned by a private equity firm, Kohlberg & Company, L.L.C. (“Kohlberg”).
9. At all relevant times, PGW has continuously been an “employer” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 623 of the ADEA.
10. The Representative Plaintiffs are all former employees of PGW and were previously long-time PPG employees.
11. Once the discovery process in this matter is underway, the roles of other unknown conspirators and participants in the wrongdoing identified herein will likely be

4501195

2

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 3 of 35

revealed, and plaintiffs reserve their right to seek leave of court to further amend this
Complaint to add new parties and/or new claims.
NATURE OF THIS ACTION AND CORE ALLEGATIONS
12. This is an action brought by the Representative Plaintiffs, with nearly 130
years of combined experience and dedicated service to PPG and/or PGW, seeking redress on a
collective basis for systemic practices engaged in by PGW resulting in discrimination against
its older work force in conducting Reductions-in-Force (“RIFs”) and forced retirements over
an extended period of time, which practices are continuing in nature. Plaintiffs bring this
collective action on behalf of themselves and all other present and former similarly situated
salaried employees (the “ADEA Class Members”) against PGW for discrimination in
employment, by:
a. Adopting and em ploying methods for ev aluating, ranking and selecting employees for term ination in its RIFs, which methods were highly subjective, unreliable, invalid, and served as mere pretext, resulting in the termination of disproportionately high numbers of older workers who were never informed of the clandestine criteria used to s elect them for termination;
b. Failing to exercise appropriate superv ision or control over m anagers who select older workers for termination;
c. Maintaining a corporate culture wh ich fosters and encourages pervas ive ageist stereotypes, im plicit age bias, and age-related animus, and which permits managers to practice ag e discrimination in evaluating older employees and in selecting employees for termination;
d. Failing to establish policies to ensure compliance with the requirements of ADEA, and to guard against age discrim ination, and i mplicit age bias, including, without lim itation, policies requiring proper training of supervisory employees;
e. Willfully failing to exa mine or evaluate, in ad vance of the completion of RIFs (or at any tim e thereafter), w hether the RIFs routin ely result in the elimination of a dispro portionately high number of older workers, or to

4501195

3

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 4 of 35
otherwise employ safeguards or exercise oversight of the RIF process to prevent or m itigate such discriminatory outcomes, in viola tion of ADEA, as well as PGW’s own internal RIF policies; f. Failing and ref using to reins tate, retrain and/or relocate older employees into positions that matched their job qualifications which became available after their termination, and failing to notify them of such position s when they became available; g. Retaliating against employees w ho oppose PGW ’s unlawful policies, practices or procedures, in contravention of the ADEA; and h. Extracting from employees invalid a nd improper waivers of claim s for liability which are part of its scheme to intimidate and discriminate against older workers and a ttempt to prev ent them from asserting valid c laims under ADEA arising from their terminations. 13. The above-described policies, patterns, practices, and omissions which adversely impact older employees constitute willful violations of ADEA. PGW arbitrarily and routinely employs such policies and practices systematically and continuously to discriminate against older workers and select them for termination, in order to replace them with younger workers, without any credible excuse or justification.
JURISDICTION 14. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal question subject matter of this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), as made applicable by 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). 15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over PGW because PGW systematically and continuously engages in substantial interstate commercial conduct and business activity within Pennsylvania and maintains its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, and because the case arises in part out of PGW’s unlawful conduct within this District.

4501195

4

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 5 of 35

16. Plaintiffs have complied with all conditions precedent to filing a suit under ADEA.
17. The Representative Plaintiffs each filed charges of employment discrimination based on age against PGW with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”): Messrs. Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Thompson and Csukas filed their respective charges on January 22, 2010. Mr. Meixelsberger filed his charge on January 25, 2010. Copies of Plaintiffs’ EEOC charges are attached as Exhibit A.
18. More than 60 days have elapsed since the Representative Plaintiffs filed charges with the EEOC.
19. Each of the Representative Plaintiffs has received a Dismissal and Notice of Rights from the EEOC. Copies of these EEOC Notices are attached hereto as Exhibit B and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
20. The Complaint was filed within 90 days of receipt of the first Dismissal and Notice of Rights issued by the EEOC to a Representative Plaintiff.
VENUE 21. Venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the unlawful employment acts and practices complained of by the Plaintiffs were committed or occurred, and continue to occur, within this District. Moreover, PGW maintains its principal place of business in this District, and all but one of the Representative Plaintiffs, as well as a large concentration of the Class Members, reside and/or worked for PGW in this District. 22. In addition, the unlawful employment policies and practices which are the subject of this action, were and are centrally implemented and/or controlled from PGW’s

4501195

5

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 6 of 35

principal place of business in this District, and remain in effect in this District and nationwide in continuous, systematic violation of the ADEA.
23. Because a large number of the illegal terminations by PGW took place in Pittsburgh and because PGW is headquartered in Pittsburgh, this District is an appropriate forum for this collective action.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Mr. Karlo’s Tenure at PGW
24. Mr. Karlo began working for PPG Industries, Inc., whose automotive glass division was the predecessor to Defendant PGW, on October 9, 1978 as a Construction and Maintenance Research Specialist II.
25. In 1983, Mr. Karlo was promoted to Construction and Maintenance Research Specialist I and continued to work in that position until 1990.
26. Mr. Karlo continued to receive several promotions over the subsequent years: to Senior Technical Assistant in 1990; to Engineering Specialist in 1995; and finally, to Senior Engineering Specialist in 2001, a position which he continued to fill following the transition of the automotive glass division to PGW.
27. During Mr. Karlo’s career with PPG, he worked with different teams of PPG personnel to develop eight shared patents related to glass processes that have inured to the benefit of PPG and its 40%-owned subsidiary, Defendant PGW.
28. Throughout his more than 30-year career with PPG and/or PGW, Mr. Karlo received consistently positive performance reviews, commendations and awards, commensurate increases to his salary, bonuses (known at PPG as “Personal Performance Grants”) and, as described above, multiple promotions.

4501195

6

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 7 of 35
29. In the last decade or so of Mr. Karlo’s employment with PPG, the employee evaluation process was referred to as the Performance & Learning Plan (“P&LP”). Prior to the implementation of the P&LP process, which relies on highly subjective criteria which are not easy to quantify, PPG had employed a numeric system involving more objective criteria, known as “Accountability.”
30. A review of Mr. Karlo’s P&LP and Accountability documents dating back to 1992 confirm that he was an excellent performer. His past Accountability evaluations consistently reflected that Mr. Karlo “Meets” or “Meets +” expectations or “Exceeds Requirements.” His P&LP forms were equally impressive.
31. In fact, Mr. Karlo never received a low performance rating or bad review during his entire tenure at PPG and/or PGW—from October 9, 1978 to March 31, 2009— before he was abruptly terminated at the age of 51.
Mr. McLure’s Tenure at PGW 32. In 1974, Mr. McLure started his career with PPG as a contract employee at the
Glass Research & Technology Laboratory (“GRTL”) facility, a division of PPG. On September 1, 1975, Mr. McLure became a full-time, direct PPG employee at the GRTL facility.
33. While at the GRTL facility, Mr. McLure was involved in projects related to fiberglass production. Thus, when PPG closed the GRTL facility in 1980, it transferred Mr. McLure to its Fiberglass Research facility in RIDC Park in O’Hara Township, Pennsylvania.

4501195

7

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 8 of 35
34. In 1990, Mr. McLure was promoted to the position of Senior Technician for the Fiberglass Reinforcement Group. Although this group was based out of the RIDC Park location, Mr. McLure’s position entailed significant travel time to service different PPG facilities, particularly a PPG facility located in Shelby, North Carolina.
35. On June 1, 1999, PPG closed the RIDC Park facility. At that time, Mr. McLure was slated to be transferred permanently to Shelby, North Carolina. However, rather than relocate, Mr. McLure pursued another opportunity within PPG.
36. Mr. McLure was hired by the Automotive Glass/OEM Products Group at PPG’s Harmarville, Pennsylvania facility. As an employee of the automotive glass division of PPG—and later as a separate entity, Defendant PGW—Mr. McLure was responsible for conducting validation testing, traveling to satellite facilities for problem-solving and troubleshooting, and providing customer support and technical service directly to customers at their facilities.
37. Throughout his tenure with PPG and/or PGW Mr. McLure was a dedicated and hard-working employee. He consistently received positive performance evaluations, which denoted that he either met or exceeded job requirements.
38. Mr. McLure also received regular salary increases, bonuses and multiple awards and commendations for his service to his employer, and is a named contributor on a patent developed for PPG.
39. Despite his contributions to PPG and/or PGW over a career spanning more than 34 years, Mr. McLure was terminated by PGW without notice or warning on March 31, 2010 at the age of 55.

4501195

8

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 9 of 35
Mr. Cunningham’s Tenure at PGW 40. Mr. Cunningham began his career with PPG as a contract employee at PPG’s
Glass Research & Development Center in Harmarville, Pennsylvania. 41. In April 1996, Mr. Cunningham applied for a position with PPG’s automotive
glass division and was hired on as a direct, full-time PPG employee. 42. Mr. Cunningham’s work at PPG was largely devoted to the Laminated Glass
Project which he saw through from its initial product validation study through every aspect of testing until the final product, known as Sungate Coated Laminate, was ready for production at PPG’s manufacturing facilities in Crestline, Ohio and Tipton, Pennsylvania. Mr. Cunningham continued to be responsible for monitoring and supporting the launch efforts at these two facilities.
43. Based on Mr. Cunningham’s considerable contributions to the Sungate Coated Laminate process, he was promoted on September 1, 2004 to the position of Senior Technical Assistant in the OEM New Product & Process Development Group. The announcement of his promotion was accompanied by numerous accolades acknowledging that Mr. Cunningham had “made significant contributions to the recent success of two key automotive product/process developments” and had made “important technical contributions, technology transfer, productivity improvements and training of manufacturing personnel that led to the success.”
44. Mr. Cunningham continued as the Senior Technical Assistant, performing the same job functions after PPG and Kohlberg partnered in the joint venture that came to be known as PGW.

4501195

9

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 10 of 35
45. During his tenure at PPG and/or PGW, Mr. Cunningham never received a bad review as part of any employee evaluation process. He consistently rated high for performance and routinely received merit bonuses for outstanding performance and annual pay increases, including one year in which he received a 9% salary increase.
46. Despite this demonstrated record of success, Mr. Cunningham was terminated by PGW on March 31, 2010 at the age of 53.
Mr. Marietti’s Tenure at PGW 47. Mr. Marietti began his career at PPG as a contract employee in the
construction and maintenance shop at PPG’s Harmarville automotive glass facility in 1984. 48. In 1990, Mr. Marietti transferred to the Mold Shop at the Harmarville facility,
where he was then responsible for building tooling and doing division maintenance. 49. In 1994, Mr. Marietti became a direct PPG employee. He continued to work in
the Mold Shop, but was given a PPG title of Construction & Maintenance (“C&M”) Research Specialist II.
50. Mr. Marietti was promoted to C&M Research Specialist I in 1996 and was again promoted in 2002 to the position of Senior C&M Specialist in the OEM Technology Transfer Group.
51. In 2003, although his job title did not change, Mr. Marietti was given greater responsibility and was, essentially, performing the job functions of a Technical Assistant, a role in which he continued after the transition to PGW.

4501195

10

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 11 of 35
52. Over the course of his career as a PPG employee, Mr. Marietti received high ratings on his P&LPs, and never during his tenure with PPG and/or PGW did he receive a poor performance review.
53. Mr. Marietti was abruptly terminated, without explanation, by PGW on March 31, 2009 at the age of 55.
Mr. Meixelsberger’s Tenure at PGW 54. Mr. Meixelsberger began his career with PPG in 1987. 55. Over the course of the next 22 years, Mr. Meixelsberger came to be regarded
as one of the industry’s leading experts in the windshield bending process. 56. Although it was customary for employees in Mr. Meixelsberger’s job
classification to work in tandem with a research engineer, Mr. Meixelsberger was routinely trusted to address production issues alone while working in PPG’s various production plants.
57. Throughout his tenure at both PPG and PGW, Mr. Meixelsberger received excellent performance evaluations and commendations for a job well done. In fact, at one point, Mr. Meixelsberger was hand-selected by Gary Cannon—who at the time had just been named the Director of Manufacturing Technology—to serve in a specialized manufacturing group made up of five employees plucked out of the automotive division at PPG’s Harmarville facility.
58. In fact, Mr. Meixelsberger was consistently in high demand at PPG’s facilities around the country because of his well-known expertise and demonstrated record of success. Even though this demand meant significant travel, long work days and time away from his family, Mr. Meixelsberger never faltered in his commitment to PPG and/or PGW.

4501195

11

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 12 of 35
59. However, despite Mr. Meixelsberger’s track-record of valuable contributions, first to PPG and then to PGW, on March 31, 2009, he was terminated by PGW, without explanation, at the age of 52.
Mr. Thompson’s Tenure at PGW 60. Mr. Thompson began his career with PPG as a part-time employee, while
attending college, in June 1971 at PPG’s Works 25 facility in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. 61. Although Mr. Thompson’s part-time position was eliminated in January 1972,
a few short months later, in April 1972, Mr. Thompson was hired by PPG as a permanent production employee at the Greensburg facility.
62. Mr. Thompson continued his employment at the Greensburg facility until it was closed in January 1994. During his tenure at that location, he held various positions in the production and warehouse departments and was involved in a variety of projects, committees and work teams. He also served as a production supervisor for seven years.
63. While at the Greensburg facility, Mr. Thompson was regularly awarded the maximum yearly salary increases, along with additional merit-based performance increases.
64. In September 1996, Mr. Thompson was retained as a bender operator at PPG’s Works 1 facility in Creighton, Pennsylvania. The bender operator holds one of the highest paid positions in production at PPG.
65. Not long after starting at Creighton, Mr. Thompson was offered the position of hourly Production Supervisor in March 1997.
66. In 2000, Mr. Thompson was made a salaried Production Supervisor.

4501195

12

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 13 of 35
67. In 2003, Mr. Thompson was again promoted, this time to the position of Shift Supervisor, and in 2004, he was asked by the Plant Manager to take on additional responsibilities assisting the plant’s Lean Practitioner.
68. Between 2006 and 2008, during the time PPG was seeking a buyer for its automotive glass division, before it entered into the joint venture with Kohlberg to form PGW, Mr. Thompson served as a Warehouse Supervisor, a Final Supervisor and the Ergonomics Team Leader.
69. Throughout his time at the Creighton facility, Mr. Thompson received various awards and commendations, served on the Safety team and was involved in employee training and environmental health.
70. Unlike his fellow Plaintiffs, Mr. Thompson’s job title and job duties changed in the wake of the formation of and transition to PGW. In November 2008, Mr. Thompson was told that he was being reassigned to a supposedly newly created position—Storeroom Supervisor and Maintenance Planner. Although Mr. Thompson was told that this new role was an acknowledgment of his superior skills and experience, which would purportedly be vital to PGW’s transition to a new inventory and purchasing system, Mr. Thompson was skeptical.
71. Mr. Thompson’s skepticism, in part, arose from the fact that this so-called “new” position was, in fact, was comprised of job duties nearly identical to a previously existing position formerly filled by another employee Phyllis Ligda. Ms. Ligda, at the age of approximately 56, previously had been terminated, supposedly because her job had been eliminated during a “re-organization” in the glass division.

4501195

13

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 14 of 35

72. Given that Mr. Thompson was, himself, just 56 years-old and the oldest tenured production supervisor, he had concerns that essentially he was being phased out.
73. This concern only increased when PGW retained new, younger employees—or made younger temporary employees full-time salaried employees—to fill the production supervisory role that Thompson had been forced to vacate when he was relegated to the storeroom position.
74. In the weeks that followed, Mr. Thompson was repeatedly called upon to fill in as a production supervisor when other employees were absent or increased production warranted additional assistance. Mr. Thompson willingly and gladly fulfilled these duties, which he had ably accomplished during his many successful years as a production supervisor.
75. Then, on March 31, 2009, like Phyllis Ligda before him, Mr. Thompson was told that his position with PGW had been eliminated and he was terminated from employment at the age of 56.

Mr. Csukas’ Tenure at PGW

76.

Mr. Csukas started working at PPG as a member of the controller Trainee

Program (in Computer Systems & Finance) in June of 1973. The position was located at

PPG’s Creighton, Pennsylvania facility.

77.

In March, 1974, Mr. Csukas was promoted to the position of General

Accountant for PPG’s flat glass facility in Wichita Falls, Texas.

78.

Three years later, in 1977, Mr. Csukas returned to Pennsylvania to take the

position of Project Accountant at PPG’s Greensburg facility for automotive replacement

windshield fabrication.

4501195

14

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 15 of 35

79.

In July 1978, Mr. Csukas was promoted to Supervisor of Cost Accounting

for PPG’s flat glass facility in Meadville, Pennsylvania, where he was responsible for all of

the activities related to the cost accounting function at the plant, as well as for managing three

controller trainees.

80.

In 1981, Mr. Csukas was given another promotion, to the position of

Financial Analyst in the Glass Controllers Department, located at PPG’s general office

headquarters in downtown Pittsburgh.

81.

A few years later, in March, 1984, Mr. Csukas was elevated to the role of

Director of Information & Financial Services and was moved to PPG’s automotive fabrication

plant in Evansville, Indiana. As the Director, Mr. Csukas managed the entire Accounting &

Information Systems departments and supervised eight direct reports.

82.

Mr. Csukas continued in the Director position at the Evansville facility

until 1994. However, in 1985, not long after assuming that role, PPG asked Mr. Csukas to

take on certain additional responsibilities by assuming the leadership position for the Quality

Leadership Team. In that capacity, Mr. Csukas attended the Phillip Crosby Quality College

and was certified as a Quality Education System trainer/facilitator. Thereafter, Mr. Csukas

became responsible for managing the QES training efforts (which involved 10 hour sessions)

for 450 employees at the plant.

83.

Realizing that he had a real talent for and strong interest in quality control

and efficiency management at PPG, in November, 1994, Mr. Csukas applied for and was

awarded the position of Manager of Breakthrough Process in the Automotive OEM Quality

Department. In this job, Mr. Csukas was certified as a Breakthrough Process

trainer/facilitator by a consulting company Rath & Strong. Thereafter, he conducted over 60

4501195

15

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 16 of 35

Breakthrough teams throughout the Automotive OEM business unit, collectively achieving

productivity improvements valued in excess of $15 Million in savings to PPG. Mr. Csukas’

efforts also opened up new business opportunities for the company.

84.

In November, 1997, Mr. Csukas became the Manager of Value Focus for

Enterprise Excellence & Quality. He was certified as a Rapid Improvement Workshop

trainer/facilitator by a consulting company, Delta Point Corporation, and conducted over 70

workshops throughout the automotive business unit, and achieved savings for PPG upward of

$8 Million from productivity improvements.

85.

While in this latest managerial role, Mr. Csukas was designated as PPG’s

representative at the Bluegrass Automotive Manufacturing Association (“BAMA”), which is

sponsored by Toyota. Ultimately, Mr. Csukas became the Chair of the BAMA Heartland

Region 6 group in 2006.

86.

As the Manager of Value Focus for Enterprise Excellence & Quality, Mr.

Csukas reported to a director position initially held by John Banks. When Banks retired in or

about 2004, Mr. Csukas was an obvious candidate for Mr. Bank’s replacement. However,

PPG passed over Mr. Csukas and appointed Dave King, a man nearly 10 years his junior with

far less experience or expertise in quality control or productivity/efficiency analysis and

management.

87.

Despite being unfairly denied this opportunity for advancement, Mr.

Csukas continued as a dedicated and well regarded PPG employee until 2008 when, by virtue

of PPG’s partial sale of its interests in the automotive glass division to Kohlberg, he became

an employee of PGW—with the same job title and job functions.

4501195

16

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 17 of 35

88.

Although he had a well-established track record of top performance and

measurable success in making the business operate more efficiently and had historically saved

the company tens of millions of dollars, Mr. Csukas was terminated by PGW on March 30,

2009 at the age of 58.

The Joint Venture Between PPG and Kohlberg to Form PGW

89.

Upon information and belief, at some point in 2006, PPG formed an

intention to divest itself, in full or in part, of its automotive glass division.

90.

At that time, PPG instituted a “transfer freeze” in automotive glass, which

meant that all the employees in that division were supposedly barred from applying for open

positions in other business units at PPG. Employees in the automotive glass division were

told that they were essentially human capital, an “asset of the automotive glass division and,

as such, would be sold with them,” because whatever company acquired the division would

need good personnel in place after the sale. PPG further emphasized to its employees in

automotive glass that it was marketing the division as a “world class company” with an

experienced research organization possessing fine-tuned skills and expertise.

91.

During this time, PPG also dispensed with the P&LP employee evaluative

process, which was declared by PPG Management to be “non-essential.” Employees were

instructed to stay focused on working hard and making improvements in the business in order

to make it marketable to prospective buyers.

92.

In 2007, PPG originally brokered a deal for the sale of the automotive glass

division to a California-based firm, Platinum Equity. However, in the last days of December

2007, the sale was abruptly cancelled by the prospective purchaser.

4501195

17

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 18 of 35

93.

Thereafter, PPG leadership discontinued open discussions with its

employees about the possible sale of the business unit, in part, because the failed deal with

Platinum Equity had spawned litigation between the two organizations in which Platinum

Equity alleged that PPG had made fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with the failed

sale.

94.

PPG, however, clearly remained determined to negotiate some deal

whereby it would divest itself of its automotive glass division.

95.

Some time in 2008, PPG began negotiations with Kohlberg, which

culminated in a joint venture agreement between the two entities, pursuant to which PPG

retained a 40% ownership interest in automotive glass and Kohlberg acquired the remaining

60% ownership interest. In November 2008, PPG and Kohlberg established a jointly owned

successor entity—PGW.

96.

Following the formation of PGW, the general operations of the business

remained the same. The former PPG employees essentially worked for the same supervisors,

managers and other leadership personnel.

97.

However, there were certain notable changes. Even as rumors that PGW

intended to conduct a RIF or multiple RIFs arose, PGW began populating the production

facilities with younger, less experienced workers, who were provided with minimal training.

The more seasoned employees found themselves being marginalized.

98.

In or about early December 2008, PGW held a mandatory meeting for all

employees at which they described its intent to engage in a so-called “forced ranking”

process.

4501195

18

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 19 of 35

99.

At that time, PGW management (which was comprised of the same

individuals as the management team in place when the automotive glass division was still

exclusively part of PPG) indicated that the forced rating and ranking process was being

implemented in order to make decisions about employee raises and promotions.

100.

It was unclear to most employees how the rating and ranking could be

effectuated, given that employee evaluations had not been performed by PPG since 2006 and

were not resumed by PGW after its formation. PGW did little to offer much of an explanation

of the mechanics of the ranking process beyond advising employees that their respective

supervisors would gather together in a single meeting and attempt to simply rate and rank all

the employees against each other.

101.

However it was to be accomplished, the announcement that something was

being done to effectuate salary increases was welcome news to many employees, given that

these automotive glass employees had been subject to a salary freeze both before and after the

acquisition. However, some employees, including a number of the Plaintiffs, silently

questioned whether this was the real purpose of the forced ranking process.

102.

In late December 2008, Plaintiffs’ suspicions that the forced ranking might

actually be used for a more nefarious purpose were sadly confirmed when PGW unexpectedly

conducted a RIF among employees at several facilities.

103.

Then, over a two-day period in March 2009, PGW conducted another RIF,

affecting more than 100 employees working in a number of different facilities, including each

of the Representative Plaintiffs.

Mr. Csukas’ Termination by PGW

104.

Of the Representative Plaintiffs, Mr. Csukas was the first to be terminated.

4501195

19

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 20 of 35

105.

On March 30, 2009, Mr. Csukas was summoned to an office at the

Evansville, Indiana facility where he was met by PGW supervisor (and former PPG

supervisor), Dave King. Immediately upon Mr. Csukas’ entry into the office, King

unceremoniously tried to hand Mr. Csukas an envelope with his name on it.

106.

Mr. Csukas was initially reluctant to take the envelope, when no

explanation as to its contents had been offered by King, although Mr. Csukas suspected in that

moment that he was being terminated.

107.

After he had succeeded in getting Mr. Csukas to physically take possession

of the documents, King told him that his job had been “eliminated.”

108.

When Mr. Csukas challenged that explanation, stating that he thought it

“impossible” that his job would be eliminated given that his function had become even more

critical in the face of the downturn in the economy, King responded only that Mr. Csukas’ job

had been eliminated and that his termination was “not based on performance.”

109.

Among the papers that were provided to Mr. Csukas in this termination

session with King was a severance agreement, which Mr. Csukas was expected to sign in

order to get his full severance. The agreement also came with a document entitled

“Information Regarding Employment Termination Program,” which stated that it was

attaching a list of the job titles and ages of all those who were terminated in the RIF, and a

similar list for all those who were retained. What Mr. Csukas did not immediately realize was

that the lists of employees provided to him were missing every other page.

110.

After more than 35 years with the organization, that comprised the sum

total of the information provided to Mr. Csukas when he was terminated by PGW.

4501195

20

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 21 of 35

Mr. Thompson’s Termination by PGW

111.

On March 31, 2009, Mr. Thompson was called into a meeting with the

Creighton Plant Manager, Craig Barnett, and the Human Resources Manager, Myrtle Smith

(both of whom had occupied those positions at PPG before the formation of PGW). At this

meeting, Mr. Thompson was told that he was being terminated because the “new” position

into which he had been involuntarily transferred had been eliminated.

112.

When Mr. Thompson inquired whether he was being let go because of

something he did—or something he failed to do—the PGW representatives assured him that

the decision had nothing to do with job performance and simply repeated that his position had

been eliminated.

113.

Mr. Thompson specifically asked why it was he had been selected to be

terminated from a position that PGW had forced him to take, while the person then occupying

the position from which he had been displaced just months before was retained. Mr.

Thompson received no answer to this question.

114.

Instead, Barnette and Smith presented Mr. Thompson with a document

entitled Separation Agreement and Release which stated that he would receive a lump sum

severance payment of $76,962.09 if he signed the Agreement and release any and all claims

against PGW. Sixteen days later, Smith called Mr. Thompson and informed him that PGW

had made a calculation error and that his lump sum payment would be reduced by $22,000,

but that it would still require him to sign the agreement and waive his claims.

115.

Notably, Mr. Thompson was not provided with any of the “Information

Regarding Employment Termination Program,” including the accompanying lists, which was

given to Mr. Csukas, despite the fact that PGW was engaging in a full-scale RIF across its

4501195

21

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 22 of 35

organization and had, in fact, terminated three other employees at the Creighton facility (including two in their fifties) on the same day that Mr. Thompson was terminated.

PGW’s Termination of Messrs. Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Marietti and Meixelsberger

116.

On the same day that Mr. Thompson was terminated, and the day after Mr.

Csukas was terminated, the other Representative Plaintiffs were also terminated by PGW.

117.

Because many of its employees travel to other facilities and/or customer

plants as part of their job duties, PGW took steps to insure that all those to be affected by the

RIF would be on-site for their termination sessions. On March 26, 2009, Jim Schwartz sent

out an email on behalf of Gary Cannon (the Director of Manufacturing) to all of the auto-glass

associates commanding them to be present at the facility on Tuesday, March 31 and

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 for mandatory “organizational meetings.”

118.

This email, although certainly not revealing the true nature of the purported

“organizational meetings,” triggered rumors of an impending RIF—rumors which, by the

morning of March 31, proved to be true at the Harmarville facility.

119.

However, because PPG—and thereafter PGW—historically conducted its

termination sessions in the morning, by the afternoon, Messrs. Karlo, McLure, Cunningham,

Marietti and Meixelsberger began to believe that they had been spared in the latest round of

RIFs at PGW.

120.

At approximately 3:00 on the afternoon of March 31, 2009, these five

Representative Plaintiffs were summoned to a meeting with Gary Cannon and each of their

respective upper-level Supervisors (Phil Sturman, Julie Bernas and Jim Schwartz). None of

their immediate supervisors were present, nor was anyone there from Human Resources.

4501195

22

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 23 of 35

121.

Cannon immediately explained that there had been a delay due to last

minute ministerial problems and that the “lawyers were working on the paperwork,” but that

the five of them were in fact losing their jobs.

122.

Thereafter, Cannon simply read from a script and informed the

Representative Plaintiffs present in the meeting that they were being eliminated. At no time

did Cannon offer any explanation for how or why they were selected for termination.

123.

Instead, each of these Plaintiffs was handed a package of documents—only

after Cannon excused himself several times from the session to try to collect all the proper

paperwork from the printer—including, among other things, a Separation Agreement and

Release, as well as a document entitled “Information Regarding Employment Termination

Program” which stated that it was attaching a list of the job titles and ages of all those who

were terminated in the RIF, and a similar list for all those who were retained.

124.

Each of the Representative Plaintiffs found it, not only degrading, but also

stressful and confusing to have to sit in a room with their other terminated coworkers while

they waited for PGW representatives to try to gather all the termination papers with which

they were supposed to be provided. Moreover, there was no human resources representative

present to answer questions about the documents and what they were intended to convey.

125.

With nearly 130 years of combined experience and dedicated service to

PPG and/or PGW, Messrs. Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Marietti and Meixelsberger were

summarily dismissed, without any explanation, among a flurry of shuffling papers that might

have been almost humorous were it not for the tragic circumstances of their lost careers.

4501195

23

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 24 of 35

PGW’s RIF Was Conducted in a Manner Giving Rise to an Inference of Age Discrimination

126.

PGW uniformly concealed from the Representative Plaintiffs—and

presumably all other employees terminated in the RIFs it has conducted—the basis by which

they were selected for termination.

127.

At no time has PGW articulated for its current or former employees

(including the Representative Plaintiffs) the selection criteria utilized in conducting the RIF.

Even as it attempted to extract waivers of ADEA claims, PGW failed to apprise its terminated

employees of the factors relied upon in selecting them for termination, in direct contravention

of the OWBPA and its supporting regulations. (In fact, given that PGW has not been

forthcoming about these factors or criteria, the Representative Plaintiffs specifically reserve

the right to amend their claims to address any further unlawfulness that might be revealed

when the selection process is revealed more fully through the discovery process.)

128.

To date, the Representative Plaintiffs are at a loss to understand how and

why they were selected, particularly given that fact that there had been almost no formal

review process at PPG for nearly two years prior to the formation of PGW, and no such

process at all after PGW became their employer.

129.

This absence of data regarding employee performance, which, if the

selection process is to be considered legitimate at all, must have been present, would alone

raise the inference that improper considerations, such as age, may have been at work.

130.

Moreover, despite the general discontinuation of employee evaluations as a

“non-essential” function or process, there were at least a handful of preferred PPG/PGW

employees who were specifically instructed to complete the P&LP process by their

supervisor, Jim Willey. Willey revealed this information to another PGW employee, John

4501195

24

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 25 of 35

Bender, but immediately attempted to retreat from his comment, indicating that he had “said

too much.”

131.

Similarly, the “transfer freeze” that was purportedly imposed on all

employees of the automotive glass division during the time leading up to the sale was not

uniformly applied. A number of younger employees were spared the RIF because they were

permitted to pursue other opportunities at PPG, while the chance to transfer was specifically

denied to the older, Representative Plaintiffs—and perhaps others who were also ultimately

terminated in the RIFs conducted by PGW.

132.

Specifically, the Representative Plaintiffs are aware, at a minimum that

Debby Almasy, Dennis O’Shaughnessy, Gary Donowski, Dave Claasen, Bob Evans, Harry

Nasaab, and Steve Harman were spared because they were not subject to the transfer freeze.

133.

By contrast, a number of the Representative Plaintiffs were repeatedly told

that they would not be permitted to seek alternative employment elsewhere in PPG. In fact,

when Mr. Csukas expressly pointed out this inconsistency to his superior, Dave King, King

responded that “there is a fence around the automotive business with a few holes in it.” To

which Mr. Csukas replied that he could only presume that he was “too old to get through one

of those holes.”

134.

In addition to concealing the method by which employees were selected for

termination or retention, PGW also provided the unsupported and fabricated explanation to

many of the Representative Plaintiffs that their jobs had been “eliminated.” In most instances,

this proffered explanation—the only one given by PGW—is demonstrably false.

135.

For example, with respect to the position last held by Mr. Csukas—

Manager of Value Focus for Enterprise Excellence & Quality—PGW claimed that the job had

4501195

25

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 26 of 35

been eliminated. In reality, PGW moved a younger employee, Mark Soderberg into the

position, which it had renamed “Manager of Enterprise Excellence” in an attempt to conceal

the falsity of its statements to Mr. Csukas at his termination session. However, the job duties

for the two positions are identical.

136.

A similar bait-and-switch occurred with respect to the work that had

previously been performed by Mr. Thompson. After his termination, Mr. Thompson learned

that the day he was let go Ed Watson, the man who had replaced him as Final Supervisor

(before Mr. Thompson was moved into the storeroom position that had purportedly been

“eliminated” when it was held by Ms. Ligda) had also been terminated. Instead of moving

Mr. Thompson back to his prior position, PGW replaced Mr. Watson with another employee,

Chuck Weleski, who had been transferred from his position as CVS Supervisor. Weleski’s

prior position of CVS Supervisor was filled by Bob Pinchock, who was simultaneously given

responsibilities for the storeroom functions that were previously being managed by Ms. Ligda

and then Mr. Thompson. Upon information and belief, Mr. Pinchock, similar to Ms. Ligda

and Mr. Thompson before him, has since been terminated. That position is now filled by Bill

Sickenberger. Thus, the revolving door from the storeroom to unemployment continues to

turn at PGW.

137.

Likewise, the critical job functions being performed by Mr. Karlo with

respect to managing the mold shop bending rolls are still being performed. In fact, after

terminating Mr. Karlo, while retaining younger employees to whom PGW hoped to transition

his work, PGW came to realize that it had lost a valuable and experienced employee.

Thereafter, PGW re-hired Mr. Karlo as a contract employee through an agency in order to

avail itself of the knowledge and experience it had been so quick to toss away. However,

4501195

26

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 27 of 35

when Mr. Karlo refused to withdraw his charge of discrimination against PGW, the defendant

summarily dismissed him again after the EEOC closed its investigation and notified Mr.

Karlo of his right to proceed with his claims before this Court.

138.

Similarly, Mr. McLure was later retained as a contract employee after

PGW discovered that it could not make do with the younger employees it elected to retain in

the RIF. Like Mr. Karlo, Mr. McLure was again terminated by PGW after the EEOC close its

investigation and notified him of his right to sue.

139.

Mr. Meixelsberger was also called back to PGW service when the

employees retained in his stead were unable to perform his job functions satisfactorily.

Fortunately, Mr. Meixelsberger was able to retain alternative employment, so PGW was not

given the opportunity to retaliate against him further for his participation in this lawsuit.

140.

PGW’s own documents support a conclusion that an unlawful age bias is at

play in its RIF decisions. The decisional unit information, complete versions of which were

not provided to any of the Representative Plaintiffs with their respective Separation

Agreement and Release documents, reveal that the RIF had a more deleterious impact on the

older members of the PGW workforce, affecting them in far greater numbers than would be

likely to occur in the absence of some unlawful bias.

PGW’s Invalid and Unenforceable Waiver Agreements

141.

The Representative Plaintiffs anticipate that PGW will attempt to shield its

unlawful conduct from this Court’s scrutiny by arguing that the Plaintiffs have waived their

ADEA claims by signing Separation Agreements.

4501195

27

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 28 of 35

142.

PGW has already invoked these agreements, which do not contain valid or

enforceable ADEA waivers, to dissuade the EEOC investigation from conducting a thorough

or complete investigation, in direct contravention of the OWBPA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(4).

143.

As the Representative Plaintiffs have already explained to the EEOC, the

Separation Agreements fail to comply with the OWBPA in a number of respects. See

Plaintiffs’ May 27, 2010, Letter to EEOC, attached as Exhibit C, which is incorporated by

reference as though fully set forth herein.

144.

Principally, the Separation Agreements failed to provide the Representative

Plaintiffs with complete decisional unit information for the group termination program

conducted in the RIF, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(H). Mr. Thompson was not

provided any such information, despite the fact that he was terminated at the same time as

more than 100 other PGW employees, including the Representative Plaintiffs. The other

Representative Plaintiffs were given only half of the requisite information, as the decisional

unit information that PGW purported to provide to them was missing every other page. Thus,

the waivers in the Separation Agreements are wholly invalid and entirely unenforceable as to

the Plaintiffs’ ADEA claims.

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 145. The Representative Plaintiffs bring this action as a collective action under the ADEA pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (“FLSA”). 146. The Representative Plaintiffs have instituted claims for disparate treatment and disparate impact pursuant to ADEA arising out of the previously described systemic practices engaged in by PGW to discriminate against its older work force in conducting RIFs.

4501195

28

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 29 of 35
147. Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, the Representative Plaintiffs bring this ADEA claim on behalf of themselves and all former salaried employees of PGW whose employment with PGW within the United States was terminated by PGW and who were at least 50 years of age at the time of such termination (the “ADEA Class Members”).
148. The Representative Plaintiffs and the ADEA Class Members are similarly situated in that they have been the victims of the challenged policies, practices and procedures through which PGW has violated the ADEA.
149. Under Section 216(b), ADEA Class Members must specifically opt-in to this collective action in order to be benefited or bound by the outcome. Thus, this Court need not make any inquiries beyond whether the Representative Plaintiffs and the ADEA Class Members are similarly situated.
COUNT I Disparate Treatment Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq 150. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 149 above as if fully set forth herein. 151. Because the Representative Plaintiffs ranged in age from 51 to 58 years-old at the time of their terminations, the Representative Plaintiffs are all members of a class of individuals protected under the ADEA. 152. Each of the Representative Plaintiffs was well-qualified for his position with PGW and had a demonstrated and well-established record of success with the company prior to termination.

4501195

29

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 30 of 35
153. Each of the Representative Plaintiffs suffered an adverse employment action when his employment was terminated by PGW, while other, substantially younger employees were treated more favorably—either because they were retained by PGW, were permitted to transfer to positions at PPG in order to continue in employment, or were hired to replace the older workers terminated in the RIF.
154. Thus, each of the Representative Plaintiffs’ termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference that PGW terminated them because of their age, in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.
155. To date, PPG has not offered any explanation for its decision to terminate the Representative Plaintiffs and other older workers in the March 2009 RIF, other than to state that their positions had been eliminated. However, the job duties being performed by each of the Representative Plaintiffs were critical to the ongoing operations of PGW. Therefore, while their job titles may have been “eliminated,” their job functions certainly were not. Thus, this stated explanation for the terminations of the Representative Plaintiffs was merely a pretext designed to disguise PGW’s true motive—the elimination of older workers.
156. PGW has similarly discriminated against all ADEA Class Members in the terms and conditions of employment, on the basis of their age, in violation of ADEA.
157. As a consequence of the unlawful policy, pattern and practice, and unlawful conduct of PGW as described herein, Representative Plaintiffs and ADEA Class Members have suffered damages in the form of lost compensation and seek front-pay and back pay, attorneys’ fees and costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, lost pension benefits, liquidated damages, and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

4501195

30

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 31 of 35
COUNT II Disparate Impact Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. 158. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 157 above as if fully set forth herein. 159. The Representative Plaintiffs are members of a protected class under the ADEA. 160. Each of the Representative Plaintiffs suffered an adverse employment action when his employment was terminated by PGW in a RIF, while younger employees were treated more favorably. 161. Upon information and belief, in identifying the Representative Plaintiffs and other PGW employees for termination in the RIF, PGW utilized selection criteria that appear neutral on their face, but which, based on the outcome of the selection process, clearly had an adverse impact on older workers. 162. Moreover, PGW utilized subjective and standard-less evaluation practices in a secretive and inherently unfair, unreliable and invalid RIF ranking process which were applied unchecked by any established ADEA compliance policies or training programs, and failed to properly credit the employees’ historical performance and length of tenure with the company. 163. The group termination information which should have been provided to each of the Representative Plaintiffs at the time of his termination—but which, as discussed above, was incomplete, thereby invalidating any waiver—will demonstrate that the selection process had a demonstrably significant impact upon older workers during the RIF.

4501195

31

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 32 of 35
164. Plaintiffs plead that their terminations were the direct result of the application of one or more facially neutral policies that had a disparate impact on older workers.
165. As a consequence of PGW’s unlawful an secretive use of policies or selection criteria that have a disproportionate effect on older workers, the Representative Plaintiffs— and other ADEA Class Members—have suffered damages in the form of lost compensation and, therefore, seek front-pay and back pay, attorneys’ fees and costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, lost pension benefits, liquidated damages, and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT III (Plaintiffs Karlo and McLure v. PGW)
Retaliation Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) 166. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 165 above as if fully set forth herein. 167. As described above, in January 2010, the Representative Plaintiffs filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC, complaining of and opposing employment practices at PGW as violations of the ADEA. As such, they were engaging in activity that is protected under the ADEA 168. While those charges were pending, Plaintiffs Karlo and McLure were then working for PGW, albeit as employees of a subcontractor, rather than for PGW directly. 169. PGW was well aware during this time that Messrs. Karlo and McLure, along with the other five Representative Plaintiffs, had initiated an EEOC investigation into their charges of discrimination.

4501195

32

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 33 of 35
170. Apparently emboldened by the EEOC’s decision to dismiss those charges without further investigation, based on PGW’s assertion of its invalid release agreements as an obstacle to any resolution of the claims, shortly after the EEOC Notices of Dismissal and Rights, attached as Exhibit B, were issued, PGW caused Plaintiffs Karlo and McLure to be terminated from their contract positions.
171. Specifically, Plaintiff Karlo was told, prior to his termination, that he would be considered for a full-time position directly with PGW if he would “make the whole thing go away.”
172. The timing of these second terminations by PGW, coming as they do on the heels of the EEOC’s decision not to pursue the matter further, but before the filing of this Complaint, supports not only a finding of a direct nexus between these Plaintiffs’ protected activity and the adverse employment action, but also the conclusion that PGW hoped to discourage the Representative Plaintiffs from filing this lawsuit.
173. PGW has discriminated against Plaintiffs Karlo and McLure because they have opposed PGW’s unlawful and discriminatory conduct, because they filed charges with the EEOC, and because PGW anticipated that they would further pursue their claims by filing this Complaint.
174. As a consequence of PGW’s unlawful retaliation against Plaintiffs Karlo and McLure for the exercise of their rights under the ADEA, Plaintiffs Karlo and McClure have suffered damages in the form of lost compensation and, therefore, seek front-pay and back pay, attorneys’ fees and costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, lost pension benefits, liquidated damages, emotional distress, punitive damages, and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate

4501195

33

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 34 of 35
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Representative Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and prospective
members of this collective action, pray that this Court:
a. Enter a judgment declaring this action to be a collective action properly maintained pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b), that the Representative Plaintiffs be designated as representatives of the ADEA Class, and that their counsel of record be designated as ADEA Class Counsel;
b. Enter a judgment declaring that PGW’s patterns, practices and omissions, as above-described, in terminating the employment of ADEA Class Members of the collective action who were 50 years of age or older at the time of their termination or forced retirement violates ADEA;
c. Enter a judgment declaring that PGW’s extraction of purported releases in connection with the terminations of ADEA Class Members of the collective action are non-compliant with the requirements of OWBPA and controlling authority, and are invalid and unenforceable;
d. Issue a permanent prohibitory injunction ordering PGW and its officers, agents, employees and successors to cease and desist from the unfair discriminatory employment patterns, practices, policies and omissions complained of herein, which result in the termination of employees fifty-years of age or older;
e. Issue a permanent mandatory injunction requiring PGW to take such affirmative action as will effectuate the purposes of ADEA, including adopting employment practices in accord with ADEA’s requirements;
f. Enter a judgment and award in favor of the Representative Plaintiffs and the ADEA Class Members, and against PGW for reasonable monetary damages, including back pay (plus interest or an appropriate inflation factor and an enhancement to offset any adverse tax consequences associated with lump sum receipt of back pay), front pay, benefits and all other damages owed to the Representative Plaintiffs and the ADEA Class Members, in an amount proven at trial, resulting from PPG’s unlawful and discriminatory acts or omissions, including unlawful retaliation for opposing such practices;
g. Enter a judgment and award in favor of each of the Representative Plaintiffs and each ADEA Class Member for the maximum statutory amount of liquidated damages available under ADEA;

4501195

34

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 1 Filed 09/29/10 Page 35 of 35

h. Enter a judgment and award in favor of the Representative Plaintiffs and the ADEA Class for costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees, experts’ fees, and other costs and expenses of this litigation;
i. Enter a judgment and award in favor of the Representative Plaintiffs and the ADEA Class for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
j. Award such other and further legal and equitable relief as may be found appropriate and as this Court may deem just and proper; and
k. Retain jurisdiction over this action until such time as it is satisfied that PGW has remedied the practices complained of and is determined to be in full compliance with the law.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE

Respectf

ully submitted,

OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP

Date: September 29, 2010

s/Bruce C. Fox_____________________ Bruce C. Fox, Esquire Pa. I.D. No. 42576 bruce.fox@obermayer.com Melissa L. Evans, Esquire Pa. I.D. No. 85978 melissa.evans@obermayer.com BNY Mellon Center, Suite 5240 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 566-1500 Fax: (412) 566-1508

Counsel for Plaintiffs, Rudolph A. Karlo, Mark K. McLure, William S. Cunningham, Jeffrey Marietti, David Meixelsberger, Benjamin D. Thompson and Richard Csukas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

4501195

35

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

RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON, and RICHARD CSUKAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 10-1283 ) Judge Nora Barry Fischer ) ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Defendant’s “Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).” (Docket No. 186). The motion has been fully briefed by both

parties, (see Docket Nos. 187, 195, 198, 201), and is therefore ripe for disposition. Upon

consideration of the Defendant’s Motion (Docket No. 186), the motion [186] is DENIED,

without prejudice to the Defendants renewing their arguments after the Court has ruled upon

decertification.

I. Introduction

The pending motion arises in the wake of the Court’s opinion and order granting

conditional certification of the Plaintiffs’ collective action for putative age discrimination class

comprised of members of 50 years of age and older. (Docket Nos. 179, 180). As the parties are

aware of the facts, the Court declines to restate them here. The Court’s opinion raised three

issues for which the Defendant seeks leave to appeal under § 1292(b):

1

(1) whether sub-grouping is permitted in disparate impact claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”);
(2) whether courts should apply Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to each stage of the collective action certification process and require at the condition[al] certification stage a modest factual showing that Plaintiffs and the proposed class are similarly situated without reliance on the alleged “corporate culture” at the defendant corporation; and
(3) whether the “modest factual showing” required for conditional certification includes a modest showing that the proposed class members can present a claim for disparate impact.
(Docket No. 187 at 1). The Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
II. Legal Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) allows for certification of a question for interlocutory appeal if the
order at issue “(1) involve[s] a ‘controlling question of law,’ (2) offer[s] ‘substantial ground for
difference of opinion’ as to its correctness, and (3) if appealed immediately ‘materially
advance[s] the ultimate termination of the litigation.’” Katz v. Carte Blanch Corp., 496 F.2d
747, 754 (3d Cir. 1973) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)). Even if the moving party satisfies the
statutory criteria, the district court “possesses discretion to deny certification of an appeal.” In re
Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., 607 F. Supp. 2d 701, 708 (M.D. Pa. 2009). However,
such discretion should not be exercised when “certification will materially advance the instant
matter and bring clarity to a still-developing area of law.” Id.
In determining whether an order presents a controlling question of law, the Court must
look to whether (1) an incorrect disposition would constitute reversible error if presented on final
appeal or (2) if the question is “serious to the conduct of the litigation either practically or
legally.” Katz, 496 F.2d at 755. The clearest evidence of “substantial grounds for difference of
opinion” is where “there are conflicting interpretations from numerous courts.” Beazer E., Inc.
v. The Mead Corp., No. 91-408, 2006 WL 2927627, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2006) (Diamond,
J.). And, in terms of determining whether appeal would materially advance the ultimate
2

termination of litigation, courts look to “(1) whether the need for trial would be eliminated; (2) whether the trial would be simplified by the elimination of complex issues; and (3) whether discovery could be conducted more expeditiously and at less expense to the parties.” Patrick v. Dell Fin. Servs., 366 B.R. 378, 387 (M.D. Pa. 2007).
III. Analysis1 Because of the procedural posture of this case, the Court concludes that the requirements for interlocutory appeal are not met at this time. The Court finds that not all of the necessary elements are present and, even if they were, the Court would exercise its discretion not to certify until after a final determination on certification. The Court notes preliminarily that, with respect to all questions raised by the Defendant, the Court’s opinion is merely conditional. The Court has ruled only that Plaintiffs are entitled to provide notice and take discovery as to the putative class. It has not made a final ruling on certification, and will not do so until discovery is complete with respect to the putative class. While the Court understands that discovery may result in some expense, the Court is also not persuaded to grant interlocutory appeal merely because discovery may be expensive. To this end, the Court finds instructive the decision in Craig v. Rite Aid Corporation, Civ. No. 08-2317, 2010 WL 1994888 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2010), and would refer Defendants to that opinion. The defendants’ arguments in that case were similar to those put forth here, and the procedural posture was virtually identical. For example, the Court there had granted conditional certification, id. at *1, just as this Court has done.
1 The Court does not summarize the parties’ arguments in detail because they are simply summarized: Defendant argues that each question for which it seeks certification satisfies the interlocutory standard, and Plaintiff argues they do not. The Court has considered all arguments, but does not regurgitate them for the sake of judicial economy.
3

The defendants in Craig likewise argued that the Third Circuit needed to “determine the
appropriate quantum and type of evidence to consider in evaluating the propriety of conditional
certification and the extent to which a district court should consider the manageability of the
proposed collective action.” Id. at *2. This argument mirrors the instant Defendant’s arguments
here that dispute the Court’s analysis of Dukes2 and its modest factual showing determination.3
If both of these disputes remain after final certification, the Court will reconsider interlocutory
appeal at that time, but finds such a motion premature at this stage. The Craig defendants also
2 The Dukes case addressed Rule 23 class actions. See Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2547 (“We consider whether the certification of the plaintiff class was consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).”). This case, on the other hand, was decided under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), as incorporated into the ADEA via 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). The Court would note that, while the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not directly addressed the issue of whether Rule 23 and collective action cases are governed by similar standards, at least one other Circuit Court has. See Grayson v. K Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086, 1096 n. 12 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[I]t is clear that the requirements for pursuing a § 216(b) class action are independent of, and unrelated to, the requirements for class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”). Even so, this Court did not flatly refuse to apply Dukes, as Defendant’s question on certification would indicate. Instead, the Court noted that, “even if Wal-Mart was applicable, it would not lead this Court to conclude that conditional certification should be denied.” (Docket No. 179 at 27 n. 13) (emphasis in original). Thus, what the Defendant here is actually challenging is this Court’s application of the Dukes standard to the facts before it.
3 With respect to this determination, Defendant asserts that this Court “altered the Third Circuit standard from a modest showing that the proposed class of plaintiffs were similarly situated as a result of a single policy or plan ‘infected’ by discrimination, to just a ‘single policy or plan.’” (Docket No. 187 at 12-13). To the contrary, the Court merely held that it would not allow Defendant to skirt the conditional certification process by introducing statistical evidence when the Plaintiffs had not done so, nor were they so required. Instead, the Court considered all of the evidence and determined that the class could move forward. That evidence that the Court cited included, inter alia, the fact that there was a single, company-wide RIF, that all named and proposed plaintiffs were over 50 years of age at termination, the affirmative refusal to provide at least one of those plaintiffs the commonly-granted opportunity to apply for alternative positions, evidence that “adaptability” was considered, and the lack of documentation about the RIF. (See id. at 24-25). Additional evidence that the Court did not expressly rely on in that portion of the opinion include the multiple affidavits filed by named and proposed plaintiffs. (See Docket Nos. 88-8 (affidavits of named Plaintiffs Csukas, Cunningham, Karlo, Marietti, McLure, Meixelsberger and Thompson); 88-9 (affidavits of potential opt-in Plaintiffs Clawson, Shaw and Voeltzel)).
4

raised the specter of discovery costs, Craig, 2010 WL 1994888 at *2, just as Defendant does here. (See Docket No. 187 at 14).
The only novel issue in this case when compared to Craig is the sub-group holding. The Court notes that this holding may have no bearing at the next stage of certification. Depending upon what evidence is uncovered during discovery, the sub-group claim may expand to encompass all members of the over-40 class, or it may be that the class dissolves completely. With such uncertainty remaining, even the Court’s sub-group holding cannot be qualified as a “controlling question of law” at the conditional certification stage.
With the foregoing in mind, the Court closes with a particularly relevant passage from Craig:
We remind Defendants that their concerns about the propriety of this proposed class can be addressed at the final certification stage, after the potential Plaintiffs have been given an opportunity to opt-in to the action and after discovery has been completed. We recognize that discovery may be somewhat costly… [but that factor does not] trump our legal analysis in any event.” Craig, 2010 WL 1994888 at *3. IV. Conclusion With the foregoing in mind, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion [186] is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal after the Court’s final determination on collective action certification.

Dated: July 20, 2012

s/Nora Barry Fischer Nora Barry Fischer United States District Judge

cc/ecf: All counsel of record.

5

 </s> Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 9 Filed 11/29/10 Page 1 of 3

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

RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K.,

)

MCLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, )

JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID

)

MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D.

)

THOMPSON and RICHARD CSUKAS,

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01283 Honorable Nora Barry Fischer
ELECTRONIC FILING

DEFENDANT PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT III OF THE COMPLAINT

For the reasons stated more fully in its Me morandum in Support of it s concurrently filed

Motion to Dism iss Count III of the Com plaint, a copy of which is incorporated herein by

reference, Defendant Pittsbu rgh Glass W orks, LLC (“P GW”), by and through its attorneys

COHEN & GRIGSBY, P.C., hereby m oves to dism iss with prejudice Count III of Plaintiffs’

Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. As articulated in the Memorandum, Count III fails to s tate a claim

for retaliation under the Age Discrim ination in Em ployment Act becau se Plaintiffs Karlo an d

McLure were not employees of PGW at the time of the alleged retaliation. Count III also fails to

state a claim because Karlo and McLure did not allege retaliatory conduct.

WHEREFORE, PGW respectfully requests that the Court grant th is Motion to Dis miss

and grant PGW such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 9 Filed 11/29/10 Page 2 of 3
Respectfully submitted, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC By: /s/ Robert B. Cottington
One of its Attorneys Robert B. Cottington PA51164 rcottington@cohenlaw.com Nancy L. Heilman PA51121 nheilman@cohenlaw.com COHEN & GRIGSBY, P.C. 625 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3152 (412) 297-4677 (Telephone) (412) 209-1906 (Direct Fax) Counsel for Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC Dated: November 29, 2010
- 2 -

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 9 Filed 11/29/10 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss Count III of the Complaint has been served upon counsel of record by the Court’s ECF system, this 29th day of November, 2010, addressed as follows:
Bruce C. Fox, Esq. bruce.fox@obermayer.com
Melissa L. Evans, Esq. melissa.evans@obermayer.com
/s/ David S. Becker

 </s> Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 24 Filed 12/22/10 Page 1 of 2

FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. McLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON and RICHARD CSUKAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,
Defendant.

) ) Civil Action No. 10-1283 ) ) ) ) ) Honorable Nora Barry Fischer ) ) ) ) ELECTRONICALLY FILED ) ) )

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM [DOC. 8]

The above-named Plaintiffs move, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss

Defendant PGW’s Counterclaim, stating as follows:

1. In its Counterclaim, PGW alleges that, by filing the above-captioned lawsuit,

Plaintiffs have breached certain Separation Agreements and Releases (the “Releases”), which

they were compelled to execute at the time of their wrongful termination from employment by

PPG.

2. As discussed more fully in Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of this Motion, which is

incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein, PGW’s Releases are invalid and

unenforceable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et

seq., including the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 626(f),

controlling regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”), 29 C.F.R. § 1625, and case-law.

3. Because PGW’s Releases are invalid and unenforceable, they cannot form the

basis for PGW’s Counterclaim for breach of contract.

4523080

1

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 24 Filed 12/22/10 Page 2 of 2

4. PGW’s Counterclaim for unjust enrichment is similarly doomed, as the claim

cannot be asserted where a contract exists. As discussed in Plaintiffs’ Brief, the invalidity and

unenforceability of the ADEA waiver in the PGW Releases does not operate to void the entire

agreement, and thus the remaining contractual obligations between the parties remain, thereby

barring PGW’s quasi-contract claim.

5. Moreover, the EEOC regulations prohibit PGW from counterclaiming for any

monies paid to secure the invalid releases. At most, PGW could only seek a set-off for those

amounts against any award of damages received by the Plaintiffs on their ADEA claims, which

amount cannot exceed the actual award, and which decision is solely within the sound discretion

of the trial court. See 29 C.F.R. § 1625.23(c).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that this Court dismiss with

prejudice PGW’s Counterclaim. For the convenience of the Court, a Proposed Order is attached

hereto.

Respectfully submitted,

OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP

Date: December 22, 2010
Pittsbu (412) Fax:

s/Melissa L. Evans_______________________________ Bruce C. Fox, Esq. Pa. ID. No. 42576 bruce.fox@obermayer.com Melissa L. Evans, Esq. Pa. ID. No. 85978 melissa.evans@obermayer.com BNY Mellon Center, Suite 5240 500 Grant Street
rgh, PA 15219 566-1500
(412) 566-1508

Counsel for Plaintiffs

4523080

2

 </s> Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 59 Filed 03/01/11 Page 1 of 3

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

RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K.,

)

MCLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, )

JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID

)

MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D.

)

THOMPSON and RICHARD CSUKAS,

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01283 Honorable Nora Barry Fischer
ELECTRONIC FILING

DEFENDANT PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT III OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

For the reasons stated more fully in its Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Count III of the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complain t, a co py of which is in corporated herein by reference, Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC (“ PGW”), by and through its attorn eys, FREEBORN & PETERS, LLP and COHEN & GRIGSBY, P.C., hereby moves to dismiss with prejudice Count III of Plaintiffs’ First Am ended Collective Action Com plaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief m ay be granted. As articulated in the Memorandum, Count III fails to state a cl aim for retaliation under the Age Discrim ination in Employment Act because Plaintiffs Karlo a nd McLure were not employees of PGW at the time of the alleged retaliation and they have fa iled to allege and conduct that interfered with either plaintiffs’ employment relationship at the relevant time.

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 59 Filed 03/01/11 Page 2 of 3
WHEREFORE, PGW respectfully requests that the Court grant th is Motion to Dis miss and grant PGW such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC By: /s/ David S. Becker
One of its Attorneys
Jeffrey J. Mayer jmayer@freebornpeters.com Jennifer L. Fitzgerald jfitzgerald@freebornpeters.com IL6229243 David S. Becker IL6271932 dbecker@freebornpeters.com Freeborn & Peters LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 360-6000 Robert B. Cottington PA51164 rcottington@cohenlaw.com COHEN & GRIGSBY, P.C. 625 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3152 (412) 297-4677 (Telephone) (412) 209-1906 (Direct Fax) Counsel for Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC Dated: March 1, 2010
- 2 -

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 59 Filed 03/01/11 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint has been served upon counsel of record by the Court’s ECF system, this 1st day of March, 2011, addressed as follows:
Bruce C. Fox, Esq. bruce.fox@obermayer.com
Melissa L. Evans, Esq. melissa.evans@obermayer.com
/s/ David S. Becker

 </s> Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 29

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

RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON, and RICHARD CSUKAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 10-1283 ) Judge Nora Barry Fischer ) ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is the “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Class Certification

and Court Facilitated Notice” (“the motion”). (Docket No. 88). The motion is ripe for

adjudication. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification (Docket

No. 88) is GRANTED, in part, in accord with the following.

I. Introduction

This action is brought by named Plaintiffs Richard Csukas, Jeffrey Marietti, Mark K.

McLure, Benjamin D. Thompson, Rudolph A. Karlo, David Meixelsberger and William S.

Cunningham (“Plaintiffs”) and against Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC (“PGW” or “Defendant”).

The Plaintiffs’ claims arise from a March 2009 reduction in force (“RIF”). (Docket No. 54 at ¶

103). This RIF resulted in the termination of each of the named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim that

the RIF was conducted in a manner giving rise to an inference of age discrimination.

Their Amended Complaint (Docket No. 54) raises three counts. Count I claims disparate

treatment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.

1

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 2 of 29
(Id. at 36-37). Count II alleges disparate impact. (Id. at 38-39). Finally, Count III claims retaliation under the ADEA. (Id. at 39-41).
a. The Parties PGW is a limited liability corporation whose business was owned by PPG Industries, Inc. (“PPG”) until late 2008. (Docket No. 54 at ¶ 8; Docket No. 73 at ¶ 8). PGW admits that, since its formation, it has been an “employer” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 623. (Docket No. 73 at ¶ 9). Each of the plaintiffs is over fifty years old. (Docket No. 54 at ¶¶ 1-7; Docket No. 73 at ¶¶ 1-7). They claim that they are all former employees of PGW and that they were previously long-time PPG employees. (Id. at ¶ 10). PGW responds that all of the plaintiffs were employees at certain times, but at other times, several of the plaintiffs were employed by another company and worked with PGW through a contract with that company. (Docket No. 73 at ¶ 10). The Plaintiffs have all filed charges of employment discrimination based on age against PGW with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and alleged more than 60 days have elapsed without the Plaintiffs receiving a Dismissal or Notice of Rights. (Docket No. 54 at ¶¶ 17-18) Karlo began working for PPG on October 9, 1978. (Id. at ¶ 24). McLure began working at PPG in 1974. (Id. at ¶32). Cunningham began his career with PPG in April 1996. (Id. at ¶ 41). Marietti was hired in 1984. (Id. at ¶ 47). Meixelsberger was hired in 1987. (Id. at ¶ 54). Thompson was brought in as a part-time employee in 1971, his position was terminated in 1972, and he was rehired on a permanent basis in 1972. (Id. at ¶¶ 60-61). Csukas started with PPG in 1973. (Id. at ¶ 76).
b. The Formation of PGW PGW was formed on October 1, 2008, when the auto glass businesses of PPG Industries, Inc. were spun off to create a new company. (Docket No. 104-1 at ¶ 3). One of PGW’s core
2

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 3 of 29
businesses is the production of automotive glass, such as windshields, rear windows and side windows to car manufacturers as an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”). (Id. at ¶ 5).
Around the time PGW was formed, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler appeared before Congress to request bailout funds. (Docket No. 104-2). Due to the downturn in the economy, PGW took drastic steps to “combat rapidly deteriorating sales”, including the closure of two Canadian facilities and one Michigan facility. (Docket No. 106 at 4; see generally Docket No. 104-3). Between 2008 and 2009, North American vehicle production took a precipitous dive. (Docket No. 104-4 at 1 (stating that car sales in 2009 would be “an eighteen (18) year low”)). Several of the named plaintiffs acknowledge the downturn in the economy. (See Docket No. 106 at 6 (citing depositions of Plaintiffs Csukas, Cunningham, McLure and Meixelsberger)). PGW maintains that the economic downturn led to an initial RIF in late 2008. (Docket No. 104-3 at 2).
c. The March 2009 RIF Tony Hartmann, PGW’s Vice President of Human Resources, departed from the company in late 2008. (Docket No. 106 at 7). Kevin Cooney was brought in to replace him on an interim basis. (Id.). Cooney worked on a reorganization plan in which each business unit director in the company identified the work that needed to be done and the personnel that were necessary to perform that work. (Id. (citing Docket No. 104-12 at 47)). The First Amended Complaint alleges that all of the Representative Plaintiffs were terminated over a two-day period in March 2009. (Docket No. 54 at ¶ 103). Mr. Csukas was terminated by Dave King, a PGW supervisor at the Evansville, Indiana facility. (Id. at ¶¶ 104107; Docket No. 73 at ¶¶ 104-107 (admitting that Mr. Csukas was terminated)). On March 31, 2009, Mr. Thompson was informed of his termination by the Creighton Plant Manager, Craig Barnett, and Human Resources Manager, Myrtle Smith. (Docket No. 54 at ¶ 111; 73 at ¶ 111
3

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 4 of 29
(admitting termination and presence of Mr. Barnett and Ms. Smith)). Also on that date, the remainder of the named Plaintiffs – Messrs. Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Marietti and Meixelsberger – were terminated by Gary Cannon, Director of Manufacturing at the Harmarville, Pennsylvania facility. (Docket No. 54 at ¶¶ 120-121; 73 at ¶¶ 120-121).
A total of 105 salaried employees were terminated in the 2009 RIF. (Docket No. 106 at 6). In performing the RIF, upper management relied upon the individual directors of each unit to determine which employees must be retained and which might be terminated. (Id. at 7; Docket No. 104-12 at 47, 71-72). The criteria used in the RIF revolved around the work that was done in each unit, and the “[e]ducation, background, breadth of experience, and so forth.” (Docket No. 104-12 at 72).
d. Procedural History Plaintiffs’ motion was filed on October 3, 2011. (Docket No. 88). The parties’ initial briefs on the motion are filed at Docket Numbers 91, 106, 113 and 126. On November 10, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment concurrently with its response to the present motion. (See Docket No. 101). Defendant’s Appendix (Docket No. 104) is referenced both in the motion for summary judgment and in its filings pertaining to the currently-pending motion. On December 19, 2011, the Court convened a motion hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification, at which time the Court heard argument and then ordered the parties to file additional briefing on the issue of the Court’s consideration of expert testimony at the conditional certification stage. (Docket Nos. 131-132). The parties then filed their supplemental briefs on January 4, 2012. (Docket Nos. 135, 136). Shortly thereafter, on January 13, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the Court’s consideration of the pending motion while the parties participated in mediation. (Docket No.
4

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 5 of 29
141). This motion was granted on January 17, 2012. (Docket No. 145). On February 3, 2012, the Court received a report from the mediator indicating that the case had not settled. (Docket No. 149). The parties then filed additional supplemental citations to authority. (Docket Nos. 154, 158). The Court held a second motion hearing on March 9, 2012 (Docket No. 161) and received the transcript of that hearing on April 23, 2012. (Docket No. 176).1
II. Legal Standard Through the pending motion, Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of their collective ADEA claim and court-facilitated notice of same. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), which is incorporated into the ADEA via Section 7(b) of that Act, potential plaintiffs must opt in to a collective action suit and affirmatively notify the court of their intentions to join the suit. Sperling v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc., 862 F.2d 439, 444 (3d Cir. 1988) (“Sperling II”), aff’d Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170 (1989) (“Sperling”). It is not sufficient simply to “opt-in” to a collective action under § 216(b). The representative plaintiffs must also show that the potential plaintiffs are “similarly situated” to the representative plaintiffs. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); Sperling II, 862 F.2d at 444. Courts typically follow a two-tiered analysis in determining whether a case may move forward as a collective action. The first phase, or “notice” phase, requires that a court “make[] a preliminary determination whether the employees enumerated in the complaint can be provisionally categorized as similarly situated to the named plaintiff.” Symczyk v. Genesis HealthCare Corp., 656 F.3d 189, 192 (3d Cir. 2011). If the plaintiff carries this burden, the
1 Between the March 9, 2012 hearing and the issuance of the transcript, the Court received Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Supplement (Docket No. 164) and Motion to Withdraw (Docket No. 169). The Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority was renewed (Docket No. 172) and subsequently denied. (Docket No. 178). The Court has not considered the supplemental authority – an Arbitrator’s Order and Opinion from another case involving Defendant – in deciding the present motion.
5

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 6 of 29
collective action is “conditionally certified” for purposes of notice and discovery. Id. The second phase is addressed after all putative class members have had an opportunity to opt in and further discovery has taken place. Mueller v. CBS, Inc., 201 F.R.D. 425, 428 (W.D.Pa. 2001) (Ambrose, J.). At this stage, the court “reconsiders the class certification question using a ‘similarly situated’ standard, that is, by conducting a fact-specific review of each class member who has opted-in, taking into account factors such as employment setting, termination procedures, defenses asserted against various plaintiffs, and other procedural issues.” Id.
Until recently, there was a split amongst the district courts within the Third Circuit as to the necessary showing at the notice stage. See Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 192. Some required nothing more than a “substantial allegation,” while others required the plaintiff to make a “modest factual showing” to support his claim that the proposed plaintiffs are similarly situated. Id. The Court of Appeals has spoken on this issue in an FLSA case, rejecting the “substantial allegation” standard and adopting the “modest factual showing” standard. Id. at 192-93. Even so, the standard is not particularly high: “a plaintiff must produce some evidence, ‘beyond mere speculation,’ of a factual nexus between the manner in which the employer’s alleged policy affected her and the manner in which it affected the other employees.” Id. at 193 (citing Smith v. Sovereign Bancorp., Inc., No. 03-2420, 2003 WL 22701017, at *3 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 13, 2003)).
Applying the “modest factual showing” standard, a moving plaintiff must demonstrate “a sufficient factual basis on which a reasonable inference could be made that defendant[] orchestrated or implemented a single decision, policy or plan to discriminate against their … employees on the basis of age.” Mueller, 201 F.R.D. at 429 (quoting Brooks v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 164 F.R.D. 561, 567 (N.D.Ala. 1995)). The Court need not make a conclusive finding of “similar situations” at the notice stage. Id.
6

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 7 of 29
III. Discussion Plaintiffs define their proposed collective class as all “employees who were, at any time from on or about March 31, 2009: a) 50 years of age or older; b) Who was employed by PGW; c) A member of the salaried workforce; and d) Terminated from employment with PGW by the RIF implemented on March 31, 2009.”2 (Docket No. 88 at 1; see also Docket No. 54 at ¶ 181). The Court is called upon to determine whether Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing to conditionally certify this collective class. In making this determination, the Court will address several threshold issues before turning to the ultimate question of conditional certification.
a. The ADEA Protects Individuals Who Are Forty Years Old and Older The ADEA protects against discrimination those who are forty years old and older. See 29 U.S.C. § 631 (defining the protected class as “limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age.”). Plaintiffs have attempted to define their class as a subgroup of this class: they seek to certify a collective action on behalf of those who are fifty years of age or older. (See Docket No. 88 at 1). Defendant challenges this effort to “slice and dice” the class. (Docket No. 135 at 1). Throughout its briefing, Defendant refers this Court to a series of cases in contending that courts have consistently rejected efforts akin to Plaintiffs’ request to certify a subgroup under the ADEA. See EEOC v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 191 F.3d 948, 950-51 (8th Cir. 1999); Lowe v. Commack Union Free School Dist., 886 F.2d 1364, 1373 (2d Cir. 1989); Smith v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 924 F.2d 1059, *4 (6th Cir. 1991); Myers v. Del. County Comm. College, 2007 WL 1322239, at *10, n.1 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 9, 2007); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 2011 WL 109144, at *4
2 Although Plaintiff Csukas was terminated the day before, it appears that those employees terminated on March 30, 2009 were terminated as part of the same RIF, with the implication being that they, too, were subject to the same policy.
7

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 8 of 29
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2011); Kinnally v. Rogers Corp., 2009 WL 597211, at *10 (D. Ariz. Mar. 9,
2009). As the Eighth Circuit recognized:
We believe that there are stronger reasons for refusing to recognize such claims. For one thing, if such claims [for discrimination against subgroups] were cognizable under the statute, a plaintiff could bring a disparate-impact claim despite the fact that the statistical evidence indicated that an employer's RIF criteria had a very favorable impact upon the entire protected group of employees aged 40 and older, compared to those employees outside the protected group. We do not believe that Congress could have intended such a result.
We agree, moreover, with the district court that if disparate-impact claims on behalf of subgroups were cognizable under the ADEA, the consequence would be to require an employer engaging in a RIF to attempt what might well be impossible: to achieve statistical parity among the virtually infinite number of age subgroups in its work force. Adoption of such a theory, moreover, might well have the anomalous result of forcing employers to take age into account in making layoff decisions, which is the very sort of age-based decision-making that the statute proscribes. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 191 F.3d at 951.
Plaintiffs, for their part, urge this Court to find that subgroup discrimination claims may be maintained. Albeit filed in their response to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,3
Plaintiffs refer this court to a number of cases which, Plaintiffs argue, supports their position.
(See Docket No. 123 at 15). Two of those cases are of particular interest. In Graffam v. Scott
Paper Co., 848 F.Supp. 1 (D. Me. 1994), the District Court for the District of Maine expressly
rejected the reasoning of Lowe, supra, finding that the Lowe rule “deprives older individuals of
the protection from discrimination that the Act is meant to provide.” Graffam, 848 F.Supp. at 4.
Likewise, the District of Delaware rejected the Lowe analysis, finding a subgroup of those of
3 The parties acknowledge that their arguments overlap as to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification (Docket No. 88) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 101). (See Docket No. 176 at 3-4). Because the arguments are related, the Court reads each motion and its related filings as informing the Court’s analysis of the other motion.
8

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 9 of 29
fifty years of age and older to be appropriate under the statute. See Finch v. Hercules Inc., 865 F.Supp. 1104, 1129 (D. Del. 1994).
Based upon the representations of the parties and this Court’s own research, it appears that the issue of subgroup claims under the ADEA has not been addressed by a controlling authority, whether the Third Circuit or Supreme Court.4 This Court will, therefore, address the matter as one of first impression.
Although this Court acknowledges that the trend has been away from Graffam and Finch, and towards McDonnell Douglas, this Court respectfully disagrees with the conclusions reached in Lowe and McDonnell Douglas. Lowe was concerned with the ability of a plaintiff to subdivide the protected class into infinite subgroups, at least one of which would presumably enable a statistical showing of disparate impact. See id. (noting that “an 85 year old plaintiff could seek to prove a discrimination claim by showing that a hiring practice caused a disparate impact on the ‘subgroup’ of those age 85 and above, even though all those hired were in their late seventies.”).
McDonnell Douglas arrived at the same conclusion, for slightly different reasons. In that case, the Eighth Circuit observed that, if subgroup claims were allowed, a plaintiff could bring a disparate impact claim despite the fact that statistical evidence might show that an RIF had actually had a favorable impact upon the entire protected group of employees over forty when compared to those employees outside of the protected group. McDonnell Douglas, 191 F.3d at
4 The closest either party gets to a “controlling” authority on this question is Defendant’s citation to Myers v. Delaware County Community College, Civ. No. 05-5855, 2007 WL 1322239 (E.D. Pa. March 9, 2007), at page 6 of their supplemental brief. (Docket No. 135 at 6). Myers simply found the Lowe decision “persuasive.” See Myers, 2007 WL 1322239 at *10 n. 1. However, because the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant in that case, it did not thoroughly analyze the question of whether subgroup protection was available under the ADEA. Id. Thus, the Court will not rely on Myers in its own analysis of the ADEA.
9

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 10 of 29
951. Further, the Court noted that an employer might be required to “attempt what might well be impossible: to achieve statistical parity among the virtually infinite number of age subgroups in its work force.” Id.
As stated, this Court does not agree with the conclusions reached in Lowe, McDonnell Douglas, or the cases that follow them. The Court will examine the broader context of the ADEA, explaining why it reads the ADEA to allow subgroup classification in disparate impact cases. With this background in mind, the Court will then address the specific concerns raised by Lowe and McDonnell Douglas.
i. The ADEA Background and Framework The ADEA’s prohibition covers “discriminat[ion] … because of age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). The “prohibitions in [the ADEA] shall be limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age.” 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). Congress, in its findings, makes clear that the ADEA was passed based on the concern that older workers are disadvantaged in the work place. See 29 U.S.C. § 621(a)(1)-(4). In 2004, the Supreme Court examined the history of the ADEA in great detail in General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004). This Court briefly summarizes some of the most pertinent points. At the outset, age was not included in the discrimination forbidden by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 715, 78 Stat. 265, as Congress was aware that there were some legitimate reasons, as well as invidious ones, for making employment decisions based on age. Cline, 540 U.S. at 586-87. Instead, the Secretary of Labor was called upon to examine the issue. The Secretary determined that older individuals were disadvantaged when compared to younger. Report of the Secretary of Labor, The Older American Worker: Age Discrimination in Employment 2 (June 1965) (hereinafter, Wirtz
10

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 11 of 29
Report). Although the Secretary observed disadvantage for older workers, the Wirtz Report “contains no suggestion that reactions to age level off at some point, and it was devoid of any indication that the Secretary had noticed unfair advantages accruing to older employees at the expense of their juniors.” Cline, 540 U.S. at 587 (emphasis added).
During congressional hearings on what would become the ADEA, much was said on the impact of increasing age. See, e.g., Age Discrimination in Employment: Hearings on H.R. 3651 et al. before the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 90th Congress, 1st Sess. at 151 (1967) (hereinafter House Hearings) (statement of Rep. Joshua Eilberg) (“At age 40, a worker may find that age restrictions become common … By age 45, his employment opportunities are likely to contract sharply; they shrink more severely at age 55 and virtually vanish by age 65”). “The record thus reflects the common facts that an individual’s chances to find and keep a job get worse over time; as between any two people, the younger is in the stronger position, the older more apt to be tagged with demeaning stereotype.” Cline, 540 U.S. at 589 (emphasis added). Thus, it “is beyond reasonable doubt, that the ADEA was concerned to protect a relatively old worker from discrimination that works to the advantage of the relatively young.” Id. at 590-91 (emphasis added).
The legislative history and the holding in Cline make one thing clear: age discrimination does not stop at forty. The older an employee (or potential employee) is, the more likely it is that that person will suffer from age discrimination. See House Hearings at 151. This Court sees nothing in the statute that contradicts this conclusion, or that would limit a court’s ability to examine in detail any possible disparate impact that may only impact those of more advanced age than 40-year-olds.
11

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 12 of 29
Indeed, the Court finds support for the opposite: the statute protects “individuals who are at least 40 years of age.” 29 U.S.C. § 631(a) (emphasis added). The statute, by its plain language, protects anyone who is forty or older. The statute likewise clearly protects against employment decisions made “because of [an] individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1)-(2). Clearly, a fifty year old is older than forty, and there can be no serious dispute that fifty year olds can be discriminated against on the basis of their age, even when compared to other, younger members of the protected group.
The Court also finds support for the viability of subgroup claims in the Supreme Court’s recognition that the “ultimate legal issue” is the same in disparate impact and disparate treatment cases. See Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 987 (1988). The Supreme Court has also held that a claim may lie even where a plaintiff fails to establish that he was replaced by someone outside of the protected class. See O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 313 (1996). Although that case was, admittedly, decided in the context of a disparate treatment claim, the “ultimate legal issue” in that case is the same as in a disparate impact case: that is, whether a relatively younger individual – within or outside of the class – was preferred to the plaintiff for no reason other than age. Thus, the distinction between treatment and impact is not persuasive here. See Sandra F. Sperino, The Sky Remains Intact: Why Allowing Subgroup Evidence is Consistent With the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 90 MARQ. L. REV. 227, 252-53 (2006) (hereinafter, Sperino) (arguing that the O’Connor decision should not be limited to disparate treatment claims). If a lone fifty-five year old can establish a claim for age discrimination, even if he was replaced by a forty-two year old, the Court sees no reason why a group of fifty-five year olds cannot do the same.
12

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 13 of 29
This Court finds further support for allowing subgroup claims by looking beyond the confines of the ADEA. Given the similarity of the statutory language, the Supreme Court has looked to, and followed, its reasoning in Title VII cases when analyzing the ADEA. Specifically, the Court followed its Title VII precedent in concluding that the ADEA allowed disparate impact claims.. See Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 544 U.S. 228, 233-35 (2005) (finding that the ADEA provides for disparate impact claims).5 Taking this reasoning a step further, “[i]t is clear that Congress never intended to give an employer license to discriminate against some employees on the basis of [age] merely because he favorably treats other members of the employees’ group.” Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 445 (1982). If subgroup claims are cognizable in disparate impact cases under Title VII, in the absence of statutory language that indicates otherwise, they should likewise be cognizable under the ADEA
Of course, just because a subgroup may be defined under the ADEA does not mean that there are no limits upon that definition: the Cline decision makes clear that discrimination cannot occur with respect to those that are part of the protected class, but are relatively younger. The focus of Cline was a policy which arguably discriminated against those over forty and under fifty. See Cline, 540 U.S. at 584. Based on the House Hearings and Wirtz Report, supra, among other sources, the Supreme Court determined that such a group was not colorable, as the ADEA does not prohibit favoring the older over the younger. Id.
The logical conclusion to be drawn from the Cline holding is that no subgroup may be defined with an upper boundary – only a lower one. If, for example, a plaintiff were to attempt
5 The Court recognizes that the Smith decision did observe that “the scope of disparate-impact liability under ADEA is narrower than under Title VII.” Smith, 544 U.S. at 240. The two reasons for this narrower scope are the ADEA’s “reasonable factor other than age” provision and the amendments to Title VII contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Court does not read either of these limitations as affecting the analysis of whether a subgroup claim may be brought.
13

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 14 of 29

to define a subgroup of 55-58 year olds, and there were employees over 58 years of age, the underlying argument that must necessarily be assumed is that those employees 59 and over have been treated better than those in the subgroup.6 This does not accord with Cline, and would necessarily fail under the reasoning of that case.
Further, because statistics are valuable in showing disparate impact, the Court notes that the size of a subgroup is practically limited by the boundaries of statistical analysis. The more narrowly a subgroup is defined, the easier it may be to show a disparate impact. Indeed, with a sufficiently narrow and defined subgroup, a case could potentially describe a hypothetical class of one. However, the more narrowly a subgroup is defined, the less likely the statistics derived from that subgroup are to be statistically significant. See Sperino, 90 MARQ. L. REV. at 229 (“For many employees, especially those in their sixties or older, it will be impossible to produce subgroup evidence in support of a disparate impact claim because there will simply be too few employees within the protected class to create a statistically significant sample.”).7
ii. Lowe and McDonnell Douglas With this background in mind, this Court does not find the reasoning applied in Lowe or McDonnell Douglas to be sufficient to deny plaintiffs the ability to bring subgroup claims under the ADEA, at this stage.

6 If there are no employees older than 58 in this hypothetical, than the subgroup is, for all purposes, a group defined with only a lower limit of 55 years of age. This group would be in accord with Cline, as it would compare older to younger, only.

7 The Court observes that it appears that the average employee age is increasing. By 2016,

workers age 65 and over are expected to account for 6.1 percent of the total workforce, which is

a sharp increase from the 2006 share of 3.6 percent. See Projected growth in labor force

participation

of

seniors,

2006-2016,

available

at

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2008/jul/wk4/art04.htm (last visited May 2, 2012). Thus, Professor

Sperino’s point may not hold true for employees age 65 and older, but it surely holds true at

some point in the age spectrum.

14

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 15 of 29
The concern in Lowe was that a complaining party may be able to pick and choose how to define his subgroup in order to produce statistical evidence that might demonstrate discriminatory impact. Lowe, 886 F.2d at 1373. As this Court has described above, there are two factors that mitigate this concern. First, this Court reads the Cline decision to prohibit defining an upper cap on a subgroup. Thus, a plaintiff will not be able to whittle down a subgroup from top to bottom and bottom to top in order to achieve the statistical disparity he seeks. Second, even if a plaintiff were to attempt to create a narrowly-restricted subgroup, the limitations of statistical analysis restrict the degree to which a plaintiff might construct his proposed subgroup.
One of the concerns raised in McDonnell Douglas is similar, but distinct. The Eighth Circuit’s fear was that, if plaintiffs were able to selectively define subgroups, employers would be forced to attempt the “impossible: to achieve statistical parity among the virtually infinite number of age subgroups in its work force.” McDonnell Douglas, 191 F.3d at 951. This Court believes the same two factors discussed relative to Lowe are likewise fatal to McDonnell Douglas’s concern over impossibility, and the Court will not repeat itself. Additionally, while an “infinite” number of subgroups is technically feasible, as time can be divided into an infinite number of increments, as a practical matter courts will only have to deal with discrete, and rather limited, proposed subgroups. Full years, i.e. 52, 56, or 70, are the only likely discrete values that might be used to construct subgroups. Practically speaking, there are only about 30 discrete values – from 40 years old to approximately 70 years – over which courts might see proposed subgroups, as typically, people are approaching retirement by that age, if not sooner.8
8 While technically possible, this Court perceives that it is highly unlikely that litigants may engage in the child-like practice of subdividing years. For example, PGW points to the possibility of a “creative ‘subset,’ even one as absurd as ages 45 ½ to 49 ¾.” (Docket No. 135 at
15

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 16 of 29
Perhaps the most troubling justification for denying subgroup claims is the other problem raised in McDonnell Douglas. The Eighth Circuit observed that, in certain circumstances, a subgroup disparate impact claim might stand, even though the entire protected class of employees over forty might have been treated very favorably when compared to those employees outside of the protected group. Id. However, as Cline makes clear, the ADEA is not concerned with reverse age discrimination. See Cline, 540 U.S. at 590-91. Rather, this Court reads Cline to yield the proposition that, so long as comparatively older workers are treated less favorably than comparatively younger, but still protected, workers, the impact of a given policy on unprotected workers is irrelevant.
iii. Plaintiffs May Define a Class as 50 and Over Given the foregoing discussion, the Court is of the belief that the Plaintiffs may define their collective class as a subgroup of the statutorily-protected class of employees over 40 years of age. This Court sees nothing in the statute that prohibits the rights of employees to do so, and the Court finds no sufficient justification in the non-binding precedent which refutes that conclusion. Instead, the Court finds highly persuasive the reasoning presented in Professor Sperino’s article, referenced above. See generally Sperino, 90 MARQ. L. REV. 227. The Court will, therefore, accept the collective group, as defined by the Plaintiffs, for purposes of the remaining analysis.
b. Expert Witnesses at the Conditional Certification Stage The Court next turns to the parties’ dispute over the propriety of this Court’s consideration of expert evidence. Plaintiffs, for their part, oppose any use of expert evidence at 6). That truly is absurd. One can only imagine a litigant coming to federal court and arguing “Acme Company discriminated against me because I’m fifty and a half, and my replacement is only fifty and a quarter!” One can also imagine the haste with which a court would dispose of such a case.
16

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 17 of 29
this stage of litigation. (Docket No. 113 at 26-29). The gist of their argument, as the Court understands it, is the simple proposition that the Plaintiffs are not required to present expert testimony at the conditional certification stage. They do, however, submit with their reply brief, an expert report in opposition to PGW’s. (Docket No. 113-2). Plaintiffs ask that the Court consider this Report “only if the Court chooses to accept the Pifer Report as evidence in opposition to conditional certification—which it should not do.” (Docket No. 113 at 28).
Defendant responds that consideration of its expert testimony is appropriate precisely for the reasons Plaintiffs claim it is not: that is, that the authority upon which Plaintiffs rely to oppose the use of statistics in this discriminatory impact case discusses the use of statistical evidence in a disparate treatment case. (See Docket No. 126 at 15) (discussing Healy v. New York Life Ins. Co., 860 F.2d 1209 (3d Cir. 1988)). Defendant also argues that it is inappropriate for Plaintiffs to introduce new evidence in their reply brief, and as a result, the expert evidence submitted therein should be barred for purposes of this motion. (Id. at 16).
The Court will first address the propriety of considering the Plaintiffs’ newly-raised expert report. “It is improper for the moving party to shift gears and introduce new facts or different legal arguments in the reply brief than [those that were] presented in the moving papers.” D’Aiuto v. City of Jersey City, Civ. No. 06-6222, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57646, at *10, n. 1 (D.N.J. August 8, 2007) (Greenaway, J.) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting William W. Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima, and James M. Wagstaffe, FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL, § 12:107 (The Rutter Group 2005)). “[R]eply briefs are limited in scope to matters either raised by the opposition or unforeseen at the time of the original motion.” Burnham v. City of Rohnert Park, No. C 92-1439, 1992 WL 672965, *5 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 1992). Plaintiffs twice alluded to statistical evidence, but failed to produce any expert report or
17

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 18 of 29
otherwise brief the issue.9 Thus, the Plaintiffs were clearly aware of the potential for statistical
evidence, and as such, it cannot be considered unforeseen. In this regard, it would be improper
for Plaintiffs to introduce expert evidence that could otherwise have been raised in its opening
brief.
That is not to say that Plaintiffs’ report could not be raised as rebuttal evidence.
“Whether to permit or prohibit the introduction of rebuttal evidence is committed to the sound
discretion of the trial court.” Jackson v. City of Pittsburgh, Civ. No. 07-111, 2011 WL 3443951,
*15 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2011) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 611(a); Bhaya v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 922
F.2d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 1990) (“a trial judge’s decision regarding the scope of rebuttal may not be
reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.”)). “Rebuttal evidence must generally
tend to refute the defendant’s proof,” Bhaya, 922 F.2d at 190, and “is not to be used as a continuation of the case-in-chief.” Cates v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 928 F.2d 679, 685 (5th Cir.
1991). Moreover, “[o]nce a plaintiff has had a chance to prove a fact, he cannot reopen the
matter simply by stating that he wishes to introduce more or better evidence.” Pignons S.A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp., 701 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1983). Thus, it would be within the Court’s
discretion to consider Plaintiffs’ expert evidence in rebuttal. However, as the Court explains
9 The extent of Plaintiff’s reference to statistical evidence is contained on pages 9 and 13 of their Brief in Support of their Motion for Conditional Class Certification. (Docket No. 91). Page 9 states only that the “standard-less evaluation practice resulted in the termination of approximately 105 employees, 54.3 percent of whom were over 50.” (Docket No. 91 at 9). Page 13 contains slightly more detail:
Just considering the 105 or so employees terminated, it is easily discernible that the impact was largely borne by the older workers, with those over 50 being especially hard hit. The percentage of employees who were 40 and older who were terminated was 80 percent, and the percentage of employees who were 50 and older who were terminated was 54.3 percent. (Id. at 13). These “passing reference[s]” are insufficient, without more, to preserve the argument for later. See Laborers’ Intern., 26 F.3d at 398.
18

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 19 of 29
below, it does not see a compelling reason to give great consideration to expert evidence from either side of this dispute at this stage in the proceedings.
Defendant avoids the issues just addressed because its expert report was filed contemporaneously with its responsive brief. This report is directed largely to the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination. It describes the percentages of those employees retained and terminated (see, e.g., Docket No. 104-20 at ¶¶ 22-25 (examining Plaintiffs’ brief references to age statistics and stating that the affidavit “focuses on whether []differences between those PGW salaried employees terminated and those retained are statistically significant for each alternative protected class and for alternative categories of PGW salaries employees.”)), with little reference made to whether the proposed members were similarly situated to the named Plaintiffs.
The Court may consider only admissible evidence in deciding a motion to conditionally certify a collective action. See, e.g., Wright v. Lehigh Valley Hospital, Civ. No. 10-431, 2010 WL 3363992, *4 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 24, 2010); Kuznyetsov v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc., Civ. No. 09-379, 2009 WL 1515175, *4 (W.D.Pa. June 1, 2009) (Ambrose, J.); Stanislaw v. Erie Indem. Co., Civ. No. 07-1078, 2009 WL 426641, *2 (W.D.Pa. Feb. 20, 2009). While these cases are useful, they are not entirely dispositive, as there is no indication that Defendant’s expert report would be inadmissible. So, the Court’s analysis must go a step further.
The thrust of the Court’s inquiry at this juncture – i.e., at the conditional certification stage – “is not on whether there has been an actual violation of law but rather on whether the proposed plaintiffs are ‘similarly situated’ under 29 U.S.C. § 216(B) with respect to their allegations that the law has been violated.” Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 229 F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Krueger v. N.Y. Tel. Co., Civ. Nos. 93-178, 93-179, 1993 WL 276058, *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 1993) (“[T]he Court need not evaluate the merits of plaintiff’s claims in
19

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 20 of 29
order to determine whether a ‘similarly situated’ group exists.”); see also Owens v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 108 F.R.D. 207, 210-211 (S.D.W. Va. 1985) (“[A]t this point the Plaintiff does not have to prove that there was a class of employees which was subjected to discrimination by [the defendant]. This … is the ultimate question. The Plaintiff only has to show that a group of employees similarly situated to one another are claiming discrimination.”). The analysis here is not directed to whether the plaintiffs will succeed in their claim; rather, the purpose of the analysis is to “establish[] nothing more than the right of the plaintiffs to ‘maintain’ a collective action.” Sperling v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 392, 407 (D.N.J. 1988) (“Sperling III”).
Although these cases are not controlling, they are entirely consistent with the Third Circuit’s admonition that, “[d]uring the initial phase, the court makes a preliminary determination whether the employees enumerated in the complaint can be provisionally categorized as similarly situated to the named plaintiff.” Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 192. Under the “modest factual showing” standard, the movant must produce some evidence “of a factual nexus between the manner in which the employer’s alleged policy affected her and the manner in which it affected other employees.” Id. at 193. Nothing in the case law, to this Court’s reading, requires a trial court to engage in a determination on the legal merits of the underlying discrimination claim at the conditional certification stage.
Given that the Court is not examining the legal merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims here, the Court finds that the Defendant’s expert report is not dispositive with respect to the instant motion. Defendant’s report is directed to statistical evidence of discrimination, not the element of similar situation. In his own words, Defendant’s expert “ha[s] been instructed … to review, comment on and analyze the statistical significance, if any, of the alleged age discrimination
20

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 21 of 29
claim by Plaintiffs within their proposed protected class of PGW salaried employees.” (Docket No. 104-20 at ¶ 12) (emphasis added). “The fundamental issue discussed herein is whether there is any statistical evidence of age discrimination during PGW’s reduction in force of its salaried employees on or about 31 March 2009.” (Id. at ¶ 16). The report speaks to the merits of the discrimination case, not the motion presently before the Court. Hence, the report is not instrumental in the Court’s decision to conditionally certify this case.
c. Conditional Certification Having decided that the Plaintiffs’ proposed subgroup class claim is cognizable under the ADEA, and that the proposed expert evidence as to discrimination does not dictate the outcome of the similar situation analysis, the Court now turns to the merits of the motion for conditional certification. To qualify for conditional certification, Plaintiffs need only make out a “modest factual showing”, Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 192-93, that they are similarly situated to other members of the proposed class. To this end, the Court must determine whether the Plaintiffs have demonstrated “a sufficient factual basis on which a reasonable inference could be made that defendant[] orchestrated or implemented a single decision, policy or plan to discriminate against [its] … employees on the basis of age.” Mueller, 201 F.R.D. at 429 (citing Brooks, 164 F.R.D. at 567). Defendant argues that, even if the Plaintiffs show that they (and their proposed class members) were victims of a single decision, policy or plan, they “must further show that the putative class members: (1) were employed in the same corporate department, division and location; (2) advance similar claims; and (3) seek substantially the same form of relief.” (Docket No. 106 at 24 (citing Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corp., 879 F.2d 43, 51 (3d Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds, Starceski v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 54 F.3d 1089, 1099 n.10 (3d
21

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 22 of 29
Cir. 1995))). This Court, however, does not read Lockhart as requiring affirmative showings of these factors, as the Court of Appeals merely cited with approval a lower court’s analysis of those factors. See Lockhart, 879 F.2d at 51. Indeed, the paragraph following the one cited by the Defendants proves the point: the Court of Appeals concluded that the opt-in plaintiffs in that action were “similarly situated” despite being employed in different branch locations. Id. (“The opt-in plaintiffs in the present action were all former employees within the Financial Services Division of WCC, albeit in different branch locations… Balancing the factors as applied in Plummer and Lusardi, we conclude that all the opt-in plaintiffs in this present action were ‘similarly situated’ to Lockhart.”) (emphasis added).
All said, courts have examined a number of factors in the conditional certification analysis. These factors are summarized well in Wynn v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 234 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1082-84 (C.D. Cal. 2002), which cites a number of other cases that have addressed similarity. The first is Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., which looked to “(1) the disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to Xerox which appear to be individual to each plaintiff; [and] (3) fairness and procedural considerations.” Lusardi, 118 F.R.D. 351, 359 (D.N.J. 1987). Other factors include: (1) whether the plaintiffs all held the same job titles; (2) whether the plaintiffs worked in different geographical locations; (3) the extent to which the claimed discrimination occurs during different time periods and by different decision-makers; (4) whether plaintiffs have provided “statistically significant” evidence of age discrimination; (5) whether the plaintiffs all alleged similar, though not identical, discriminatory treatment; (6) whether the plaintiffs have sufficiently pled and supported by affidavits, depositions, and the like that defendant's decision-makers have articulated and manifested a clear intent to purge the defendant of older employees; and (7)
22

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 23 of 29
whether the defendant took steps to implement its plan, such as by targeting older employees for criticism and building a “paper trail” that would be grounds for their demotion. Wynn, 234 F. Supp. 2d at 1083.
A brief review of some of the cases cited by Wynn is informative. The facts in Hyman v. First Union Corporation, 982 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1997), demonstrate the type of evidence that speaks to similarity. That case involved terminations “during two RIFs in a span of six months” after one entity was acquired by another. Hyman, 982 F. Supp. at 4-5. Although the plaintiffs in Hyman acknowledged that “individual managers did have discretion when deciding whom to retain,” they argued that a few central individuals were responsible for the ultimate discrimination. Id. at 4. “Weighing very strongly in favor of a collective action is the fact that the challenged employment practice, termination, is the same for each of the members.” Id. Finally, the Hyman Court weighed heavily in favor of conditional certification the fact that common evidence would be used to prove the alleged discrimination. Id. at 5.
Lusardi involved “various work force reductions.” 118 F.R.D. at 352. The proposed class in that case was derived from a wide range of suborganizations and subsidiaries and involved different jobs. Id. The proposed class members were subject to different job actions, “including resignations, promotions, terminations for cause, etc.”, and “which occurred at various times as a result of decisions by different supervisors made on a decentralized employeeby-employee basis.” Id. Indeed, the terminations at issue occurred over twenty-eight voluntary RIFs or forty-seven involuntary RIFs that occurred over a four year period. Id. at 361. On the basis of these differences, the motion was denied.
The Wynn case itself presents a different set of facts which resulted in a denial. That case addressed “an unprecedented move”: “combining the decisions of several loosely-related
23

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 24 of 29
entities, under an umbrella of a common industry-wide practice.” Wynn, 234 F. Supp. 2d at 1083. The plaintiffs – former or current television writers – were from “various states and Canada,” and they claimed different backgrounds “in terms of qualifications and experience.” Id. at 1074. Some plaintiffs had not worked for nearly twenty years, while others had obtained work in the years leading up to the filing of the lawsuit. Id. Even so, the Court recognized that “it would appear that Plaintiffs have done all that is required of them up to this point. Were they to proceed in a class action against any one employer, … the class would most likely be conditionally certified.” Id. at 1084.
After review of these cases, considering the facts of the pending case, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ request for conditional certification should be granted. Although the instant facts are not identical to any set of facts in the cases addressed above, or any other that the Court has found, the Court believes this case has much more in common with Hyman than it does Lusardi.
First, the Court looks to the activities of the Defendant. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they were all terminated in the course of a single, company-wide RIF. This RIF clearly constitutes a “single decision, policy or plan,” even if it was implemented by individual managers. Further, the named Plaintiffs were all over 50 years old when they were terminated from PGW. Despite what appears to be the common practice of allowing qualified workers to apply for alternative positions when theirs are at risk,10 Mr. Karlo was expressly denied that
10 PPG’s October 30, 2000 RIF Guidelines make clear that that entity allowed the practice of “bumping,” where a satisfactory worker whose position was eliminated would “displace” a worker who received “needs improvement” ratings. (Docket No. 88-4 at 3). Likewise, Mr. Cooney indicated at his deposition that his former employer, Whirlpool, had a similar policy in place, where it “made sure that [displaced employees] were made aware of” alternative positions in the company. (Docket No. 88-5 at 11-13). While this evidence does not appear relevant to the question of PGW’s alleged discrimination, the Court observes that the evidence does indicate
24

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 25 of 29
opportunity. (See Docket No. 88-6 at 11-12). The evidence also hints that “adaptability,” potentially a proxy for age,11 was a factor considered in the RIF. (Id. at 12-13). Combined with the lack of any documentation about the RIF,12 this Court finds that PGW’s activities weigh in
favor of certification. Importantly, the fact that the decision to implement the RIF was made at a
high level of the organization weighs in favor of a broader class. See Owens, 108 F.R.D. at 212
(“It is the nature of a reduction in force which makes the broader class definition appropriate.”).
As to the actual similarities between members of the proposed class, this Court agrees
with Hyman’s reasoning that termination via the same RIF “weigh[s] very strongly in favor of a
collective action.” Hyman, 982 F. Supp. at 4. Unlike Lusardi, which involved a large number of
localized RIFs that occurred over an extended period, the actions complained of in this case all
arose under a single, company-wide RIF. Although the Hyman plaintiffs “all come from a
discrete geographical area,” id., this Court finds that the high-level decision to implement a
company-wide RIF outweighs the geographic dispersion of the proposed class members. A
that other firms typically look to give qualified displaced employees other opportunities within the company before termination. The record demonstrates that there were no guidelines in place at PGW when the 2009 RIF occurred. (See generally Docket No. 88-5). 11 See, e.g., Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345, 352 (5th Cir. 2005); Bienkowski v. American Airlines, Inc., 851 F.2d 1503, 1507 (5th Cir. 1988). Cf. Robinson v. Union Carbide Corp., 538 F.2d 652, 662 (5th Cir. 1976) (observing that subjects like “adaptability” may “subject[] the ultimate promotion decision to the intolerable occurrence of conscious or unconscious prejudice.”). 12 The Court recognizes and accepts the Defendant’s argument that a “lack of consideration of historical performance data and HR oversight, and failure to use a predecessor company’s (PPG’s) RIF guidelines do not alone establish that any individual or group of individuals was discriminated against.” (Docket No. 126 at 11 (citing Marione v. Metro Life Ins. Co., 188 Fed. App’x 141 (3d Cir. 2006)). However, a lack of guidelines, in conjunction with statements like those of Mr. Cannon, who evidently claimed that his decision was driven by “adaptability” (see Docket No. 88-6 at 12-13), might give rise to an inference of ageism. The Court does not draw that conclusion here, but emphasizes that such an inference may be drawn based on the evidence.
25

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 26 of 29
single decision, made high enough in the company, may have implications that reach far beyond a narrow geographic location.
Finally, the Court observes that the proposed class members will rely on common evidence to prove their alleged discrimination. This, too, weighs in favor of conditional certification. See id. at 5.
Because this Court is convinced that the Plaintiffs have made an adequate showing of similarity to surpass the relatively low hurdle of conditional certification, the Court will grant leave to pursue the collective action. However, the Court notes that this does not mean Plaintiffs have satisfied the ultimate burden they will face in achieving certification of this representative action. See Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 194 (“[T]he certification we refer to here is only the district court’s exercise of [its] discretionary power, upheld in Hoffman-La Roche, to facilitate the sending of notice to potential class members and is neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of a representative action under the [ADEA].”) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 555 n. 10 (2d Cir. 2010)). At present, the evidence is far from sufficient to carry the final burden.
d. PGW’s Wal-Mart Argument Because it raises an important question, the Court also addresses PGW’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011), should lead to a denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification. In their opening brief, the Plaintiffs argue that Wal-Mart is irrelevant to this case, as it was decided under Rule 23, and not the collective action mechanism. (Docket No. 91 at 29-30). They also note that their proposed class is dramatically different from the mammoth class in Wal-Mart. (Id. at 30-31). PGW argues that the Wal-Mart holding is instructive here, and points the Court to several cases that
26

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 27 of 29
PGW claims support that proposition. (See Docket No. 106 at 22-23 (citing Ruiz v. Serco, Inc., Civ. No. 10-394, 2011 WL 7138732, *6 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 5, 2011); MacGregor v. Farmers Ins. Exch., Civ. No. 10-3088, 2011 WL 2981466, *4 (D.S.C. July 22, 2011)).
To the extent that these cases describe Wal-Mart as “instructive”, Ruiz, 2011 WL 7138732 at *6, or “illuminating,” MacGregor, 2011 WL 2981466 at *4, with respect to collective actions, this Court agrees. However, the Court does not believe that application of Wal-Mart would render the class uncertifiable.13 First, Wal-Mart is factually quite different from the present case. At issue in that case were pay and promotion decisions made with respect to more than 1.5 million class members. Wal-Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2547. It appears that each one of these decisions occurred independently, over the course of several years. See id. at 2549 (defining the class as all women employed “since December 26, 1998”). The numerosity and dispersion of the Wal-Mart class makes it look more like Wynn, 234 F. Supp. 2d 1067, supra, than the instant case.
Second, there is language in the Wal-Mart case itself that indicates that conditional certification is appropriate in this case. The Court observed that:
What matters to class certification … is not the raising of common “questions”—even in droves—but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation. Dissimilarities within the proposed class are what have the potential to impede the generation of common answers. Wal-Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2551 (emphasis in original, internal citation omitted). The Court’s tentative finding that the parties are similarly situated is an indication that it believes that a
13 The Court is not aware of any case within this Circuit on the point, and emphasizes that it does not decide, at this juncture, whether the reasoning in Wal-Mart is necessarily to be applied to collective actions in the ADEA. Rather, the Court simply observes that, on the record before it, even if Wal-Mart was applicable, it would not lead this Court to conclude that conditional certification should be denied.
27

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 28 of 29
common answer will be found to the question of whether discrimination lies at the root of the March 2009 RIF implemented by PGW or not. At the decertification stage, the Court should have more evidence with which to determine whether the dissimilarities between putative class members will impede the generation of common answers or not.
Thus, while the Court does believe that the reasoning in Wal-Mart is instructive in collective action context, the Court is not persuaded that following Wal-Mart would result in the denial of conditional certification here. Instead, the Court believes that the standard two-tiered process is actually on all fours with the Wal-Mart decision. This conclusion is bolstered by the Symczyk decision, which was decided after – and cited, albeit for a different proposition – the Wal-Mart decision. See Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 198 n. 10.
e. Court-Facilitated Notice Under Sperling, this Court has the authority to facilitate notice to putative opt-in plaintiffs. Sperling, 493 U.S. at 169. However, this Court, in its Amended Case Management Order (Docket No. 83) ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the opt-in notice and consent forms, “which shall be made ready for the Court’s review upon the Court’s ruling on certification, at which time the Court will convene a status conference to review same.” (Id. at ¶ 5). As PGW argues, based on the Court’s Order, Plaintiffs’ request for approval of notice was premature. (See Docket No. 106 at 35). PGW informed the Court in its brief that there is only “one discrete matter” to address, (id.), so the Court now directs counsel to the parties to finalize the notice and consent forms and present them to the Court for its review. Finally, there is some dispute over whether Defendant must provide Plaintiffs with contact information for the prospective class members. On that question, the Court finds that it is appropriate for Defendant to produce the same. See Sperling III, 118 F.R.D. at 404 (requiring
28

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 179 Filed 05/09/12 Page 29 of 29

the defendant to comply with plaintiffs’ request for discovery of names and addresses). Despite Defendant’s claims that it has “already provide[d] Plaintiffs with much of the requested information,” (id.), the Court will require that Defendant produce the names and addresses of all potential class members to ensure that no relevant names are omitted.
IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification (Docket No. 88) is GRANTED, in part. The Court will convene a status conference to address any remaining notice issues once the Court receives the parties’ status reports and proposed notice and consent forms, as directed in the forthcoming Order. Said appropriate Order follows.

Dated: May 9, 2012 cc/ecf: All counsel of record.

s/Nora Barry Fischer Nora Barry Fischer United States District Judge

29

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

RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON, and RICHARD CSUKAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 10-1283 ) Judge Nora Barry Fischer ) ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Defendant’s “Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).” (Docket No. 186). The motion has been fully briefed by both

parties, (see Docket Nos. 187, 195, 198, 201), and is therefore ripe for disposition. Upon

consideration of the Defendant’s Motion (Docket No. 186), the motion [186] is DENIED,

without prejudice to the Defendants renewing their arguments after the Court has ruled upon

decertification.

I. Introduction

The pending motion arises in the wake of the Court’s opinion and order granting

conditional certification of the Plaintiffs’ collective action for putative age discrimination class

comprised of members of 50 years of age and older. (Docket Nos. 179, 180). As the parties are

aware of the facts, the Court declines to restate them here. The Court’s opinion raised three

issues for which the Defendant seeks leave to appeal under § 1292(b):

1

(1) whether sub-grouping is permitted in disparate impact claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”);
(2) whether courts should apply Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to each stage of the collective action certification process and require at the condition[al] certification stage a modest factual showing that Plaintiffs and the proposed class are similarly situated without reliance on the alleged “corporate culture” at the defendant corporation; and
(3) whether the “modest factual showing” required for conditional certification includes a modest showing that the proposed class members can present a claim for disparate impact.
(Docket No. 187 at 1). The Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
II. Legal Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) allows for certification of a question for interlocutory appeal if the
order at issue “(1) involve[s] a ‘controlling question of law,’ (2) offer[s] ‘substantial ground for
difference of opinion’ as to its correctness, and (3) if appealed immediately ‘materially
advance[s] the ultimate termination of the litigation.’” Katz v. Carte Blanch Corp., 496 F.2d
747, 754 (3d Cir. 1973) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)). Even if the moving party satisfies the
statutory criteria, the district court “possesses discretion to deny certification of an appeal.” In re
Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., 607 F. Supp. 2d 701, 708 (M.D. Pa. 2009). However,
such discretion should not be exercised when “certification will materially advance the instant
matter and bring clarity to a still-developing area of law.” Id.
In determining whether an order presents a controlling question of law, the Court must
look to whether (1) an incorrect disposition would constitute reversible error if presented on final
appeal or (2) if the question is “serious to the conduct of the litigation either practically or
legally.” Katz, 496 F.2d at 755. The clearest evidence of “substantial grounds for difference of
opinion” is where “there are conflicting interpretations from numerous courts.” Beazer E., Inc.
v. The Mead Corp., No. 91-408, 2006 WL 2927627, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2006) (Diamond,
J.). And, in terms of determining whether appeal would materially advance the ultimate
2

termination of litigation, courts look to “(1) whether the need for trial would be eliminated; (2) whether the trial would be simplified by the elimination of complex issues; and (3) whether discovery could be conducted more expeditiously and at less expense to the parties.” Patrick v. Dell Fin. Servs., 366 B.R. 378, 387 (M.D. Pa. 2007).
III. Analysis1 Because of the procedural posture of this case, the Court concludes that the requirements for interlocutory appeal are not met at this time. The Court finds that not all of the necessary elements are present and, even if they were, the Court would exercise its discretion not to certify until after a final determination on certification. The Court notes preliminarily that, with respect to all questions raised by the Defendant, the Court’s opinion is merely conditional. The Court has ruled only that Plaintiffs are entitled to provide notice and take discovery as to the putative class. It has not made a final ruling on certification, and will not do so until discovery is complete with respect to the putative class. While the Court understands that discovery may result in some expense, the Court is also not persuaded to grant interlocutory appeal merely because discovery may be expensive. To this end, the Court finds instructive the decision in Craig v. Rite Aid Corporation, Civ. No. 08-2317, 2010 WL 1994888 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2010), and would refer Defendants to that opinion. The defendants’ arguments in that case were similar to those put forth here, and the procedural posture was virtually identical. For example, the Court there had granted conditional certification, id. at *1, just as this Court has done.
1 The Court does not summarize the parties’ arguments in detail because they are simply summarized: Defendant argues that each question for which it seeks certification satisfies the interlocutory standard, and Plaintiff argues they do not. The Court has considered all arguments, but does not regurgitate them for the sake of judicial economy.
3

The defendants in Craig likewise argued that the Third Circuit needed to “determine the
appropriate quantum and type of evidence to consider in evaluating the propriety of conditional
certification and the extent to which a district court should consider the manageability of the
proposed collective action.” Id. at *2. This argument mirrors the instant Defendant’s arguments
here that dispute the Court’s analysis of Dukes2 and its modest factual showing determination.3
If both of these disputes remain after final certification, the Court will reconsider interlocutory
appeal at that time, but finds such a motion premature at this stage. The Craig defendants also
2 The Dukes case addressed Rule 23 class actions. See Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2547 (“We consider whether the certification of the plaintiff class was consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).”). This case, on the other hand, was decided under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), as incorporated into the ADEA via 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). The Court would note that, while the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not directly addressed the issue of whether Rule 23 and collective action cases are governed by similar standards, at least one other Circuit Court has. See Grayson v. K Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086, 1096 n. 12 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[I]t is clear that the requirements for pursuing a § 216(b) class action are independent of, and unrelated to, the requirements for class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”). Even so, this Court did not flatly refuse to apply Dukes, as Defendant’s question on certification would indicate. Instead, the Court noted that, “even if Wal-Mart was applicable, it would not lead this Court to conclude that conditional certification should be denied.” (Docket No. 179 at 27 n. 13) (emphasis in original). Thus, what the Defendant here is actually challenging is this Court’s application of the Dukes standard to the facts before it.
3 With respect to this determination, Defendant asserts that this Court “altered the Third Circuit standard from a modest showing that the proposed class of plaintiffs were similarly situated as a result of a single policy or plan ‘infected’ by discrimination, to just a ‘single policy or plan.’” (Docket No. 187 at 12-13). To the contrary, the Court merely held that it would not allow Defendant to skirt the conditional certification process by introducing statistical evidence when the Plaintiffs had not done so, nor were they so required. Instead, the Court considered all of the evidence and determined that the class could move forward. That evidence that the Court cited included, inter alia, the fact that there was a single, company-wide RIF, that all named and proposed plaintiffs were over 50 years of age at termination, the affirmative refusal to provide at least one of those plaintiffs the commonly-granted opportunity to apply for alternative positions, evidence that “adaptability” was considered, and the lack of documentation about the RIF. (See id. at 24-25). Additional evidence that the Court did not expressly rely on in that portion of the opinion include the multiple affidavits filed by named and proposed plaintiffs. (See Docket Nos. 88-8 (affidavits of named Plaintiffs Csukas, Cunningham, Karlo, Marietti, McLure, Meixelsberger and Thompson); 88-9 (affidavits of potential opt-in Plaintiffs Clawson, Shaw and Voeltzel)).
4

raised the specter of discovery costs, Craig, 2010 WL 1994888 at *2, just as Defendant does here. (See Docket No. 187 at 14).
The only novel issue in this case when compared to Craig is the sub-group holding. The Court notes that this holding may have no bearing at the next stage of certification. Depending upon what evidence is uncovered during discovery, the sub-group claim may expand to encompass all members of the over-40 class, or it may be that the class dissolves completely. With such uncertainty remaining, even the Court’s sub-group holding cannot be qualified as a “controlling question of law” at the conditional certification stage.
With the foregoing in mind, the Court closes with a particularly relevant passage from Craig:
We remind Defendants that their concerns about the propriety of this proposed class can be addressed at the final certification stage, after the potential Plaintiffs have been given an opportunity to opt-in to the action and after discovery has been completed. We recognize that discovery may be somewhat costly… [but that factor does not] trump our legal analysis in any event.” Craig, 2010 WL 1994888 at *3. IV. Conclusion With the foregoing in mind, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion [186] is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal after the Court’s final determination on collective action certification.

Dated: July 20, 2012

s/Nora Barry Fischer Nora Barry Fischer United States District Judge

cc/ecf: All counsel of record.

5

 </s> Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 247 Filed 02/14/13 Page 1 of 2

FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON and RICHARD CSUKAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,
Defendant.

) ) Civil Action No. 10-1283 ) ) ) ) ) Honorable Nora Barry Fischer ) ) ) ) ) ) )

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIMS OF COLLEEN CONAWAY, ROBERT DIAZ AND CHARLES E. FELLABAUM

The parties, by their undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rules 21 and 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby sti pulate to the dism issal without prejudice of the

claims of Plaintiffs Colleen Conaway, Robert Di az and Charles E. Fellab aum, and to drop them

as Plaintiffs in this civil action, each party will b ear its own fees and costs. A proposed order is

submitted herewith. T he filing p arty has th e consent of the non-filing party to file this

stipulation.

Respectfully submitted this 14th day of February, 2013,

/s/ Bruce C. Fox_________ Bruce C. Fox, Pa. I.D. 42576 bruce.fox@obermayer.com OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP BNY Mellon Center, Suite 5240 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 566-1500 Fax: (412) 566-1508

/s/David S. Becker David S. Becker DBecker@FreebornPeters.com FREEBORN & PETERS, LLP 311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 360-6391 Fax: (312) 360-6594 Counsel for Defendant

4661735

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 247 Filed 02/14/13 Page 2 of 2 Counsel for Plaintiffs
4661735

 </s> Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 320 Filed 08/05/13 Page 1 of 4

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

RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON and RICHARD CSUKAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,1
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) 2:10-cv-1283 ) ) ) ) ) )
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT Pending before the Court is the MOTION OF PROFESSOR SANDRA SPERINO TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS WITH RESPECT TO PGW’S MOTION FOR DECERTIFICATION (ECF No. 295) filed by counsel for Plaintiffs apparently on her behalf.2 Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC (“PGW”) filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 296). Accordingly, the motion is ripe for disposition. Professor Sandra Sperino seeks leave to appear amicus curie “because her academic expertise in the ‘subgrouping’ issue in disparate impact claims under the ADEA positions her to

1. A review of the filings in this case indicates that some of the named Plaintiffs may have settled their claims with PGW. The Minute Entry for proceedings before Judge Arthur J. Schwab filed on May 8, 2013 states that the “[p]arties have reached a settlement as to two of the parties: Benjamin D. Thompson and Ron Wickwire. Stipulation for dismissal to be filed tomorrow for those individuals.” ECF No. 266. No such stipulation was filed on May 9, 2013. Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint filed on July 15, 2013 similarly notes that “[t]he amendments also remove allegations relating to Plaintiffs whose claims have been settled: two representative Plaintiffs—Ben Thompson and Richard Czukas and four opt in Plaintiffs . . . and it is anticipated that all six settling Plaintiffs will be voluntarily dismissed from the action very shortly.” ECF No. 299 at 2. That stipulation also remains outstanding. Accordingly, the Court will amend the caption to reflect those apparent dismissals once stipulations have been filed of record. 2. Plaintiffs note that “[s]hould this Motion be granted, [they] will move to admit Professor Sperino pro hac vice.” ECF No. 295 at 1, n.1. Local Civil Rule 83.2 no longer requires that pro hac vice motions be submitted by a member of the bar of the Western District of Pennsylvania; the Amended Rule, which became effective February 1, 2103, now requires that all pro hac vice motions be made by the attorney seeking to be admitted. LCvR 83.2(B).

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 320 Filed 08/05/13 Page 2 of 4
assist with the Court’s understanding of the subgrouping issue, which is complex and has not yet been addressed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.” ECF No. 295 at 1. Sperino is an Associate Professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law where she teaches Civil Procedure and Employment Law and has authored numerous articles in the employment law field which have been published in numerous Law Reviews. Id. Relevant here, Sperino is the author of The Sky Remains Intact: Why Allowing Subgroup Evidence Is Consistent with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 90 MARQ. L. REV. 227 (2006), which United States District Judge Nora Barry Fischer relied upon at the conditional certification stage in this case. See Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F. Supp. 2d 629, 641 (W.D. Pa. 2012) (“[T]he Court finds highly persuasive the reasoning presented in Professor Sperino’s article, referenced above.”).
Not surprisingly, PGW submits that the Court should deny the motion. PGW argues that Sperino does not have a special interest in the case, will not be helpful to the Court, and is being offered solely as an advocate for Plaintiffs arguing for a change in the law to allow their putative class. PGW instead proposes that “if Plaintiffs believe that Professor Sperino has the wordsmithing ability to successfully argue for a change in the law, she is free to join Plaintiffs’ legal team and write a brief adhering to the Court’s page limitations.” ECF No. 296 at 2. Alternatively, PGW requests that the Court permit other organizations (e.g., chambers of commerce) to appear amicus curiae should the instant motion be granted.
“The extent, if any, to which an amicus curiae should be permitted to participate in a pending action is solely within the broad discretion of the district court.” Waste Mgmt. of PA, Inc. v. City of York, 162 F.R.D. 34, 36 (M.D. Pa. 1995). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has noted that “permitting persons to appear . . . as friends of the court . . . may be advisable where third parties can contribute to the court’s understanding” of the matter in question. Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 603 (3d Cir. 1987). At the trial level, where issues
2

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 320 Filed 08/05/13 Page 3 of 4
of fact as well as law predominate, the aid of amicus curiae may be less appropriate than at the appellate level, where such participation has become standard procedure. United States v. Alkaabi, 223 F. Supp. 2d 583, 592 n.16 (D.N.J. 2002).
Generally, a district court grants amicus curiae status where: (i) the petitioner has a special interest in the case; (ii) the petitioner’s interest is not represented competently or at all in the case; (iii) the proffered information is timely and useful; and (iv) the petitioner is not partial to a particular outcome in the case. Liberty Resources, Inc. v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 395 F. Supp.2d 206, 209 (E.D. Pa. 2005).
Considering these factors, the Court finds and rules that they weigh against permitting the proposed amicus curie brief. The moving parties have identified no “special interest” of Sperino and the interests of petitioner (presumably to aid the Court’s understanding of the subgrouping issue under the ADEA) is being competently represented by able counsel. To the extent that Sperino’s brief on ADEA subgrouping would be useful, the Court already has the benefit of her published law review article which addresses this issue. The Court expresses no opinion on whether petitioner is partial to a particular outcome in the case. Therefore, the motion is DENIED.
The Court also hereby RESCHEDULES the hearing/oral argument set for Thursday, August 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM to Wednesday, August 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM. Should the Court find that expert testimony is necessary, the parties will be advised accordingly and provided with appropriate notice.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of August, 2013. BY THE COURT: s/Terrence F. McVerry United States District Judge
3

Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 320 Filed 08/05/13 Page 4 of 4
cc: Andrew J. Horowitz, Esquire Email: andrew.horowitz@obermayer.com Melissa L. Evans, Esquire Email: melissa.evans@jacksonlewis.com Bruce C. Fox, Esquire Email: bruce.fox@obermayer.com Yuanyou Yang, Esquire Email: yuanyou.yang@obermayer.com Tina C. Wills, Esquire Email: twills@freebornpeters.com David S. Becker, Esquire Email: dbecker@freebornpeters.com Jeffrey J. Mayer, Esquire Email: jmayer@freebornpeters.com Jennifer L. Fitzgerald, Esquire Email: jfitzgerald@freebornpeters.com John T. Shapiro, Esquire Email: jshapiro@freebornpeters.com Nancy L. Heilman, Esquire Email: nheilman@cohenlaw.com Robert B. Cottington, Esquire Email: rcottington@cohenlaw.com Robert F. Prorok, Esquire Email: rprorok@cohenlaw.com John J. Myers, Esquire Email: jmyers@eckertseamans.com
4

 </s> Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 329 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Exhibit A

RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K.,

)

MCLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, )

JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID

)

MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D.

)

THOMPSON and RICHARD CSUKAS,

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01283 Honorable Nora Barry Fischer
ELECTRONIC FILING

RULE 41 JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the undersigned, the attorneys of record for all parties to the above-entitled action, that Plaintiff Ben Thompson hereby dismisses his claims against Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works LLC with prejudice, without costs to either party as against the other. In the event of a fee award to the remaining plaintiffs in the aboveentitled action, such award shall be reduced in the amount of the attorneys’ fees specifically attributable to the claims asserted by Thompson (which consist of fees for time spent by Plaintiffs’ attorneys in preparing for and attending Thompson’s deposition, attending individual meetings with Thompson, and preparing responses to discovery specific to Thompson).

Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bruce C. Fox Bruce C. Fox, Esquire bruce.fox@obermayer.com OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP BNY Mellon Center, Suite 5240 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412.566.1500
Counsel for Plaintiffs, including Ben Thompson

/s/ David S. Becker David S. Becker, Esquire dbecker@freebornpeters.com FREEBORN & PETERS, LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.360.6391
Counsel for Defendant

SO ORDERED:
_s_/___T__e_r__r_e_n__c_e___F__.__M__c_V__e_r__r_y_
#2877121v.6
4728011

Date: August 7, 2013

 </s> Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 330 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Exhibit A

RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K.,

)

MCLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, )

JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID

)

MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D.

)

THOMPSON and RICHARD CSUKAS,

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01283 Honorable Nora Barry Fischer
ELECTRONIC FILING

RULE 41 JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the undersigned, the attorneys of record for all parties to the above-entitled action, that Plaintiff Ron Wickwire hereby dismisses his claims against Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works LLC with prejudice, without costs to either party as against the other. In the event of a fee award to the remaining plaintiffs in the aboveentitled action, such award shall be reduced in the amount of the attorneys’ fees specifically attributable to the claims asserted by Wickwire (which consist of fees for time spent by Plaintiffs’ attorneys in preparing for and attending Wickwire’s deposition, attending individual meetings with Wickwire, and preparing responses to discovery specific to Wickwire).

Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bruce C. Fox Bruce C. Fox, Esquire bruce.fox@obermayer.com OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP BNY Mellon Center, Suite 5240 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412.566.1500

/s/ David S. Becker David S. Becker, Esquire dbecker@freebornpeters.com FREEBORN & PETERS, LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.360.6391
Counsel for Defendant

Counsel for Plaintiffs, including Ron Wickwire

SO ORDERED:
__s_/___T_e__r_r__e_n__c_e___F_.___M__c_V__e_r_r__y
#2877121v.6

Date: August 7, 2013

4728007

 </s> Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

880 F.Supp.2d 629 United States District Court,
W.D. Pennsylvania.
Rudolph A. KARLO, Mark K. McLure, William S. Cunningham, Jeffrey Marietti, David
Meixelsberger, Benjamin D. Thompson, and Richard Csukas, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 10–1283. | May 9, 2012.
Synopsis Background: Former employees brought collective action against employer, alleging reduction in force (RIF) was conducted in manner giving rise to inference of age discrimination in violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Employees moved for conditional class certification and court facilitated notice.
Holdings: The District Court, Nora Barry Fischer, J., held that:
[1] as matter of first impression, trial court would accept employees’ proposed definition of collective class of employees over 50 years of age, and
[2] employees and proposed class of employees over 50 years of age were entitled to conditional certification.
Motion granted in part.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*632 Andrew J. Horowitz, Bruce C. Fox, Mary Elizabeth Fischman, Yuanyou Yang, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Tina C. Mazzulla, David S. Becker, Jeffrey J. Mayer, Jennifer L. Fitzgerald, John T. Shapiro, Freeborn & Peters, LLP, Chicago, IL, Nancy L. Heilman, Robert B. Cottington, Robert F. Prorok, Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant.

Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NORA BARRY FISCHER, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Court Facilitated Notice” (“the motion”). (Docket No. 88). The motion is ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification (Docket No. 88) is GRANTED, in part, in accord with the following.
I. Introduction This action is brought by named Plaintiffs Richard Csukas, Jeffrey Marietti, Mark K. McLure, Benjamin D. Thompson, Rudolph A. Karlo, David Meixelsberger and William S. Cunningham (“Plaintiffs”) and against Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC (“PGW” or “Defendant”). The Plaintiffs’ claims arise from a March 2009 reduction in force (“RIF”). (Docket No. 54 at ¶ 103). This RIF resulted in the termination of each of the named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim that the RIF was conducted in a manner giving rise to an inference of age discrimination.
Their Amended Complaint (Docket No. 54) raises three counts. Count I claims disparate treatment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. (Id. at 36–37). Count II alleges disparate impact. (Id. at 38–39). Finally, Count III claims retaliation under the ADEA. (Id. at 39–41).
a. The Parties
PGW is a limited liability corporation whose business was owned by PPG Industries, Inc. (“PPG”) until late 2008. ( *633 Docket No. 54 at ¶ 8; Docket No. 73 at ¶ 8). PGW admits that, since its formation, it has been an “employer” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 623. (Docket No. 73 at ¶ 9). Each of the plaintiffs is over fifty years old. (Docket No. 54 at ¶¶ 1–7; Docket No. 73 at ¶¶ 1–7). They claim that they are all former employees of PGW and that they
1

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

were previously long-time PPG employees. (Id. at ¶ 10). PGW responds that all of the plaintiffs were employees at certain times, but at other times, several of the plaintiffs were employed by another company and worked with PGW through a contract with that company. (Docket No. 73 at ¶ 10). The Plaintiffs have all filed charges of employment discrimination based on age against PGW with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and alleged more than 60 days have elapsed without the Plaintiffs receiving a Dismissal or Notice of Rights. (Docket No. 54 at ¶¶ 17–18)
Karlo began working for PPG on October 9, 1978. (Id. at ¶ 24). McLure began working at PPG in 1974. (Id. at ¶ 32). Cunningham began his career with PPG in April 1996. (Id. at ¶ 41). Marietti was hired in 1984. (Id. at ¶ 47). Meixelsberger was hired in 1987. (Id. at ¶ 54). Thompson was brought in as a part-time employee in 1971, his position was terminated in 1972, and he was rehired on a permanent basis in 1972. (Id. at ¶¶ 60–61). Csukas started with PPG in 1973. (Id. at ¶ 76).
b. The Formation of PGW
PGW was formed on October 1, 2008, when the auto glass businesses of PPG Industries, Inc. were spun off to create a new company. (Docket No. 104–1 at ¶ 3). One of PGW’s core businesses is the production of automotive glass, such as windshields, rear windows and side windows to car manufacturers as an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”). (Id. at ¶ 5).
Around the time PGW was formed, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler appeared before Congress to request bailout funds. (Docket No. 104–2). Due to the downturn in the economy, PGW took drastic steps to “combat rapidly deteriorating sales”, including the closure of two Canadian facilities and one Michigan facility. (Docket No. 106 at 4; see generally Docket No. 104–3). Between 2008 and 2009, North American vehicle production took a precipitous dive. (Docket No. 104–4 at 1 (stating that car sales in 2009 would be “an eighteen (18) year low”)). Several of the named plaintiffs acknowledge the downturn in the economy. (See Docket No. 106 at 6 (citing depositions of Plaintiffs Csukas, Cunningham, McLure and Meixelsberger)). PGW maintains that the economic downturn led to an initial RIF in late 2008. (Docket No. 104–3 at 2).

c. The March 2009 RIF
Tony Hartmann, PGW’s Vice President of Human Resources, departed from the company in late 2008. (Docket No. 106 at 7). Kevin Cooney was brought in to replace him on an interim basis. (Id.). Cooney worked on a reorganization plan in which each business unit director in the company identified the work that needed to be done and the personnel that were necessary to perform that work. (Id. (citing Docket No. 104–12 at 47)).
The First Amended Complaint alleges that all of the Representative Plaintiffs were terminated over a two-day period in March 2009. (Docket No. 54 at ¶ 103). Mr. Csukas was terminated by Dave King, a PGW supervisor at the Evansville, Indiana facility. (Id. at ¶¶ 104–107; Docket No. 73 at ¶¶ 104–107 (admitting that Mr. Csukas was terminated)). On March 31, 2009, Mr. Thompson was informed of his termination by the Creighton Plant Manager, Craig Barnett, and Human Resources Manager, Myrtle Smith. ( *634 Docket No. 54 at ¶ 111; 73 at ¶ 111 (admitting termination and presence of Mr. Barnett and Ms. Smith)). Also on that date, the remainder of the named Plaintiffs—Messrs. Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Marietti and Meixelsberger—were terminated by Gary Cannon, Director of Manufacturing at the Harmarville, Pennsylvania facility. (Docket No. 54 at ¶¶ 120–121; 73 at ¶¶ 120–121).
A total of 105 salaried employees were terminated in the 2009 RIF. (Docket No. 106 at 6). In performing the RIF, upper management relied upon the individual directors of each unit to determine which employees must be retained and which might be terminated. (Id. at 7; Docket No. 104–12 at 47, 71–72). The criteria used in the RIF revolved around the work that was done in each unit, and the “[e]ducation, background, breadth of experience, and so forth.” (Docket No. 104–12 at 72).
d. Procedural History
Plaintiffs’ motion was filed on October 3, 2011. (Docket No. 88). The parties’ initial briefs on the motion are filed at Docket Numbers 91, 106, 113 and 126. On November 10, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment concurrently with its response to the present
2

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

motion. (See Docket No. 101). Defendant’s Appendix (Docket No. 104) is referenced both in the motion for summary judgment and in its filings pertaining to the currently-pending motion.
On December 19, 2011, the Court convened a motion hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification, at which time the Court heard argument and then ordered the parties to file additional briefing on the issue of the Court’s consideration of expert testimony at the conditional certification stage. (Docket Nos. 131–132). The parties then filed their supplemental briefs on January 4, 2012. (Docket Nos. 135, 136).
Shortly thereafter, on January 13, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the Court’s consideration of the pending motion while the parties participated in mediation. (Docket No. 141). This motion was granted on January 17, 2012. (Docket No. 145). On February 3, 2012, the Court received a report from the mediator indicating that the case had not settled. (Docket No. 149). The parties then filed additional supplemental citations to authority. (Docket Nos. 154, 158). The Court held a second motion hearing on March 9, 2012 (Docket No. 161) and received the transcript of that hearing on April 23, 2012. (Docket No. 176).1

1

Between the March 9, 2012 hearing and the issuance of

the transcript, the Court received Defendant’s Motion

for Leave to File Supplement (Docket No. 164) and

Motion to Withdraw (Docket No. 169). The Motion for

Leave to File Supplemental Authority was renewed

(Docket No. 172) and subsequently denied. (Docket

No. 178). The Court has not considered the

supplemental authority—an Arbitrator’s Order and

Opinion from another case involving Defendant—in

deciding the present motion.

II. Legal Standard [1] [2] Through the pending motion, Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of their collective ADEA claim and court-facilitated notice of same. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), which is incorporated into the ADEA via Section 7(b) of that Act, potential plaintiffs must opt in to a collective action suit and affirmatively notify the court of their intentions to join the suit. Sperling v. Hoffman–La Roche Inc., 862 F.2d 439, 444 (3d Cir.1988) (“Sperling II ”), aff’d Hoffmann–La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165,

170, 110 S.Ct. 482, 107 L.Ed.2d 480 (1989) (“Sperling ”). It is not sufficient simply to “opt-in” to a collective action under § 216(b). The representative plaintiffs must also show that the *635 potential plaintiffs are “similarly situated” to the representative plaintiffs. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); Sperling II, 862 F.2d at 444.
[3] [4] Courts typically follow a two-tiered analysis in determining whether a case may move forward as a collective action. The first phase, or “notice” phase, requires that a court “make[ ] a preliminary determination whether the employees enumerated in the complaint can be provisionally categorized as similarly situated to the named plaintiff.” Symczyk v. Genesis HealthCare Corp., 656 F.3d 189, 192 (3d Cir.2011). If the plaintiff carries this burden, the collective action is “conditionally certified” for purposes of notice and discovery. Id. The second phase is addressed after all putative class members have had an opportunity to opt in and further discovery has taken place. Mueller v. CBS, Inc., 201 F.R.D. 425, 428 (W.D.Pa.2001) (Ambrose, J.). At this stage, the court “reconsiders the class certification question using a ‘similarly situated’ standard, that is, by conducting a fact-specific review of each class member who has opted-in, taking into account factors such as employment setting, termination procedures, defenses asserted against various plaintiffs, and other procedural issues.” Id.
[5] Until recently, there was a split amongst the district courts within the Third Circuit as to the necessary showing at the notice stage. See Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 192. Some required nothing more than a “substantial allegation,” while others required the plaintiff to make a “modest factual showing” to support his claim that the proposed plaintiffs are similarly situated. Id. The Court of Appeals has spoken on this issue in an FLSA case, rejecting the “substantial allegation” standard and adopting the “modest factual showing” standard. Id. at 192–93. Even so, the standard is not particularly high: “a plaintiff must produce some evidence, ‘beyond mere speculation,’ of a factual nexus between the manner in which the employer’s alleged policy affected her and the manner in which it affected the other employees.” Id. at 193 (citing Smith v. Sovereign Bancorp., Inc., No. 03–2420, 2003 WL 22701017, at *3 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 13, 2003)).
[6] Applying the “modest factual showing” standard, a moving plaintiff must demonstrate “a sufficient factual basis on which a reasonable inference could be made that defendant[ ] orchestrated or implemented a single decision, policy or plan to discriminate against their ...
3

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

employees on the basis of age.” Mueller, 201 F.R.D. at 429 (quoting Brooks v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 164 F.R.D. 561, 567 (N.D.Ala.1995)). The Court need not make a conclusive finding of “similar situations” at the notice stage. Id.

III. Discussion Plaintiffs define their proposed collective class as all “employees who were, at any time from on or about March 31, 2009: a) 50 years of age or older; b) Who was employed by PGW; c) A member of the salaried workforce; and d) Terminated from employment with PGW by the RIF implemented on March 31, 2009.”2 (Docket No. 88 at 1; see also Docket No. 54 at ¶ 181). The Court is called upon to determine whether Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing to conditionally certify this collective class. In making this determination, the Court will address several threshold issues before turning to the ultimate question of conditional certification.

2

Although Plaintiff Csukas was terminated the day

before, it appears that those employees terminated on

March 30, 2009 were terminated as part of the same

RIF, with the implication being that they, too, were

subject to the same policy.

*636 a. The ADEA Protects Individuals Who Are Forty Years Old and Older
The ADEA protects against discrimination those who are forty years old and older. See 29 U.S.C. § 631 (defining the protected class as “limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age.”). Plaintiffs have attempted to define their class as a subgroup of this class: they seek to certify a collective action on behalf of those who are fifty years of age or older. (See Docket No. 88 at 1). Defendant challenges this effort to “slice and dice” the class. (Docket No. 135 at 1).
Throughout its briefing, Defendant refers this Court to a series of cases in contending that courts have consistently rejected efforts akin to Plaintiffs’ request to certify a subgroup under the ADEA. See EEOC v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 191 F.3d 948, 950–51 (8th Cir.1999); Lowe v. Commack Union Free School Dist., 886 F.2d 1364, 1373 (2d Cir.1989); Smith v. Tenn. Valley Auth.,

924 F.2d 1059, *4 (6th Cir.1991); Myers v. Del. County Comm. College, 2007 WL 1322239, at *10, n. 1 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 9, 2007); Schechner v. KPIX–TV, 2011 WL 109144, at *4 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2011); Kinnally v. Rogers Corp., 2009 WL 597211, at *10 (D.Ariz. Mar. 9, 2009). As the Eighth Circuit recognized:
We believe that there are stronger reasons for refusing to recognize such claims. For one thing, if such claims [for discrimination against subgroups] were cognizable under the statute, a plaintiff could bring a disparate-impact claim despite the fact that the statistical evidence indicated that an employer’s RIF criteria had a very favorable impact upon the entire protected group of employees aged 40 and older, compared to those employees outside the protected group. We do not believe that Congress could have intended such a result.
We agree, moreover, with the district court that if disparate-impact claims on behalf of subgroups were cognizable under the ADEA, the consequence would be to require an employer engaging in a RIF to attempt what might well be impossible: to achieve statistical parity among the virtually infinite number of age subgroups in its work force. Adoption of such a theory, moreover, might well have the anomalous result of forcing employers to take age into account in making layoff decisions, which is the very sort of age-based decision-making that the statute proscribes.
McDonnell Douglas Corp., 191 F.3d at 951.
Plaintiffs, for their part, urge this Court to find that subgroup discrimination claims may be maintained. Albeit filed in their response to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,3 Plaintiffs refer this court to a number of cases which, Plaintiffs argue, supports their position. (See Docket No. 123 at 15). Two of those cases are of particular interest. In Graffam v. Scott Paper Co., 848 F.Supp. 1 (D.Me.1994), the District Court for the District of Maine expressly rejected the reasoning of Lowe, supra, finding that the Lowe rule “deprives older individuals of the protection from discrimination that the Act is meant to provide.” Graffam, 848 F.Supp. at 4. Likewise, the District of Delaware rejected the Lowe analysis, finding a subgroup of those of fifty years of age and older to be *637 appropriate under the statute. See Finch v. Hercules Inc., 865 F.Supp. 1104, 1129 (D.Del.1994).
4

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

3

The parties acknowledge that their arguments overlap

as to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification

(Docket No. 88) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Docket No. 101). (See Docket No. 176 at

3–4). Because the arguments are related, the Court

reads each motion and its related filings as informing

the Court’s analysis of the other motion.

Based upon the representations of the parties and this Court’s own research, it appears that the issue of subgroup claims under the ADEA has not been addressed by a controlling authority, whether the Third Circuit or Supreme Court.4 This Court will, therefore, address the matter as one of first impression.

4

The closest either party gets to a “controlling” authority

on this question is Defendant’s citation to Myers v.

Delaware County Community College, Civ. No.

05–5855, 2007 WL 1322239 (E.D.Pa. March 9, 2007),

at page 6 of their supplemental brief. (Docket No. 135

at 6). Myers simply found the Lowe decision

“persuasive.” See Myers, 2007 WL 1322239 at *10 n.

1. However, because the Court granted summary

judgment in favor of the defendant in that case, it did

not thoroughly analyze the question of whether

subgroup protection was available under the ADEA. Id.

Thus, the Court will not rely on Myers in its own

analysis of the ADEA.

Although this Court acknowledges that the trend has been away from Graffam and Finch, and towards McDonnell Douglas, this Court respectfully disagrees with the conclusions reached in Lowe and McDonnell Douglas. Lowe was concerned with the ability of a plaintiff to subdivide the protected class into infinite subgroups, at least one of which would presumably enable a statistical showing of disparate impact. See id. (noting that “an 85 year old plaintiff could seek to prove a discrimination claim by showing that a hiring practice caused a disparate impact on the ‘subgroup’ of those age 85 and above, even though all those hired were in their late seventies.”).
McDonnell Douglas arrived at the same conclusion, for slightly different reasons. In that case, the Eighth Circuit observed that, if subgroup claims were allowed, a plaintiff could bring a disparate impact claim despite the fact that statistical evidence might show that an RIF had actually had a favorable impact upon the entire protected group of employees over forty when compared to those employees outside of the protected group. McDonnell Douglas, 191

F.3d at 951. Further, the Court noted that an employer might be required to “attempt what might well be impossible: to achieve statistical parity among the virtually infinite number of age subgroups in its work force.” Id.
As stated, this Court does not agree with the conclusions reached in Lowe, McDonnell Douglas, or the cases that follow them. The Court will examine the broader context of the ADEA, explaining why it reads the ADEA to allow subgroup classification in disparate impact cases. With this background in mind, the Court will then address the specific concerns raised by Lowe and McDonnell Douglas.
i. The ADEA Background and Framework
The ADEA’s prohibition covers “discriminat[ion] ... because of age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). The “prohibitions in [the ADEA] shall be limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age.” 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). Congress, in its findings, makes clear that the ADEA was passed based on the concern that older workers are disadvantaged in the work place. See 29 U.S.C. § 621(a)(1)-(4).
In 2004, the Supreme Court examined the history of the ADEA in great detail in General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581, 124 S.Ct. 1236, 157 L.Ed.2d 1094 (2004). This Court briefly summarizes some of the most pertinent points. At the outset, age was not included in the discrimination forbidden by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 715, 78 Stat. 265, as Congress was aware that *638 there were some legitimate reasons, as well as invidious ones, for making employment decisions based on age. Cline, 540 U.S. at 586–87, 124 S.Ct. 1236. Instead, the Secretary of Labor was called upon to examine the issue. The Secretary determined that older individuals were disadvantaged when compared to younger. Report of the Secretary of Labor, The Older American Worker: Age Discrimination in Employment 2 (June 1965) (hereinafter, Wirtz Report). Although the Secretary observed disadvantage for older workers, the Wirtz Report “contains no suggestion that reactions to age level off at some point, and it was devoid of any indication that the Secretary had noticed unfair advantages accruing to older employees at the expense of their juniors.” Cline, 540 U.S. at 587, 124 S.Ct. 1236 (emphasis added).
5

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

During congressional hearings on what would become the ADEA, much was said on the impact of increasing age. See, e.g., Age Discrimination in Employment: Hearings on H.R. 3651 et al. before the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 90th Congress, 1st Sess. at 151 (1967) (hereinafter House Hearings) (statement of Rep. Joshua Eilberg) (“At age 40, a worker may find that age restrictions become common ... By age 45, his employment opportunities are likely to contract sharply; they shrink more severely at age 55 and virtually vanish by age 65”). “The record thus reflects the common facts that an individual’s chances to find and keep a job get worse over time; as between any two people, the younger is in the stronger position, the older more apt to be tagged with demeaning stereotype.” Cline, 540 U.S. at 589, 124 S.Ct. 1236 (emphasis added). Thus, it “is beyond reasonable doubt, that the ADEA was concerned to protect a relatively old worker from discrimination that works to the advantage of the relatively young.” Id. at 590–91, 124 S.Ct. 1236 (emphasis added).
The legislative history and the holding in Cline make one thing clear: age discrimination does not stop at forty. The older an employee (or potential employee) is, the more likely it is that that person will suffer from age discrimination. See House Hearings at 151. This Court sees nothing in the statute that contradicts this conclusion, or that would limit a court’s ability to examine in detail any possible disparate impact that may only impact those of more advanced age than 40–year–olds.
[7] Indeed, the Court finds support for the opposite: the statute protects “individuals who are at least 40 years of age.” 29 U.S.C. § 631(a) (emphasis added). The statute, by its plain language, protects anyone who is forty or older. The statute likewise clearly protects against employment decisions made “because of [an] individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1)-(2). Clearly, a fifty year old is older than forty, and there can be no serious dispute that fifty year olds can be discriminated against on the basis of their age, even when compared to other, younger members of the protected group.
The Court also finds support for the viability of subgroup claims in the Supreme Court’s recognition that the “ultimate legal issue” is the same in disparate impact and disparate treatment cases. See Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 987, 108 S.Ct. 2777, 101 L.Ed.2d 827 (1988). The Supreme Court has also held that a claim may lie even where a plaintiff fails to establish that he was replaced by someone outside of the protected class.

See O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 313, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996). Although that case was, admittedly, decided in the context of a disparate treatment claim, the “ultimate legal issue” *639 in that case is the same as in a disparate impact case: that is, whether a relatively younger individual—within or outside of the class—was preferred to the plaintiff for no reason other than age. Thus, the distinction between treatment and impact is not persuasive here. See Sandra F. Sperino, The Sky Remains Intact: Why Allowing Subgroup Evidence is Consistent With the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 90 MARQ. L. REV.. 227, 252–53 (2006) (hereinafter, Sperino) (arguing that the O’Connor decision should not be limited to disparate treatment claims). If a lone fifty-five year old can establish a claim for age discrimination, even if he was replaced by a forty-two year old, the Court sees no reason why a group of fifty-five year olds cannot do the same.
This Court finds further support for allowing subgroup claims by looking beyond the confines of the ADEA. Given the similarity of the statutory language, the Supreme Court has looked to, and followed, its reasoning in Title VII cases when analyzing the ADEA. Specifically, the Court followed its Title VII precedent in concluding that the ADEA allowed disparate impact claims.. See Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 544 U.S. 228, 233–35, 125 S.Ct. 1536, 161 L.Ed.2d 410 (2005) (finding that the ADEA provides for disparate impact claims).5 Taking this reasoning a step further, “[i]t is clear that Congress never intended to give an employer license to discriminate against some employees on the basis of [age] merely because he favorably treats other members of the employees’ group.” Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 445, 102 S.Ct. 2525, 73 L.Ed.2d 130 (1982). If subgroup claims are cognizable in disparate impact cases under Title VII, in the absence of statutory language that indicates otherwise, they should likewise be cognizable under the ADEA

5

The Court recognizes that the Smith decision did

observe that “the scope of disparate-impact liability

under ADEA is narrower than under Title VII.” Smith,

544 U.S. at 240, 125 S.Ct. 1536. The two reasons for

this narrower scope are the ADEA’s “reasonable factor

other than age” provision and the amendments to Title

VII contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The

Court does not read either of these limitations as

affecting the analysis of whether a subgroup claim may

be brought.

6

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

Of course, just because a subgroup may be defined under the ADEA does not mean that there are no limits upon that definition: the Cline decision makes clear that discrimination cannot occur with respect to those that are part of the protected class, but are relatively younger. The focus of Cline was a policy which arguably discriminated against those over forty and under fifty. See Cline, 540 U.S. at 584, 124 S.Ct. 1236. Based on the House Hearings and Wirtz Report, supra, among other sources, the Supreme Court determined that such a group was not colorable, as the ADEA does not prohibit favoring the older over the younger. Id.
[8] The logical conclusion to be drawn from the Cline holding is that no subgroup may be defined with an upper boundary—only a lower one. If, for example, a plaintiff were to attempt to define a subgroup of 55–58 year olds, and there were employees over 58 years of age, the underlying argument that must necessarily be assumed is that those employees 59 and over have been treated better than those in the subgroup.6 This does not accord with Cline, and would necessarily fail under the reasoning of that case.

6

If there are no employees older than 58 in this

hypothetical, than the subgroup is, for all purposes, a

group defined with only a lower limit of 55 years of

age. This group would be in accord with Cline, as it

would compare older to younger, only.

Further, because statistics are valuable in showing disparate impact, the Court *640 notes that the size of a subgroup is practically limited by the boundaries of statistical analysis. The more narrowly a subgroup is defined, the easier it may be to show a disparate impact. Indeed, with a sufficiently narrow and defined subgroup, a case could potentially describe a hypothetical class of one. However, the more narrowly a subgroup is defined, the less likely the statistics derived from that subgroup are to be statistically significant. See Sperino, 90 MARQ. L.REV.. at 229 (“For many employees, especially those in their sixties or older, it will be impossible to produce subgroup evidence in support of a disparate impact claim because there will simply be too few employees within the protected class to create a statistically significant sample.”).7

7

The Court observes that it appears that the average

employee age is increasing. By 2016, workers age 65

and over are expected to account for 6.1 percent of the

total workforce, which is a sharp increase from the

2006 share of 3.6 percent. See Projected growth in

labor force participation of seniors, 2006–2016,

available

at

http://www.bls.

gov/opub/ted/2008/jul/wk4/art04.htm (last visited May

2, 2012). Thus, Professor Sperino’s point may not hold

true for employees age 65 and older, but it surely holds

true at some point in the age spectrum.

ii. Lowe and McDonnell Douglas
With this background in mind, this Court does not find the reasoning applied in Lowe or McDonnell Douglas to be sufficient to deny plaintiffs the ability to bring subgroup claims under the ADEA, at this stage.
The concern in Lowe was that a complaining party may be able to pick and choose how to define his subgroup in order to produce statistical evidence that might demonstrate discriminatory impact. Lowe, 886 F.2d at 1373. As this Court has described above, there are two factors that mitigate this concern. First, this Court reads the Cline decision to prohibit defining an upper cap on a subgroup. Thus, a plaintiff will not be able to whittle down a subgroup from top to bottom and bottom to top in order to achieve the statistical disparity he seeks. Second, even if a plaintiff were to attempt to create a narrowly-restricted subgroup, the limitations of statistical analysis restrict the degree to which a plaintiff might construct his proposed subgroup.
One of the concerns raised in McDonnell Douglas is similar, but distinct. The Eighth Circuit’s fear was that, if plaintiffs were able to selectively define subgroups, employers would be forced to attempt the “impossible: to achieve statistical parity among the virtually infinite number of age subgroups in its work force.” McDonnell Douglas, 191 F.3d at 951. This Court believes the same two factors discussed relative to Lowe are likewise fatal to McDonnell Douglas’ s concern over impossibility, and the Court will not repeat itself. Additionally, while an “infinite” number of subgroups is technically feasible, as time can be divided into an infinite number of increments, as a practical matter courts will only have to deal with discrete, and rather limited, proposed subgroups. Full years, i.e. 52, 56, or 70, are the only likely discrete values that might be used to construct subgroups. Practically speaking, there are only about 30 discrete values—from
7

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

40 years old to approximately 70 years—over which courts might see proposed subgroups, as typically, people are approaching retirement by that age, if not sooner.8

8

While technically possible, this Court perceives that it

is highly unlikely that litigants may engage in the

child-like practice of subdividing years. For example,

PGW points to the possibility of a “creative ‘subset,’

even one as absurd as ages 45 ½ to 49 ¾.” (Docket No.

135 at 6). That truly is absurd. One can only imagine a

litigant coming to federal court and arguing “Acme

Company discriminated against me because I’m fifty

and a half, and my replacement is only fifty and a

quarter!” One can also imagine the haste with which a

court would dispose of such a case.

*641 Perhaps the most troubling justification for denying subgroup claims is the other problem raised in McDonnell Douglas. The Eighth Circuit observed that, in certain circumstances, a subgroup disparate impact claim might stand, even though the entire protected class of employees over forty might have been treated very favorably when compared to those employees outside of the protected group. Id. However, as Cline makes clear, the ADEA is not concerned with reverse age discrimination. See Cline, 540 U.S. at 590–91, 124 S.Ct. 1236. Rather, this Court reads Cline to yield the proposition that, so long as comparatively older workers are treated less favorably than comparatively younger, but still protected, workers, the impact of a given policy on unprotected workers is irrelevant.

iii. Plaintiffs May Define a Class as 50 and Over
[9] Given the foregoing discussion, the Court is of the belief that the Plaintiffs may define their collective class as a subgroup of the statutorily-protected class of employees over 40 years of age. This Court sees nothing in the statute that prohibits the rights of employees to do so, and the Court finds no sufficient justification in the non-binding precedent which refutes that conclusion. Instead, the Court finds highly persuasive the reasoning presented in Professor Sperino’s article, referenced above. See generally Sperino, 90 MARQ. L.REV.. 227. The Court will, therefore, accept the collective group, as defined by the Plaintiffs, for purposes of the remaining analysis.

b. Expert Witnesses at the Conditional Certification Stage
The Court next turns to the parties’ dispute over the propriety of this Court’s consideration of expert evidence. Plaintiffs, for their part, oppose any use of expert evidence at this stage of litigation. (Docket No. 113 at 26–29). The gist of their argument, as the Court understands it, is the simple proposition that the Plaintiffs are not required to present expert testimony at the conditional certification stage. They do, however, submit with their reply brief, an expert report in opposition to PGW’s. (Docket No. 113–2). Plaintiffs ask that the Court consider this Report “only if the Court chooses to accept the Pifer Report as evidence in opposition to conditional certification—which it should not do.” (Docket No. 113 at 28).
Defendant responds that consideration of its expert testimony is appropriate precisely for the reasons Plaintiffs claim it is not: that is, that the authority upon which Plaintiffs rely to oppose the use of statistics in this discriminatory impact case discusses the use of statistical evidence in a disparate treatment case. (See Docket No. 126 at 15) (discussing Healy v. New York Life Ins. Co., 860 F.2d 1209 (3d Cir.1988)). Defendant also argues that it is inappropriate for Plaintiffs to introduce new evidence in their reply brief, and as a result, the expert evidence submitted therein should be barred for purposes of this motion. (Id. at 16).
[10] The Court will first address the propriety of considering the Plaintiffs’ newly-raised expert report. “It is improper for the moving party to shift gears and introduce new facts or different legal arguments in the reply brief than [those that were] presented in the moving papers.” D’Aiuto v. City of Jersey City, Civ. No. 06–6222, 2007 WL 2306791, at *4, n. 1, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57646, at *10, n. 1 (D.N.J. August 8, 2007) (Greenaway, J.) *642 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting William W. Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima, and James M. Wagstaffe, FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL, § 12:107 (The Rutter Group 2005)). “[R]eply briefs are limited in scope to matters either raised by the opposition or unforeseen at the time of the original motion.” Burnham v. City of Rohnert Park, No. C 92–1439, 1992 WL 672965, *5 (N.D.Cal. May 18, 1992). Plaintiffs twice alluded to statistical evidence, but failed to produce any expert report or otherwise brief the issue.9
8

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

Thus, the Plaintiffs were clearly aware of the potential for statistical evidence, and as such, it cannot be considered unforeseen. In this regard, it would be improper for Plaintiffs to introduce expert evidence that could otherwise have been raised in its opening brief.

9

The extent of Plaintiff’s reference to statistical evidence

is contained on pages 9 and 13 of their Brief in Support

of their Motion for Conditional Class Certification.

(Docket No. 91). Page 9 states only that the

“standard-less evaluation practice resulted in the

termination of approximately 105 employees, 54.3

percent of whom were over 50.” (Docket No. 91 at 9).

Page 13 contains slightly more detail:

Just considering the 105 or so employees

terminated, it is easily discernible that the impact

was largely borne by the older workers, with those

over 50 being especially hard hit. The percentage

of employees who were 40 and older who were

terminated was 80 percent, and the percentage of

employees who were 50 and older who were

terminated was 54.3 percent. (Id. at 13).

These “passing reference[s]” are insufficient, without

more, to preserve the argument for later. See

Laborers’ Intern. Union of North America, AFL–CIO

v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398

(3d Cir.1994).

[11] [12] [13] That is not to say that Plaintiffs’ report could not be raised as rebuttal evidence. “Whether to permit or prohibit the introduction of rebuttal evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Jackson v. City of Pittsburgh, Civ. No. 07–111, 2011 WL 3443951, *15 (W.D.Pa. Aug. 8, 2011) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 611(a); Bhaya v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 922 F.2d 184, 190 (3d Cir.1990) (“a trial judge’s decision regarding the scope of rebuttal may not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.”)). “Rebuttal evidence must generally tend to refute the defendant’s proof,” Bhaya, 922 F.2d at 190, and “is not to be used as a continuation of the case-in-chief.” Cates v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 928 F.2d 679, 685 (5th Cir.1991). Moreover, “[o]nce a plaintiff has had a chance to prove a fact, he cannot reopen the matter simply by stating that he wishes to introduce more or better evidence.” Pignons S.A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp., 701 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1983). Thus, it would be within the Court’s discretion to consider Plaintiffs’ expert evidence in rebuttal. However, as the Court explains below, it does not see a compelling reason to give great consideration to expert evidence from either side of this dispute at this stage in the proceedings.

Defendant avoids the issues just addressed because its expert report was filed contemporaneously with its responsive brief. This report is directed largely to the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination. It describes the percentages of those employees retained and terminated (see, e.g., Docket No. 104–20 at ¶¶ 22–25 (examining Plaintiffs’ brief references to age statistics and stating that the affidavit “focuses on whether [ ]differences between those PGW salaried employees terminated and those retained are statistically significant for each alternative protected class and for alternative categories of PGW salaries employees.”)), with little reference made to whether the proposed members were similarly situated to the named Plaintiffs.
*643 [14] The Court may consider only admissible evidence in deciding a motion to conditionally certify a collective action. See, e.g., Wright v. Lehigh Valley Hospital, Civ. No. 10–431, 2010 WL 3363992, *4 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 24, 2010); Kuznyetsov v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc., Civ. No. 09–379, 2009 WL 1515175, *4 (W.D.Pa. June 1, 2009) (Ambrose, J.); Stanislaw v. Erie Indem. Co., Civ. No. 07–1078, 2009 WL 426641, *2 (W.D.Pa. Feb. 20, 2009). While these cases are useful, they are not entirely dispositive, as there is no indication that Defendant’s expert report would be inadmissible. So, the Court’s analysis must go a step further.
[15] The thrust of the Court’s inquiry at this juncture—i.e., at the conditional certification stage—“is not on whether there has been an actual violation of law but rather on whether the proposed plaintiffs are ‘similarly situated’ under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) with respect to their allegations that the law has been violated.” Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 229 F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (citing Krueger v. N.Y. Tel. Co., Civ. Nos. 93–178, 93–179, 1993 WL 276058, *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 1993) (“[T]he Court need not evaluate the merits of plaintiff’s claims in order to determine whether a ‘similarly situated’ group exists.”)); see also Owens v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 108 F.R.D. 207, 210–211 (S.D.W.Va.1985) (“[A]t this point the Plaintiff does not have to prove that there was a class of employees which was subjected to discrimination by [the defendant]. This ... is the ultimate question. The Plaintiff only has to show that a group of employees similarly situated to one another are claiming discrimination.”). The analysis here is not directed to whether the plaintiffs will succeed in their claim; rather, the purpose of the analysis is to “establish[ ] nothing more than the right of the plaintiffs to ‘maintain’ a collective
9

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

action.” Sperling v. Hoffmann–La Roche, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 392, 407 (D.N.J.1988) (“Sperling III ”).
Although these cases are not controlling, they are entirely consistent with the Third Circuit’s admonition that, “[d]uring the initial phase, the court makes a preliminary determination whether the employees enumerated in the complaint can be provisionally categorized as similarly situated to the named plaintiff.” Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 192. Under the “modest factual showing” standard, the movant must produce some evidence “of a factual nexus between the manner in which the employer’s alleged policy affected her and the manner in which it affected other employees.” Id. at 193. Nothing in the case law, to this Court’s reading, requires a trial court to engage in a determination on the legal merits of the underlying discrimination claim at the conditional certification stage.
[16] Given that the Court is not examining the legal merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims here, the Court finds that the Defendant’s expert report is not dispositive with respect to the instant motion. Defendant’s report is directed to statistical evidence of discrimination, not the element of similar situation. In his own words, Defendant’s expert “ha[s] been instructed ... to review, comment on and analyze the statistical significance, if any, of the alleged age discrimination claim by Plaintiffs within their proposed protected class of PGW salaried employees.” (Docket No. 104–20 at ¶ 12) (emphasis added). “The fundamental issue discussed herein is whether there is any statistical evidence of age discrimination during PGW’s reduction in force of its salaried employees on or about 31 March 2009.” (Id. at ¶ 16). The report speaks to the merits of the discrimination case, not the motion presently before the Court. Hence, the report is not instrumental in the Court’s decision to conditionally certify this case.
*644 c. Conditional Certification
[17] Having decided that the Plaintiffs’ proposed subgroup class claim is cognizable under the ADEA, and that the proposed expert evidence as to discrimination does not dictate the outcome of the similar situation analysis, the Court now turns to the merits of the motion for conditional certification. To qualify for conditional certification, Plaintiffs need only make out a “modest factual showing”, Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 192–93, that they are similarly situated to other members of the proposed class. To this end, the Court must determine whether the

Plaintiffs have demonstrated “a sufficient factual basis on which a reasonable inference could be made that defendant [ ] orchestrated or implemented a single decision, policy or plan to discriminate against [its] ... employees on the basis of age.” Mueller, 201 F.R.D. at 429 (citing Brooks, 164 F.R.D. at 567).
Defendant argues that, even if the Plaintiffs show that they (and their proposed class members) were victims of a single decision, policy or plan, they “must further show that the putative class members: (1) were employed in the same corporate department, division and location; (2) advance similar claims; and (3) seek substantially the same form of relief.” (Docket No. 106 at 24 (citing Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corp., 879 F.2d 43, 51 (3d Cir.1989), overruled on other grounds, Starceski v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 54 F.3d 1089, 1099 n. 10 (3d Cir.1995))). This Court, however, does not read Lockhart as requiring affirmative showings of these factors, as the Court of Appeals merely cited with approval a lower court’s analysis of those factors. See Lockhart, 879 F.2d at 51. Indeed, the paragraph following the one cited by the Defendants proves the point: the Court of Appeals concluded that the opt-in plaintiffs in that action were “similarly situated” despite being employed in different branch locations. Id. (“The opt-in plaintiffs in the present action were all former employees within the Financial Services Division of WCC, albeit in different branch locations ... Balancing the factors as applied in Plummer and Lusardi, we conclude that all the opt-in plaintiffs in this present action were ‘similarly situated’ to Lockhart.”) (emphasis added).
All said, courts have examined a number of factors in the conditional certification analysis. These factors are summarized well in Wynn v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 234 F.Supp.2d 1067, 1082–84 (C.D.Cal.2002), which cites a number of other cases that have addressed similarity. The first is Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., which looked to “(1) the disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to Xerox which appear to be individual to each plaintiff; [and] (3) fairness and procedural considerations.” Lusardi, 118 F.R.D. 351, 359 (D.N.J.1987). Other factors include: (1) whether the plaintiffs all held the same job titles; (2) whether the plaintiffs worked in different geographical locations; (3) the extent to which the claimed discrimination occurs during different time periods and by different decision-makers; (4) whether plaintiffs have provided “statistically significant” evidence of age discrimination; (5) whether the plaintiffs all alleged similar, though not
10

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

identical, discriminatory treatment; (6) whether the plaintiffs have sufficiently pled and supported by affidavits, depositions, and the like that defendant’s decision-makers have articulated and manifested a clear intent to purge the defendant of older employees; and (7) whether the defendant took steps to implement its plan, such as by targeting older employees for criticism and building a “paper trail” that would be grounds for their demotion. Wynn, 234 F.Supp.2d at 1083.
*645 A brief review of some of the cases cited by Wynn is informative. The facts in Hyman v. First Union Corporation, 982 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C.1997), demonstrate the type of evidence that speaks to similarity. That case involved terminations “during two RIFs in a span of six months” after one entity was acquired by another. Hyman, 982 F.Supp. at 4–5. Although the plaintiffs in Hyman acknowledged that “individual managers did have discretion when deciding whom to retain,” they argued that a few central individuals were responsible for the ultimate discrimination. Id. at 4. “Weighing very strongly in favor of a collective action is the fact that the challenged employment practice, termination, is the same for each of the members.” Id. Finally, the Hyman Court weighed heavily in favor of conditional certification the fact that common evidence would be used to prove the alleged discrimination. Id. at 5.
Lusardi involved “various work force reductions.” 118 F.R.D. at 352. The proposed class in that case was derived from a wide range of suborganizations and subsidiaries and involved different jobs. Id. The proposed class members were subject to different job actions, “including resignations, promotions, terminations for cause, etc.”, and “which occurred at various times as a result of decisions by different supervisors made on a decentralized employee-by-employee basis.” Id. Indeed, the terminations at issue occurred over twenty-eight voluntary RIFs or forty-seven involuntary RIFs that occurred over a four year period. Id. at 361. On the basis of these differences, the motion was denied.
The Wynn case itself presents a different set of facts which resulted in a denial. That case addressed “an unprecedented move”: “combining the decisions of several loosely-related entities, under an umbrella of a common industry-wide practice.” Wynn, 234 F.Supp.2d at 1083. The plaintiffs—former or current television writers—were from “various states and Canada,” and they claimed different backgrounds “in terms of qualifications and experience.” Id. at 1074. Some plaintiffs had not worked for nearly twenty years, while others had obtained

work in the years leading up to the filing of the lawsuit. Id. Even so, the Court recognized that “it would appear that Plaintiffs have done all that is required of them up to this point. Were they to proceed in a class action against any one employer, ... the class would most likely be conditionally certified.” Id. at 1084.
[18] After review of these cases, considering the facts of the pending case, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ request for conditional certification should be granted. Although the instant facts are not identical to any set of facts in the cases addressed above, or any other that the Court has found, the Court believes this case has much more in common with Hyman than it does Lusardi.
First, the Court looks to the activities of the Defendant. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they were all terminated in the course of a single, company-wide RIF. This RIF clearly constitutes a “single decision, policy or plan,” even if it was implemented by individual managers. Further, the named Plaintiffs were all over 50 years old when they were terminated from PGW. Despite what appears to be the common practice of allowing qualified workers to apply for alternative positions when theirs are at risk,10 Mr. Karlo was expressly denied *646 that opportunity. (See Docket No. 88–6 at 11–12). The evidence also hints that “adaptability,” potentially a proxy for age,11 was a factor considered in the RIF. (Id. at 12–13). Combined with the lack of any documentation about the RIF,12 this Court finds that PGW’s activities weigh in favor of certification. Importantly, the fact that the decision to implement the RIF was made at a high level of the organization weighs in favor of a broader class. See Owens, 108 F.R.D. at 212 (“It is the nature of a reduction in force which makes the broader class definition appropriate.”).

10

PPG’s October 30, 2000 RIF Guidelines make clear

that that entity allowed the practice of “bumping,”

where a satisfactory worker whose position was

eliminated would “displace” a worker who received

“needs improvement” ratings. (Docket No. 88–4 at 3).

Likewise, Mr. Cooney indicated at his deposition that

his former employer, Whirlpool, had a similar policy in

place, where it “made sure that [displaced employees]

were made aware of” alternative positions in the

company. (Docket No. 88–5 at 11–13). While this

evidence does not appear relevant to the question of

PGW’s alleged discrimination, the Court observes that

the evidence does indicate that other firms typically

look to give qualified displaced employees other

opportunities within the company before termination.

11

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

The record demonstrates that there were no guidelines in place at PGW when the 2009 RIF occurred. (See generally Docket No. 88–5).

11

See, e.g., Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345,

352 (5th Cir.2005); Bienkowski v. American Airlines,

Inc., 851 F.2d 1503, 1507 (5th Cir.1988). Cf. Robinson

v. Union Carbide Corp., 538 F.2d 652, 662 (5th

Cir.1976) (observing that subjects like “adaptability”

may “subject[ ] the ultimate promotion decision to the

intolerable occurrence of conscious or unconscious

prejudice.”).

12

The Court recognizes and accepts the Defendant’s

argument that a “lack of consideration of historical

performance data and HR oversight, and failure to use a

predecessor company’s (PPG’s) RIF guidelines do not

alone establish that any individual or group of

individuals was discriminated against.” (Docket No.

126 at 11 (citing Marione v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 188

Fed.Appx. 141 (3d Cir.2006))). However, a lack of

guidelines, in conjunction with statements like those of

Mr. Cannon, who evidently claimed that his decision

was driven by “adaptability” (see Docket No. 88–6 at

12–13), might give rise to an inference of ageism. The

Court does not draw that conclusion here, but

emphasizes that such an inference may be drawn based

on the evidence.

As to the actual similarities between members of the proposed class, this Court agrees with Hyman’ s reasoning that termination via the same RIF “weigh[s] very strongly in favor of a collective action.” Hyman, 982 F.Supp. at 4. Unlike Lusardi, which involved a large number of localized RIFs that occurred over an extended period, the actions complained of in this case all arose under a single, company-wide RIF. Although the Hyman plaintiffs “all come from a discrete geographical area,” id., this Court finds that the high-level decision to implement a company-wide RIF outweighs the geographic dispersion of the proposed class members. A single decision, made high enough in the company, may have implications that reach far beyond a narrow geographic location.
Finally, the Court observes that the proposed class members will rely on common evidence to prove their alleged discrimination. This, too, weighs in favor of conditional certification. See id. at 5.

Because this Court is convinced that the Plaintiffs have made an adequate showing of similarity to surpass the relatively low hurdle of conditional certification, the Court will grant leave to pursue the collective action. However, the Court notes that this does not mean Plaintiffs have satisfied the ultimate burden they will face in achieving certification of this representative action. See Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 194 (“[T]he certification we refer to here is only the district court’s exercise of [its] discretionary power, upheld in Hoffmann–La Roche, to facilitate the sending of notice to potential class members and is neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of a representative action under the *647 [ADEA].”) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 555 n. 10 (2d Cir.2010)). At present, the evidence is far from sufficient to carry the final burden.
d. PGW’s Wal–Mart Argument
Because it raises an important question, the Court also addresses PGW’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011), should lead to a denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification. In their opening brief, the Plaintiffs argue that Wal–Mart is irrelevant to this case, as it was decided under Rule 23, and not the collective action mechanism. (Docket No. 91 at 29–30). They also note that their proposed class is dramatically different from the mammoth class in Wal–Mart. (Id. at 30–31). PGW argues that the Wal–Mart holding is instructive here, and points the Court to several cases that PGW claims support that proposition. (See Docket No. 106 at 22–23 (citing Ruiz v. Serco, Inc., Civ. No. 10–394, 2011 WL 7138732, *6 (W.D.Wis. Aug. 5, 2011); MacGregor v. Farmers Ins. Exch., Civ. No. 10–3088, 2011 WL 2981466, *4 (D.S.C. July 22, 2011))).
To the extent that these cases describe Wal–Mart as “instructive”, Ruiz, 2011 WL 7138732 at *6, or “illuminating,” MacGregor, 2011 WL 2981466 at *4, with respect to collective actions, this Court agrees. However, the Court does not believe that application of Wal–Mart would render the class uncertifiable.13 First, Wal–Mart is factually quite different from the present case. At issue in that case were pay and promotion decisions made with respect to more than 1.5 million class
12

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012)

members. Wal–Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2547. It appears that each one of these decisions occurred independently, over the course of several years. See id. at 2549 (defining the class as all women employed “since December 26, 1998”). The numerosity and dispersion of the Wal–Mart class makes it look more like Wynn, 234 F.Supp.2d 1067, supra, than the instant case.

13

The Court is not aware of any case within this Circuit

on the point, and emphasizes that it does not decide, at

this juncture, whether the reasoning in Wal–Mart is

necessarily to be applied to collective actions in the

ADEA. Rather, the Court simply observes that, on the

record before it, even if Wal–Mart was applicable, it

would not lead this Court to conclude that conditional

certification should be denied.

Second, there is language in the Wal–Mart case itself that indicates that conditional certification is appropriate in this case. The Court observed that:
What matters to class certification ... is not the raising of common “questions”—even in droves—but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation. Dissimilarities within the proposed class are what have the potential to impede the generation of common answers.
Wal–Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2551 (emphasis in original, internal citation omitted). The Court’s tentative finding that the parties are similarly situated is an indication that it believes that a common answer will be found to the question of whether discrimination lies at the root of the March 2009 RIF implemented by PGW or not. At the decertification stage, the Court should have more evidence with which to determine whether the dissimilarities between putative class members will impede the generation of common answers or not.
Thus, while the Court does believe that the reasoning in Wal–Mart is instructive in collective action context, the Court is not persuaded that following Wal–Mart would result in the denial of conditional certification here. Instead, the Court believes *648 that the standard two-tiered process is actually on all fours with the

Wal–Mart decision. This conclusion is bolstered by the Symczyk decision, which was decided after—and cited, albeit for a different proposition—the Wal–Mart decision. See Symczyk, 656 F.3d at 198 n. 10.
e. Court–Facilitated Notice
Under Sperling, this Court has the authority to facilitate notice to putative opt-in plaintiffs. Sperling, 493 U.S. at 169, 110 S.Ct. 482. However, this Court, in its Amended Case Management Order (Docket No. 83) ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the opt-in notice and consent forms, “which shall be made ready for the Court’s review upon the Court’s ruling on certification, at which time the Court will convene a status conference to review same.” (Id. at ¶ 5). As PGW argues, based on the Court’s Order, Plaintiffs’ request for approval of notice was premature. (See Docket No. 106 at 35). PGW informed the Court in its brief that there is only “one discrete matter” to address, (id.), so the Court now directs counsel to the parties to finalize the notice and consent forms and present them to the Court for its review.
Finally, there is some dispute over whether Defendant must provide Plaintiffs with contact information for the prospective class members. On that question, the Court finds that it is appropriate for Defendant to produce the same. See Sperling III, 118 F.R.D. at 404 (requiring the defendant to comply with plaintiffs’ request for discovery of names and addresses). Despite Defendant’s claims that it has “already provide[d] Plaintiffs with much of the requested information,” (id.), the Court will require that Defendant produce the names and addresses of all potential class members to ensure that no relevant names are omitted.
IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification (Docket No. 88) is GRANTED, in part. The Court will convene a status conference to address any remaining notice issues once the Court receives the parties’ status reports and proposed notice and consent forms, as directed in the forthcoming Order. Said appropriate Order follows.

13

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 880 F.Supp.2d 629 (2012) 14

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

RUDOLPH A. KARLO and MARK K. MCLURE,
Plaintiffs, vs. PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) 2:10-cv-1283 ) ) ) ) ) )
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Pending before the Court is a MOTION TO CERTIFY FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(b) AND STAY PROCEEDINGS filed by Plaintiffs Rudolph A. Karlo and Mark K. McLure (ECF No. 452) with a brief in support (ECF No. 453). Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC (“PGW”) filed a brief in opposition (ECF No. 454); Plaintiffs filed a replay brief (ECF No. 457). Accordingly, the motion is ripe for disposition. I. Background The Court has previously detailed the extensive procedural history of this action in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2014, in which it granted in part and denied in part PGW’s motion for decertification, which dismissed the claims of Opt-in Plaintiffs Michael Breen, Matthew Clawson, Stephen Shaw, and John Titus. (ECF No. 343). The Court hereby incorporates that discussion by reference. Since that time, the Court has issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order of Court in which it (1) granted PGW’s (renewed) motions to bar (a) the proposed expert opinion of Dr. Anthony G. Greenwald related to implicit social bias; (b) the opinion of Dr. Michael Campion regarding the statistical analysis; and (c) Dr. Campion’s opinion on reasonable human resource

practices; and (2) granted in part and denied in part PGW’s motion to bar the rebuttal expert report of David Duffus. (ECF No. 442). Following that ruling, Plaintiffs filed a (renewed) motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order which decertified Plaintiffs’ conditionally-certified collective action as well as its Memorandum Opinion and Order which granted (in part) PGW’s motions to bar the testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts.
While that motion was pending, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on September 2, 2015, which granted PGW’s motions for summary judgment on the individual disparate treatment and disparate impact claims of the then-named Plaintiffs Rudolph A. Karlo, Mark K. McLure, William S. Cunningham, Jeffrey Marietti, and David Meixelsberger; and denied PGW’s motion for summary judgment of the individual retaliation claims of Karlo and McLure. (ECF No. 448). In accordance with that Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court entered judgment the following day in favor PGW and against Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Marietti, and Meixelsberger on Count One (Disparate Treatment Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act) and Count Two (Disparate Impact Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act) of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Thus, the only claims that remain are the individual retaliation claims of Karlo and McLure.
The parties thereafter jointly motioned the Court to withdraw Plaintiffs’ motion to certify for interlocutory appeal and to permit Plaintiffs to refile same to reflect the rulings on PGW’s motions for summary judgment. The Court granted the parties’ motion on September 3, 2015, stating that “Plaintiffs may renew and refile their Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay Proceedings on or before September 11, 2015, with said motion relating back to August 26, 2015 for the purpose of any jurisdictional or procedural deadline(s).” (ECF No. 451).
2

Plaintiffs timely filed the pending motion, in which they now ask the Court to certify its judgment in favor of PGW and against Plaintiffs as a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and to issue an express determination that “there is not just reason for delay” of appellate review. Plaintiffs also request that the Court stay the proceedings pending resolution of their appeal, which PGW opposes. PGW does not, however, oppose the entry of final judgment.
Even so, this Court must independently assess whether it should enter a final judgment. As our court of appeals has observed, “Rule 54(b) orders should not be entered routinely or as a courtesy or accommodation to counsel.” Panichella v. Pa. R.R. Co., 252 F.2d 452, 455 (3d Cir. 1958). In other words, “district judges may not enter orders under Rule 54(b) just because the parties ask.” Stamatakis Indus., Inc. v. J. Walter Thompson, U.S.A., Inc., 944 F.2d 382, 383 (7th Cir. 1991). Instead, district judges “must independently inquire whether such orders are appropriate, and they owe an obligation to [the court of appeals] to ensure that the claims being carved off for separate judgment are legally and factually distinct from those reserved.” (citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court must turn to the controlling standard for deciding a motion brought under Rule 54(b).
II. Legal Standard Federal courts of appeal only have jurisdiction over appeals from “final decisions” of
federal district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “Ordinarily, an order which terminates fewer than all claims, or claims against fewer than all parties, does not constitute a ‘final’ order for purposes of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Carter v. City of Philadelphia, 181 F.3d 339, 343 (3d Cir. 1999). However, Rule 54(b) allows a district court to convert “an order adjudicating less than an entire action to the end that it becomes a ‘final’ decision over which a court of appeals may
3

exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Elliott v. Archdiocese of New York, 682 F.3d 213,
219 (3d Cir. 2012). Rule 54(b) expressly provides:
Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an action presents more than one claim for relief – whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim – or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.
This rule “‘attempts to strike a balance between the undesirability of piecemeal appeals and the
need for making review available at a time that best serves the needs of the parties.’” Elliot, 682
F.3d at 220.
Be that as it may, “certification of a judgment as final under Rule 54(b) is the exception,
not the rule, to the usual course of proceedings in a district court.” Id. “‘Not all final judgments
on individual claims should be immediately appealable, even if they are in some sense separable
from the remaining unresolved claims. The function of the district court under the Rule is to act
as a dispatcher.’” Id. (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980)). As
such, “[t]he power which this Rule confers upon the trial judge should be used only in the
infrequent harsh case as an instrument for the improved administration of justice and the more
satisfactory disposition of litigation in the light of the public policy indicated by statute [28
U.S.C. § 1291] and rule.” Panichella, 252 F.2d at 455
“Rule 54(b) thus requires that a district court first determine whether there has been an
ultimate disposition on a cognizable claim for relief as to a claim or party such that there is a
‘final judgment.’” Elliot, 682 F.3d at 220 (citing Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at 8). “If it
determines that there has been such a disposition, ‘the district court must go on to determine
4

whether there is any just reason for delay,’ taking into account ‘judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved.’” Id. (quoting Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 7-8). “This latter requirement, that a district court ‘must go on to determine whether there is any just reason for delay,’ is not merely formalistic.” Id. If the district court fails to make such a determination on the record, the order is not considered to be final and the court of appeals, in turn, lacks jurisdiction. Id. Moreover, when certifying an order pursuant to Rule 54(b), a mechanical recitation of the “no just reason for delay” language in the rule will not suffice. Id. The district court must therefore instead “‘clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying its decision . . . .’” Id. (quoting Allis–Chalmers Corp. v. Phila. Elec. Co., 521 F.2d 360, 364 (3d Cir. 1975)). “Unlike the need for an express determination that there is ‘no just reason for delay,’” however, the requirement that the district court provide a statement of reasons is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, so long as “‘the propriety of the appeal may be discerned from the record.’” Id. (quoting Carter, 181 F.3d at 346).
III. Discussion Plaintiffs’ motion has requested that the Court certify its judgment in favor of PGW and
against Plaintiffs Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Marietti, and Meixelsberger as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) and to stay further proceedings in the district court pending the resolution of their appeal. The Court will address these two aspects of Plaintiffs’ motion seriatim.
A. Rule 54(b) The Court finds that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) have been met. As an initial matter, there is no question that the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of September 2, 2015 (ECF No. 448), constituted the “ultimate disposition” of the disparate
5

treatment and disparate impact claims of Plaintiffs Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Marietti and Meixelsberger, which had been brought against PGW.
The question then becomes whether there is any “just reason” for delaying the entry of final judgment. In making this determination, the Court must consider several factors: “the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims,” “the possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future developments in the district court,” “the possibility that the reviewing court might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time,” “the presence or absence of a claim or counterclaim which could result in a set-off against the judgment sought to be made final,” and “miscellaneous factors such as delay, economic and solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial, frivolity of competing claims, expense, and the like.” Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting AllisChalmers, 521 F.2d at 364).
These factors weigh in favor of granting this aspect of Plaintiffs’ pending motion. Notably, the issues presented through the disparate treatment and disparate impact claims of Plaintiffs are separable and distinct – factually and legally – from the individual retaliation claims of Karlo and McLure against PGW.1 As a result, there is no risk of duplicative appeals or reason to delay appellate review of the other aspects of this five-year-old action. In addition, future developments in the district court are unlikely to moot the need for appellate review. Plaintiffs are either going to appeal now, if given the opportunity, or later, after a trial on the merits of the individual retaliation claims of Karlo and McLure. The counterclaims asserted by
1. For instance, the discrimination claims of Karlo and McLure (as well as Cunningham, Marietti and Meixelsberger) involved the events related to the March 31, 2009 reduction in force, during which time they were terminated from the Manufacturing Glass Technology Department in Harmarville, Pennsylvania by Gary Cannon and received severance paperwork from Diana Jarden of human resources. The retaliation claims of Karlo and McLure stem from positions that they, respectively, held at PGW’s Creighton facility and its Glass Research Center in Harmarville. The manager of Karlo’s assignment was Mark Soderberg, and the human resources personnel involved in the decision to end his position was John Felker. As to McLure, he was supervised by Peter Dishart, and the decision to end his position was made by Robert McCullough.
6

PGW against Plaintiffs also would not result in a set-off against the judgment sought to be made
final – which is in favor of the defendant.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that there is “no just reason for delay,” and
therefore, it will certify its judgment in favor of PGW and against Plaintiffs Karlo, McLure, Cunningham, Marietti, and Meixelsberger as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b).2
B. Stay
On September 30, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a
precedential opinion that “focus[es] on how to balance the four factors that determine whether to
grant a stay pending appeal.” In re Revel AC, Inc., -- F.3d --, No. 15-1253, 2015 WL 5711358,
at *1 (3d Cir. Sept. 30, 2015). Those factors are: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a
strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be
irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the
other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Id. at *7. “In
order not to ignore the many gray shadings stay requests present, courts ‘balance[e] them all’ and
‘consider the relative strength of the four factors.’” Id. (quoting Brady v. Nat’l Football League,
640 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir. 2011)).
2. The Court notes that the parties say very little regarding the immediate appeal(ability) of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2014 (ECF No. 343) which decertified the conditionally-certified collective action – which turned on whether those who have opted in were in fact “similarly situated” to the representative plaintiffs. For example, in their brief, Plaintiffs make reference to their now-withdrawn motion in which they renewed their motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order that decertified their collective action. (ECF No. 453 at 2 n.1). They also mention that “six of the eight original [P]laintiffs who would have a stake in an appeal[footnote] (whether taken at this time or later in the future) have no retaliation claims and would thus be forced to idly wait for the retaliation claims to be tried before pursuing their appeals.” Id. at 4. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ footnote states: “[t]hese include the four opt-in Plaintiffs who were dismissed from the case when the collective action was decertified.” Id. at n.2. To be sure, the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay with regard to that ruling as well – it disposes of the collective action component of this case and remains separate and distinct from the remaining individual retaliation claims of Karlo and McLure. Moreover, the same reasons that warrant the certification of a final judgment on the disparate impact and disparate treatment claims also fully justify an immediate appeal of the decertification ruling.
7

Even so, “‘the most critical’ factors, according to the Supreme Court are the first two.’” Id. at *7 (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)). Although both are necessary, our court of appeals has suggested that “the former is arguably the more important piece of the stay analysis.” Id. At the first step, “a sufficient degree of success for a strong showing exists if there is ‘a reasonable chance, or probability, of winning.’” Id. at *8 (quoting Singer Mgmt. Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram, 650 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc)). In other words, “while it ‘is not enough that the chance of success on the merits be “better than negligible,”’ Nken, 556 U.S. at 434, the likelihood of winning on appeal need not be ‘more likely than not, Singer Mgmt. Consultants, 650 F.3d at 229.’” Id. “On the second factor, the applicant must ‘demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely [not merely possible] in the absence of [a] [stay].’” Id. (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)) (emphasis and alterations in original). “While a reference to ‘likelihood’ of success on the merits has been interpreted by courts to cover the generic range of outcomes, for irreparable harm [our court of appeals] understand[s] the Supreme Court’s use of ‘likely’ to mean more apt to occur than not.” Id.
If “‘an applicant satisfies the first two factors, the traditional stay inquiry calls for assessing the harm to the opposing party and weighing the public interest.” Id. (quoiting Nken, 556 U.S. at 435). At this point, a district court engages in the so-called “balancing of harms or balancing of equities” in which it must “weigh the likely harm to the movant (absent a stay) (factor two) against the likely irreparable harm to the stay opponent(s) if the stay is granted (factor three).” Id. In addition, the court must also “take into account where the public interest lies (factor four)—in effect, how a stay decision has ‘consequences beyond the immediate parties.’” Id. (quoting Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., 749 F.2d 380, 388 (7th Cir. 1984).
8

“In deciding how strong a case a stay movant must show,” the court is to apply the “sliding-scale approach.” Id. at *9 (citations omitted). “Under it, ‘[t]he necessary “level” or “degree” of possibility of success will vary according to the court's assessment of the other [stay] factors .’” Id. (quoting Mohammed v. Reno, 309 F.3d 95, 101 (2d Cir. 2002)). Put differently, “‘[t]he more likely the plaintiff is to win, the less heavily need the balance of harms weigh in [its] favor; the less likely [it] is to win, the more need it weigh in [its] favor.’” Id. (quoting Roland Mach., 749 F.2d at 387).
Applying this framework, the Court must first ask “[d]id the applicant make a sufficient showing that (a) it can win on the merits (significantly better than negligible but not greater than 50%) and (b) will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay?” Id. (emphasis in original). And here, the answer to both questions is no.
Plaintiffs make no attempt to evaluate their likelihood of success on the merits and even criticize PGW for doing so. See Pls.’ Reply at 1 (“PGW opposes a stay pending appeal based upon the wrong legal standard . . . . [it] incorrectly attempts to have this Court evaluate Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits of their appeal in determining whether a stay should issue.”). Be that as it may, the Court doubts (with all due deference) that Plaintiffs could make this showing. Take, for example, Plaintiffs’ purported experts. In deciding the motions to bar their testimony, the Court found that the opinions of Dr. Greenwald and Dr. Campion were not based on sufficient facts or data, were not the product of reliable methods and would not assist the factfinder in resolving an issue in this case – rulings which are all reviewed for an abuse of discretion.3 Absent Dr. Campion, Plaintiffs concede that their discrimination claims are
3. Plaintiffs suggest that the Court’s ruling will be subject to de novo review because “[t]he core issue relating to the exclusion of [Dr. Campion’s] report is the pure legal question of whether a group of age discrimination plaintiffs can assert an over-fifty disparate impact claim.” (ECF No. 457 at 2). They base this suggestion on a footnote in the Court’s opinion, in which it states as follows: “Of course, the subgrouping analysis would only be helpful to the
9

not viable. (ECF No. 446 at 1). Yet even assuming that Dr. Campion (and his statistical report) had survived the Daubert challenge, the Court has also ruled that an over-fifty-years-old subgroup is not cognizable under the ADEA. So, too, has the Court ruled that not a single Plaintiff could establish a prima facie case for disparate treatment. Thus, Plaintiffs would also have to show that they are likely to succeed on the merits with regard to these rulings as well. Once again, they have not attempted to do so. For these reasons, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs have shown (or could show) that they are likely to succeed on the merits.
Nor have Plaintiffs shown that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. Plaintiffs instead suggest that their proposed stay “attempts to preserve fundamental fairness,” “serve[s] the interest of judicial efficiency,” prevents “the duplicative presentation of witnesses at trial,” which, from their perspective, “will waste several days of the Court[’s] and the parties’ resources.” (ECF No. 457 at 1-3). At most, these considerations relate to the time and expense that a second and successive trial would entail if the Court was reversed, which does not constitute irreparable harm. See id. at *11 (“To establish irreparable harm, a stay movant ‘must demonstrate an injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent.’”) (citing Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger, 888 F.2d 969, 975 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also S. Freedman & Co. Inc. v. Raab, No. CIV. 06-3723 RBK, 2008 WL 4534069, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2008) (noting that there is “no hardship where the moving party’s basis for seeking the stay was to avoid being forced to defend itself twice”) (citing CTF Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Marriot Int’l, Inc., 381 F.3d 131, 139 (3d Cir. 2004)).
factfinder if this Court held that Plaintiffs could maintain an over-fifty disparate impact claim. It has not done so.” (ECF No. 442 at 25). While the Court did make that observation (and suggested that it would be an alternative basis to bar Dr. Campion’s testimony), the crux of its opinion was that “his report is not based on sufficient data,” that his “methodology is not reliable,” and that five of his six analyses related to the RIF were “rooted in rank speculation,” and therefore, his statistical report did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Id. at 24-25.
10

“Keeping in mind that the first two factors are the most critical, if ‘the chance of success on the merits [is only] better than negligible’ and the ‘possibility of irreparable injury’ is low, a stay movant’s request fails.” In re Revel AC, Inc., 2015 WL 5711358, at *10 (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434) (alteration in original). And where, as here, “‘the movant does not make the requisite showings on either of these [first] two factors, the [ ] inquiry into the balance of harms [and the public interest] is unnecessary, and the stay should be denied without further analysis.’” Id. at *10 (quoting In re Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 115 F.3d 1294, 1300-01 (7th Cir. 1997)) (alterations in original). Accordingly, the stay will be denied.
IV. Conclusion For the reasons hereinabove stated, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs’
motion to certify final judgment under Rule 54(b) and stay proceedings. The Court will certify its judgment in favor of PGW and against Plaintiffs on their discrimination claims, but it will not stay the proceedings pending the resolution of their appeal. An appropriate Order follows.
McVerry, S.J.
11

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

RUDOLPH A. KARLO and MARK K. MCLURE,
Plaintiffs, vs. PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) 2:10-cv-1283 ) ) ) ) ) )
)

ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2015, in accordance with the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs’ MOTION TO CERTIFY FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(b) AND STAY PROCEEDINGS (ECF No. 452) is GRANTED insofar as the Court will enter final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) on Plaintiffs’ discrimination claims and DENIED insofar as the Court will not stay the proceedings pending the resolution of the appeal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephonic status conference with counsel will be conducted by the Court regarding the future direction of this litigation on Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. Counsel are responsible for coordinating the call to Chambers on one telephone line at that time.

cc: All Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF)

BY THE COURT:
s/Terrence F. McVerry Senior United States District Judge

 </s> Case 2:10-cv-01283-TFM Document 573 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 1
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the _W__e_s_te_r_n_D__isDtricstroicftPoefn_n_s_y_lv_a_n_ia___

RUDOLPH A. KARLO
Plaintiff
v. PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC
Defendant

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 10-1283

)

)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

’ the plaintiff (name) RUDOLPH A. KARLO

recover from the

defendant (name)

PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC

the amount of

Nine hundred twenty two thousand and sixty

dollars ($ 922,060.00 ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of

%, plus post judgment interest at the rate of

% per annum, along with costs.

’ the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name) recover costs from the plaintiff (name) .

’ other:

.

This action was (check one):
’ tried by a jury with Judge McVerry rendered a verdict.

presiding, and the jury has

’ tried by Judge was reached.

without a jury and the above decision

’ decided by Judge

on a motion for

.

Date: January 22, 2016

CLERK OF COURT

Print

Save As...

Keirstin L. Yost
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Reset

 </s> Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 1 of 72
U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−01283−MRH

CLOSED

KARLO et al v. PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC Assigned to: Chief Judge Mark R. Hornak Case in other court: Third Circuit, 15−03435
Third Circuit, 16−02812 Cause: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/29/2010 Date Terminated: 01/22/2016 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

RUDOLPH A. KARLO

represented by Andrew J. Horowitz Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP 500 Grant Street, Ste. 5240 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 412−566−1500 Fax: 412−281−1530 Email: andrew.horowitz@obermayer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa L. Evans Segmiller & Associates, P.C. 3700 South Water Street Suite 130 Pittsburgh, PA 15203 (412) 227−5884 Fax: (412) 227−5887 Email: mevans@segmend.com TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce C. Fox Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP BNY Mellon Center 500 Grant Street Suite 5240 Pittsburgh, PA 15219−2502 (412) 566−1500 Fax: (412) 281−1530 Email: bruce.fox@obermayer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Fischman Dornish Law Offices, PC 1207 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 765−2726 Email: fischmanbeth@gmail.com TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuanyou Yang Duane Morris LLP 600 Grant Street, Suite 5010 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 497−1009 Fax: (412) 202−3924 Email: yyang@duanemorris.com

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 2 of 72

TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
MARK K. MCLURE TERMINATED: 02/17/2016

represented by Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM TERMINATED: 09/03/2015

represented by Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JEFFREY MARIETTI TERMINATED: 09/03/2015

represented by Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa L. Evans (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 3 of 72

TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
DAVID MEIXELSBERGER TERMINATED: 09/03/2015

represented by Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON TERMINATED: 08/07/2013

represented by Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 4 of 72

Plaintiff
RICHARD CSUKAS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC

represented by Rachel E.A. Atterberry Freeborn & Peters, LLP 311 South Wacker Drive Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 312−360−6000 Fax: 312−360−6572 Email: ratterberry@freeborn.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina C. Wills Freeborn & Peters LLP 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 312−360−6467 Fax: 312−360−6571 Email: twills@freebornpeters.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S. Becker Freeborn & Peters, LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 360−6000

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 5 of 72
Fax: (312) 360−6520 Email: dbecker@freebornpeters.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey J. Mayer Freeborn & Peters, LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 360−6000 Fax: (312) 360−6520 Email: jmayer@freebornpeters.com TERMINATED: 10/20/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L. Fitzgerald Freeborn & Peters, LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 360−6000 Fax: (312) 360−6520 Email: jfitzgerald@freebornpeters.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John T. Shapiro Freeborn & Peters, LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 360−6000 Fax: (312) 360−6520 Email: jshapiro@freebornpeters.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy L. Heilman Cohen & Grigsby 625 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222−3152 (412) 297−4900 Email: nheilman@cohenlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert B. Cottington Cohen & Grigsby, P.C. 625 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222−3152 412−297−4677 Fax: 412−209−1906 Email: rcottington@cohenlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert F. Prorok Cohen & Grigsby, P.C. 625 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222−3152 (412) 297−4697 Fax: (412) 209−1907 Email: rprorok@cohenlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Respondent

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 6 of 72

ANTHONY HARTMAN

represented by John J. Myers Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott 600 Grant Street 44th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 566−5900 Email: jmyers@eckertseamans.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Claimant PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC

represented by Rachel E.A. Atterberry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. Cottington (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tina C. Wills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David S. Becker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Counter Defendant RICHARD CSUKAS
Counter Defendant

represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 7 of 72

WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM

represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Defendant RUDOLPH A. KARLO

represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Defendant JEFFREY MARIETTI

represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 8 of 72

Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Defendant
MARK K. MCLURE TERMINATED: 02/17/2016

represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Defendant DAVID MEIXELSBERGER

represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Defendant
BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON TERMINATED: 08/07/2013

represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 9 of 72

TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Claimant PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC

represented by Rachel E.A. Atterberry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tina C. Wills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David S. Becker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey J. Mayer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer L. Fitzgerald (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy L. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. Cottington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert F. Prorok (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 10 of 72

V. Counter Defendant RICHARD CSUKAS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Counter Defendant WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM
Counter Defendant RUDOLPH A. KARLO

represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 11 of 72

Counter Defendant JEFFREY MARIETTI
Counter Defendant MARK K. MCLURE TERMINATED: 02/17/2016

Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 12 of 72

Counter Defendant DAVID MEIXELSBERGER
Counter Defendant BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON TERMINATED: 08/07/2013

represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Melissa L. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew J. Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce C. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Elizabeth Fischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuanyou Yang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/2010
09/30/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC (Filing fee $350, receipt number 0315−1737355), filed by BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON, MARK K. MCLURE, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons as to Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C) (jv) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
Summons Issued as to *PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC* (jv) (Entered: 09/30/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 13 of 72

09/30/2010
09/30/2010
10/08/2010
10/22/2010 10/22/2010 10/26/2010
11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/30/2010
11/30/2010 11/30/2010 12/01/2010
12/01/2010 12/02/2010 12/02/2010

2 NOTICE that instant civil action has been designated for placement into the United States District Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program. Parties are directed to fully complete the required 26(f) report, which includes the stipulation of selecting an ADR process. Counsel for plaintiff (or in the case of a removal action, counsel for removing defendant) shall make service of the notice on all parties. (jg, ) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Melissa L. Evans on behalf of RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
4 SUMMONS/Return of Service Returned Executed by BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON, MARK K. MCLURE, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM. PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC served on 10/6/2010, answer due 10/27/2010. (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert B. Cottington on behalf of PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Cottington, Robert) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Nancy L. Heilman on behalf of PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Heilman, Nancy) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
7 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer by BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON, MARK K. MCLURE, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM Answer due from PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC on 11/29/2010. (Heilman, Nancy) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
8 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, COUNTERCLAIM against All Plaintiffs by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Cottington, Robert) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
9 MOTION to Dismiss Count III re 1 Complaint, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Cottington, Robert) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
10 BRIEF in Support re 9 Motion to Dismiss Count III filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Cottington, Robert) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
11 ORDER ON MOTIONS PRACTICE (details more fully stated within said Order). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/29/10. (jg) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 9 Motion to Dismiss. ERROR: Proposed Order was not attached. CORRECTION: Attorney is advised to file a proposed order by using the Proposed Order event and linking it to 9 Motion to Dismiss. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
12 MOTION for attorney David S. Becker to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $40, Receipt # 0315−1795555) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Cottington, Robert) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
13 ORDER granting 12 Motion for David S. Becker, Esquire to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/30/10. (jg) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 12 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 9 Motion to Dismiss, 8 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim. ERROR: Party did not file disclosure statement as required pursuant L.R. 7.1.1. CORRECTION: Attorney advised to file statement within 7 days. This message is for informational purposes only. Disclosure Statement due by 12/8/2010. (jv) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
14 Proposed Order re 9 Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs' Complaint by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
15 MOTION for attorney John T. Shapiro to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $40, Receipt # 0315−1798626) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Cottington, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
16 MOTION for attorney Jeffrey J. Mayer to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $40, Receipt # 0315−1798637) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Cottington, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 14 of 72

12/02/2010 12/02/2010 12/02/2010 12/02/2010 12/02/2010 12/15/2010
12/16/2010 12/22/2010 12/22/2010 12/22/2010 12/22/2010 01/11/2011
01/11/2011 01/11/2011

17 MOTION for attorney Jennifer L. Fitzgerald to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $40, Receipt # 0315−1798646) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Cottington, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
18 ORDER granting 15 Motion for John T. Shapiro, Esquire to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/2/10. (jg) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
19 ORDER granting 17 Motion for Jennifer L. Fitzgerald, Esquire to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/2/10. (jg) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
20 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Jeffrey J. Mayer, Esquire to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/2/10. (jg) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
21 Disclosure Statement identifying GE Capital Holdings, Inc. PPG Industries, Inc. by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) Modified on 12/3/2010. (jv) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
22 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 9 MOTION to Dismiss Count III re 1 Complaint, 10 Brief in Support of Motion, 14 Proposed Order STIPULATED Motion for Extension of Time by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
23 ORDER granting 22 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 9 Motion to Dismiss Count III re 1 Complaint; Plaintiffs shaIl file their response to said Motion to Dismiss on or before 1/12/11. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/16/10. (jg) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
24 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim re 8 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
25 BRIEF in Support re 24 Motion to Dismiss, Defendant's Counterclaim filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
26 MOTION to Strike 8 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim Affirmative Defenses by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
27 BRIEF in Support re 26 Motion to Strike, Affirmative Defenses filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
28 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 24 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim re 8 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim re 8 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim, 26 MOTION to Strike 8 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim Affirmative Defenses MOTION to Strike 8 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim Affirmative Defenses by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
29 Proposed Order re 28 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
ORDER granting 28 Defendant's Response to 24 Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim and 26 Plaintiffs' Motin to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses; Said Responses shall be be filed by Defendant by no later than 1/24/11. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/11/11. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 15 of 72

01/12/2011
01/12/2011
01/12/2011 01/13/2011
01/24/2011 01/24/2011 01/24/2011 01/24/2011 01/25/2011 01/25/2011 01/27/2011 01/28/2011
01/28/2011
01/28/2011 01/31/2011 01/31/2011 02/01/2011

30 MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that the parties' Rule 26 Meeting Report and Stipulation Selecting ADR Process due by 1/27/2011; A Motion Hearing (on all pending Motions)/Case Management Conference is set for 2/3/2011 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 5B before Nora Barry Fischer. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/12/11. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (jg) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
31 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION to 9 Motion to Dismiss, 10 Brief in Support of Motion, filed by MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Evans, Melissa) Modified to remove from public view since court filed correctly as 32 BRIEF in Opposition re 9 Motion to Dismiss on 1/13/2011. (jv) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
32 BRIEF in Opposition re 9 Motion to Dismiss filed by MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachment(s): # 1 Proposed Order) (jv). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 31 Response in Opposition. ERROR: Wrong event selected. CORRECTION: Removed from public view and Re−docketed as 32 BRIEF in Opposition re 9 Motion to Dismiss. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
33 BRIEF in Opposition re 24 Motion to Dismiss, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) Modified on 1/25/2011. (jv, ) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
34 BRIEF in Opposition re 26 Motion to Strike, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
35 Proposed Order re 24 Motion to Dismiss, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
36 Proposed Order re 26 Motion to Strike, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
37 Errata re 33 Brief in Opposition to Motion, 35 Proposed Order by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Reason for Correction: Original Filing Improperly Titled a "Response". (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
38 Errata re 36 Proposed Order, 34 Brief in Opposition to Motion by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Reason for Correction: Original Filing Improperly Titled a Response. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
39 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Mayer, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/27/2011)
40 STIPULATION selecting ADR process by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 39 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. ERROR: Typed name omitted by s/. CORRECTION: Attorney advised of signature requirements. Attorney to resubmit with signature, using *ERRATA* event (Locatdd under "Other documents"). Attorney also advised to link ERRATA event to 39 Report of Rule 6(f) Plannning Meeting. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
41 Errata re 39 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Reason for Correction: Defective electronic signature. (Mayer, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
42 REPLY BRIEF by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC re 9 Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
43 MOTION to Continue February 3, 2011 Case Management Conference and Arguments on Pending Motions by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
44 ORDER granting 43 Motion to Continue 2/3/11 2011 Case Management Conference and Arguments on Pending Motions filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC; that the Case Management/Motion Hearing set for 2/3/11 is re−set for 2/7/2011 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5B before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/1/11. (jg) (Entered: 02/01/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 16 of 72

02/04/2011 02/07/2011
02/07/2011
02/08/2011 02/08/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011

45 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert F. Prorok on behalf of PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Prorok, Robert) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
46 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Motion Hearing held on 2/7/2011 re 9 MOTION to Dismiss Count III indicating that the Court held oral arguments on a motion to dismiss brought by Defendant and Plaintiffs' response thereto. After oral argument, the parties and court agreed that in the interest of justice, Plaintiffs should proceed with the filing of an amended complaint. To that end, Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or before 2/15/11 by 5:00 p.m. Defendants response to said amended complaint is due to the Court on or before 3/1/11 on or before 5:00 pm. The Court held in abeyance argument related to Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss and motion to strike as they are not completely briefed. In light of same, the Court will conduct a status conference on 3/3/11 at 11:00 a.m. by phone as it relates to Plaintiffs' amended complaint and Defendant's pending motions, at which time a further briefing schedule and oral argument will be scheduled. The parties did not request a transcript, hence none was ordered. An appropriate order follows. (Court Reporter: K. Earley) (jg) Modified on 2/8/2011. (jg, ) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
47 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Case Management Conference held on 2/7/2011 indicating that counsel for Plaintiffs provided the Court with information concerning the background of the seven Plaintiffs and also answered the Courts questions regarding the nature of the action; potential number of witnesses in addition to describing in general various documents which may be pertinent. The Court reviewed with the parties their 26(f) reports in detail and particularly the description of documents and individuals encompassed by fact discovery. Although in many areas the parties have agreements, many areas may require the Courts intervention. The Court also reminded parties of their duty to disclose both hard copy and electronic documents. Initial disclosures must be made by 3/3/11 by 5:00 p.m. Because of disagreements concerning the course of discovery, the Court orders that counsel provide the Court with proposed orders by 3/18/11 at 5:00 p.m. For good cause shown, the Court enlarges the limitations of discovery on both depositions and interrogatories. Counsel will supplement their Rule 26(f) reports by 4/4/11 by 5:00 p.m. Counsel will also submit a proposed protective order by said date. The Court will conduct periodic discovery status conferences, the first of which will occur on 4/5/11 at 10:00 a.m. EST, the Court to initiate the call. Following the case management conference, counsel for the parties continued their discussion concerning the case. Court orders to follow. (Court Reporter: None) (jg) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
48 ORDER indicating that upon consideration of the parties' oral argument on Defendant's motion to dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs' complaint 9 , it is hereby ordered that Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied, without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or before 2/15/11 at 5:00 p.m. Defendant shall file its response on or before 3/1/11 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/8/11. (jg) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
49 ORDER indicating that after discussion with Plaintiffs and Defendants counsel on the nature and scope of discovery during the case management conference held on 2/7/11, wherein certain disagreements became apparent between counsel as to the nature and extent of discovery given Plaintiffs characterization of the action as both an individual action and collective action and Defendants denial of same, it is hereby ordered that counsel for both parties provide the Court with their respective proposed orders to govern discovery by 3/18/11 at 5:00 p.m. Counsel shall also supplement their Rule 26(f) reports as to electronic discovery and submit a proposed agreed upon protective order by 4/4/11 by 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/8/11. (jg) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
50 REPLY BRIEF by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON re 24 Motion to Dismiss, 25 Brief in Support of Motion, 33 Brief in Opposition to Motion filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Karlo Agreement, # 2 Exhibit McLure Agreement, # 3 Exhibit Cunningham Agreement, # 4 Exhibit Marietti Agreement, # 5 Exhibit Meixelsberger Agreement, # 6 Exhibit Thompson Agreement, # 7 Exhibit Csukas Agreement) (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
51 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief on Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Reply Brief, # 2 Proposed Order) (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 17 of 72

02/11/2011 02/11/2011
02/15/2011
02/18/2011 02/18/2011 02/18/2011 03/01/2011 03/01/2011 03/01/2011 03/02/2011 03/02/2011
03/03/2011
03/10/2011 03/17/2011

52 ORDER granting 51 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief on 26 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike; Plaintiffs' Reply brief is due by 2/18/2011. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/11/11. (jg) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
53 REPLY BRIEF by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON re 26 Motion to Strike, filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
54 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, filed by BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON, JEFFREY MARIETTI, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, RICHARD CSUKAS, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J) (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
55 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
56 ORDER granting 55 Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 24 Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim; that Defendant's Sur−Reply shall be filed by 2/23/2011. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/18/11. (jg) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
57 Sur−Reply Brief in Opposition to 24 Motion to Dismiss, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Becker, David) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
58 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
59 MOTION to Dismiss Count III re 54 Amended Complaint, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
60 BRIEF in Support re 59 Motion to Dismiss Count III of First Amended Complaint filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
61 PROTECTIVE ORDER (details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/2/11. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (jg) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
ORDER indicating that a Motion Hearing/Argument as to all pending Motions is scheduled for Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 5B before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/2/11. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
62 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/3/2011 indicating that counsel for the parties advised the Court that the Motion Hearing/Argument set for 3/23/11 at 9:30 AM can proceed as scheduled. In light of same, the Court set the following briefing schedule relating to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 59 ): (1) Plaintiffs' response shall be filed by 3/10/11; (2) Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed by 3/17/11; and (3) Plaintiffs' sur−reply, if any, shall be filed by 3/21/11. Additionally, for good cause shown, i.e., the death of an immediate family member, the Court enlarged the time period for the parties to make initial disclosures until 3/8/11 and further enlarged the time period for the parties to provide the Court with revised Rule 16 orders until 3/22/11. (Court Reporter: None) (jg) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
63 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION to 59 Motion to Dismiss, 60 Brief in Support of Motion, filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
64 REPLY BRIEF by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC re 59 Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs' First Amended Collective Action Complaint filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 03/17/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 18 of 72

03/21/2011 03/22/2011 03/22/2011 03/23/2011
03/24/2011
04/04/2011 04/04/2011 04/05/2011 04/12/2011 04/14/2011

65 Sur−Reply in Opposition re 59 Motion to Dismiss, filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 03/21/2011)
66 Proposed Order (Scheduling) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Cottington, Robert) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
67 Proposed Order on Discovery by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
68 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Motion Hearing held on 3/23/2011 on Plaintiff's "Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim," 24 , Plaintiff's "Motion to Strike Certain of PGW's Affirmative Defenses," 26 , and Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint," 59 . The Court denied said motions on the record. An appropriate Order follows. The Court acknowledged receipt of the parties' proposed scheduling orders, ( 66 , 67 ). The parties then agreed to postpone discussion of same until the first periodic discovery status conference, which is presently set to occur on 4/5/11 at 10:00 a.m. EST. The Court will initiate the call. The Court also inquired concerning the status of disclosures and was advised that counsel are proceeding in that regard. At the request of the parties, the Court ordered the production of the transcript, with costs of said transcription to be borne equally by the parties. (Court Reporter: K. Earley) (jg) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
69 ORDER indicating that upon consideration of the parties; arguments, and for reasons stated on the record during the 3/23/11 hearing, it is hereby ordered that: 1. Defendant shall file its Amended Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims by 4/14/11 at 5:00 p.m.; 2. Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim 24 is denied, as moot, and without prejudice to Plaintiffs raising the issues set forth therein in a Motion for Summary Judgment at the conclusion of fact discovery upon Order of Court; 3. To the extent Plaintiff Benjamin D. Thompson, however, wishes to renew his motion to dismiss after the filing of Defendant's Amended Answer, said motion shall be filed by 4/28/11 at 5:00 p.m. Defendant's response to same, if any, shall be filed by 5/12/11 at 5:00 p.m.; 4. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike 26 is denied, as moot. Moreover, based on the status of this case, including ongoing disclosures and argument of counsel pertinent to the facts underlying the affirmative defenses raised by Defendant, and the present state of the law in this District, the Court finds that Defendant's Affirmative Defenses, as stated in its "Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim" 8 , provide Plaintiffs with sufficient notice to prepare for and participate in discovery as well as to counter same; 5. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 59 is denied without prejudice to Defendant raising the issues set forth therein in a Motion for Summary Judgment at the conclusion of fact discovery upon Order of Court. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/24/11. (jg) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
NOTICE of Hearing: The Discovery Status Conference set for 4/5/11 at 10:00 AM is re−set for 4/14/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Text Only Entry: No PDF will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's Order or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
70 Joint MOTION to Extend Time to April 12, 2011 by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
71 ORDER granting 70 Joint Motion to Extend Time to Supplementa Rule 26(f) Report. The Parties shall file their Supplemental Rule 26(f) Report by 4/12/11. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/5/11. (jg) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
72 SUPPLEMENT by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON to 41 Errata re 39 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Delivery Specifications) (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
73 ANSWER to First Amended Complaint, Amended COUNTERCLAIM , and Affirmative Defenses against All Plaintiffs by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 19 of 72

04/14/2011
04/18/2011
04/19/2011 05/04/2011 05/16/2011 06/01/2011

G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I) (Becker, David) (Entered: 04/14/2011)
74 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Telephone Case Management/Status Conference held on 4/14/2011 indicating that the Court heard argument on the parties' competing scheduling orders, (see Docket Nos. 66 , 67 ), and made its ruling on same. An appropriate Order follows. Thereafter, the parties discussed their supplemental Rule 26(f) report 72 , and the current status of production issues addressed therein. As to discovery, the Court was advised that the parties have provided their initial disclosures and production of documents, but that neither party has issued any formal discovery requests to date. The Court was further advised that the parties are cooperating to identify the names of potential deponents in this case. The Court scheduled the first periodic discovery status conference for 5/20/11 at 2:00 p.m. EST, the Court to initiate the call. Prior to said conference, counsel for both parties shall submit a joint agenda for the call to the Court, via email to the Courts law clerk, by 5/13/11 at 5:00 p.m. No transcript was requested as of this date. If a transcript is requested by either party, the Court will issue an appropriate Order. (Court Reporter: K. Earley) (jg) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
75 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Exchange of required Rule 26(a) information due by 3/8/2011; Plaintiffs shall file their motion for conditional certification and Court−facilitated notice by 7/15/11 at 5:00 p.m. Defendant's response to said motion shall be filed by 8/15/11 at 5:00 p.m. Plaintiffs' reply brief, if any, shall be filed by 8/29/11 at 5:00 p.m. Defendant's sur−reply brief, if any, shall be filed by 9/12/11 at 5:00 p.m. Hearing and oral argument as to said motion and briefing shall be held on 9/26/11 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5B, 5th Floor, United States Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Said hearing shall continue on 9/27/11 at 9:00 a.m., if necessary; The parties shall meet and confer regarding the contents of proposed opt−in notice and consent forms, and work diligently toward developing a mutually acceptable set of forms, which shall be made ready for the Courts review by 9/19/11 at 5:00 p.m.; In the event this action is not conditionally certified as a collective action, fact discovery shall be completed by 12/30/11 at 12:00 p.m. If, however, conditional certification is granted, fact discovery shall be completed by 3/7/12; Upon the Court's ruling on conditional certification, the Court shall conduct a Telephonic Post Certification Discovery Status Conference. Said conference will occur on 10/31/11 at 4:30 p.m.; As agreed to by the parties during the Case Management Conference, the Court shall convene routine telephonic status conferences to address the parties' progress with discovery, as well as any issues or problems that may have arisen. The Court sets the following schedule for same: a. 5/20/11 at 2:00 p.m. EST; b. 6/28/11 at 2:00 p.m. EST; c. 7/27/11 at 2:00 p.m. EST; and d. 8/29/11 at 2:00 p.m. EST; Motions to Amend/Add Parties due 4/15/11;. The Court will establish a schedule for the filing of summary judgment motions upon the completion of all discovery in this case; Other details more fully stated in said Order. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/18/11. (jg) (Entered: 04/18/2011)
76 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on March 23, 2011 before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Court Reporter Karen Earley, Telephone number 412−201−2660. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 4/26/2011. Redaction Request due 5/10/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/20/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/18/2011. (kme, ) (Entered: 04/19/2011)
77 PLAINTIFFS ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANTS AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM ANSWER to 73 Answer to Complaint,, Counterclaim, by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Evans, Melissa) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
NOTICE Cancelling Hearing: Given the representations of counsel for the parties to the Court, the status conference scheduled for Friday, May 20, at 2:00 p.m. is cancelled. Text−only entry. No PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jim) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
NOTICE of Hearing: The Telephonic Discovery Status Conference set for 6/28/11 at 2:00 PM is re−set for 6/29/2011 at 3:00 PM before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Text Only Entry: No PDF will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's Order or Notice on the matter. (jg)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 20 of 72

06/23/2011 06/23/2011 07/05/2011 07/11/2011 07/11/2011 07/15/2011
07/20/2011 07/25/2011

(Entered: 06/01/2011)
78 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Postpone Telephonic Discovery Status Conference by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
79 ORDER granting 78 Unopposed Motion for Leave to Postpone Telephonic Discovery Status Conference; that the Telephonic Discovery Status Conference set for 6/29/11 at 3:00 PM is postponed until 7/5/2011 at 3:00 PM before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/23/11. (jg) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
80 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: TelephonicStatus Conference held on 7/5/2011 in accord with Court's 6/23/11 Order 79 ). At the Conference, the Court discussed concerns voiced by both parties over deposition practice. The Court was also apprised of the need to modify the schedule due to lead plaintiff's counsel's personal issues and the trial schedules of all counsel. The Court will draft an amended order and forward to counsel, who were directed to respond with any objections thereto by 5:00 p.m. 7/6/11. An amended scheduling order will follow. (Court Reporter: None) (jg) Modified on 7/7/2011. (jg, ) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
81 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Melissa L. Evans on Behalf of Plaintiffs by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
82 ORDER granting 81 Motion to Withdraw of Attorney Melissa L. Evans. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/11/11. (jg) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
83 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Exchange of required Rule 26(a) information due by 3/8/2011; Plaintiffs shall file their motion for conditional certification and Court−facilitated notice by 10/3/11 at 5:00 p.m. Defendant's response to said motion shall be filed by 11/3/11 at 5:00 p.m. Plaintiffs' reply brief, if any, shall be filed by 11/17/11 at 5:00 p.m. Defendant's sur−reply brief, if any, shall be filed by 12/1/11 at 5:00 p.m. Hearing and oral argument as to said motion and briefing shall be held on 12/13/11 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5B, 5th Floor, United States Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Said hearing shall continue on 12/14/11 at 9:00 a.m. (originally was set for 9/26/11 and 9/27/11), if necessary; The parties shall meet and confer regarding the contents of proposed opt−in notice and consent forms, and work diligently toward developing a mutually acceptable set of forms, which shall be made ready for the Courts review upon the Courts ruling on certification, at which time the Court will convene a status conference to review same; In the event this action is not conditionally certified as a collective action, fact discovery shall be completed by 12/30/11 at 12:00 p.m. If, however, conditional certification is granted, fact discovery shall be completed by 3/7/12; Upon the Court's ruling on conditional certification, the Court shall conduct a Telephonic Post Certification Discovery Status Conference. Said conference will occur on 1/31/12 at 4:30 PM (was originally set for 10/31/11 at 4:30 p.m.); As agreed to by the parties during the Case Management Conference, the Court shall convene routine telephonic status conferences to address the parties' progress with discovery, as well as any issues or problems that may have arisen. The Court sets the following schedule for same: a. 5/20/11 at 2:00 p.m. EST; b. 6/28/11 at 2:00 p.m. EST; c. 7/27/11 at 2:00 p.m. EST; and d. 8/29/11 at 2:00 p.m. EST; Motions to Amend/Add Parties due 4/15/11; Motion to Amend/Add Parties due 4/15/11; The Court will establish a schedule for the filing of summary judgment motions upon the completion of all discovery in this case; Other details more fully stated in said Order. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/15/11. (jg) Modified on 7/15/2011. (jg, ) (Entered: 07/15/2011)
84 NOTICE of Appearance by Mary Elizabeth Fischman on behalf of RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fischman, Mary) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
ORDER indicating that the Telephonic Discovery Conference set for 7/27/11 at 2:00 PM is cancelled, the parties having advised the Court that said Conference is unnecessary. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/25/11. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 21 of 72

08/29/2011
08/29/2011 10/03/2011 10/03/2011 10/03/2011 10/03/2011
10/04/2011 10/04/2011 10/13/2011 10/14/2011 10/17/2011

85 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Telephonic Status Conference held on 8/29/2011 indicating that the parties reported on the status of discovery. They also reported that they fully expect to adhere to the schedule the Court has set forth pertaining to conditional class certification. The Court informed parties that they shall both file, by 12/1/11, at 5:00 p.m., a list of witnesses they expect to call at the argument currently scheduled for 12/13/11, at 9:00 a.m. An appropriate Order follows. Defense counsel also indicated the possibility of filing both an omnibus summary judgment motion as well as individual−specific summary judgment motions in the near future. (Court Reporter: None) (jg) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
86 ORDER indicating that the parties shall file, by 12/1/11 at 5:00 p.m., a list of the witnesses they expect to call at the hearing and oral argument scheduled for 12/13/11 at 9:00 a.m. (See Docket No. 83 ). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/29/11. (jg) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
87 MOTION for Leave to File Its Second Amended Complaint by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Second Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 87 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint: Defendant's Response to said Motion is due by 10/13/2011. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/3/11. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
88 MOTION to Certify Class and Court−Facilitated Notice by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Notice, # 3 Proposed Consent, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
89 MOTION for Leave to File Brief Exceeding Page Limit by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Brief in Support of Motion for Conditional Certification and Court−Facilitated Notice) (Fox, Bruce) Modified to remove from public view, Attachment no. 2, since attorney filed as 91 BRIEF in Support re 88 Motion to Certify Class on 10/4/2011. (jv) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
90 ORDER granting 89 Motion for Leave to File Brief Exceeding Page Limit filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM; that Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of 88 Motion to Certify Class shall be filed by 10/6/2011. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/4/11. (jg) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
91 BRIEF in Support re 88 Motion to Certify Class, filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
92 RESPONSE in Opposition re 87 Motion for Leave to File, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F) (Becker, David) Modified original entry to reflect document title on 10/14/2011. (jv) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 92 Defendant's Response in Opposition to 87 Plaintiff's Motion to File Second Amended Complaint: Plaintiff's Reply brief due by 10/21/2011. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/14/11. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
93 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 22 of 72

Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/18/2011

94 ORDER granting 93 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of 87 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM; that Plaintiffs shall filed their Reply in Support of said Motion on or before 10/25/11. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/18/11. (jg) (Entered: 10/18/2011)

10/25/2011

95 REPLY BRIEF by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON re 87 Motion for Leave to File, Second Amended Complaint filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 10/25/2011)

10/28/2011 96 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 88 MOTION to Certify Class and Court−Facilitated Notice by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 10/28/2011)

10/28/2011

97 ORDER granting 96 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 88 . MOTION to Certify Class and Court−Facilitated Notice. Responses due by 11/10/2011. Replies due by 11/25/2011. Sur−replies due by 12/8/2011. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/28/11. (jim) (Entered: 10/28/2011)

10/31/2011 98 MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons more fully stated within, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 87 is denied. An appropriate Order to follow. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/31/11. (jg) (Entered: 10/31/2011)

10/31/2011

99 ORDER indicating that upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 87 , it is hereby ordered that said motion 87 is denied, without prejudice, in accord with the foregoing Memorandum Opinion 98 . Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/31/11. (jg) (Entered: 10/31/2011)

11/10/2011 100 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant's Response In Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Court−Facilitated Notice, # 2 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 11/10/2011)

11/10/2011 101 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Collective Action Allegations and Disparate Impact Claim by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 11/10/2011)

11/10/2011 102 BRIEF in Support re 101 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 11/10/2011)

11/10/2011 103 CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS re 101 Motion for Summary Judgment, 102 Brief in Support of Motion by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 11/10/2011)

11/10/2011 104

Appendix to 100 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, 102 Brief in Support of Motion, 103 Concise Statement of Material Facts, 101 Motion for Summary Judgment by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Stas Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Bloomberg Article, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Wiggins E−mail, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Bentley E−mail, # 5 Exhibit 5 − NADA Data 2009, # 6 Exhibit 6 − NADA Data 2010, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Economic Data, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Csukas Transcript, # 9 Exhibit 9 − Cunningham Transcript, # 10 Exhibit 10 − McLure Transcript, # 11 Exhibit 11 − Meixelsberger Transcript, # 12 Exhibit 12 − Cooney Transcript, # 13 Exhibit 13 − Karlo Transcript, # 14 Exhibit 14 − Marietti Transcript, # 15 Exhibit 15 − Reuters Article, # 16 Exhibit 16 − CNN Money Article, # 17 Exhibit 17 − Dunn Transcript, # 18 Exhibit 18 − Cannon Declaration, # 19 Exhibit 19 − King Declaration, # 20 Exhibit 20 − Pifer Declaration, # 21 Exhibit 21 − Spreadsheet, # 22 Exhibit 22 − Powerpoint) (Becker, David) (Entered: 11/10/2011)

11/10/2011 105 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC re 104 Appendix, 101 Motion for Summary Judgment, 100 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, 102 Brief in Support of Motion, 103 Concise Statement of Material Facts. (Becker, David) (Entered: 11/10/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 23 of 72

11/14/2011

ORDER granting 100 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; Defendant shall file its RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION AND COURT−FACILITATED NOTICE by November 15, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/14/2011. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bdk) (Entered: 11/14/2011)

11/14/2011 106 RESPONSE to Motion re 88 MOTION to Certify Class and Court−Facilitated Notice filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 11/14/2011)

11/15/2011 107

Joint MOTION to Extend Time to File Reply Brief, Sur−Reply and Hearing on Motion for Conditional Certification by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 11/15/2011)

11/16/2011 108

ORDER indicating that the Court having reviewed the Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time 107 , it is hereby ordered that said motion 107 is granted; that Plaintiffs shall file their reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Court−Facilitated Notice 106 on or before 12/2/11 at 12:00 p.m. Defendant shall file its sur−reply, if any, on or before 12/15/11 at 12:00 p.m.; that the hearing and oral argument presently scheduled for December 13 and 14, 2011 shall be continued to 12/19/11 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5B, 5th Floor, United States Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Said hearing shall continue on 12/20/11 at 9:00 a.m., if necessary. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/16/11. (jg) (Entered: 11/16/2011)

12/01/2011 109 Witness List by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/01/2011)

12/01/2011 110 Witness List by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/01/2011)

12/02/2011 111

MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief Exceeding Page Limit, in Support of Motion for Conditional Certification and Court−Facilitated Notice by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Conditional Certification and Court−Facilitated Notice, # 3 Exhibit A to Reply Brief, # 4 Exhibit B to Reply Brief) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011 112

ORDER granting 111 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief Exceeding Page; that Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Conditional Class Certificatioin and Court−Facilitated Notice, which is in excess of 5 pages, shallbe filed by Plaintiffs by 3:00 PM on 12/2/11. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/2/11. (jg) Modified on 12/2/2011. (jg, ) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011 113

REPLY BRIEF by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON re 88 Motion to Certify Class, 91 Brief in Support of Motion filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/06/2011 114 SUPPLEMENT by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON to 110 Witness List. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

12/08/2011 115 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Late−Noticed Depositions of 22 Witnesses by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/08/2011)

12/09/2011

NOTICE of Hearing: A Telephonic Status Conference is set for 12/12/2011 at 2:00 PM before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Text Only Entry: No PDF will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's Order or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 12/09/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 24 of 72

12/09/2011

ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 115 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order: Plaintiffs' Response to said Motion is due by 12:00 PM on 12/12/2011. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/9/11. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 12/09/2011)

12/11/2011 116

BRIEF in Opposition re 115 Motion for Protective Order filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/11/2011)

12/12/2011 117

Minute Entry for proceedings held 12/12/2011 before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: the Court convened a telephonic hearing to address the Defendants Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 115 ). The Court heard argument from both sides, and took the matter under advisement. The parties are to produce a proposed amended case management order by 12:00 p.m. on December 16, 2011 addressing any extension of the discovery period in this case. Said proposed order may be filed separately or, preferably, jointly by the parties. The parties shall be prepared to discuss the proposal(s) at the motion hearing currently scheduled for December 19, 2011. The transcript of this hearing shall be produced, with costs to be split evenly by Plaintiffs and Defendant. (Court Reporter: S. Wenger) (jim) (Entered: 12/12/2011)

12/12/2011 118

ORDER indicating that the parties shall each produce a proposed amended case management order, or in the alternative, the parties may jointly file a single proposed order, by 12:00 p.m. on December 16, 2011, said order to address the need for ongoing discovery as discussed at the hearing (Docket No. 117 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the transcript of the hearing shall be produced, with costs to be split evenly by Plaintiffs and Defendant. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/12/2011. (jim) (Entered: 12/12/2011)

12/12/2011 119

MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limit Regarding Plaintiffs' Proposed Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's 101 Motion for Summary Judgment by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment) (Fox, Bruce) Modified to link to appropriate document on 12/13/2011. (jv) (Entered: 12/13/2011)

12/13/2011 120

RESPONSIVE CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS in Opposition to Defendant's 103 Concise Statement of Material Facts by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/13/2011)

12/13/2011 121

Appendix to 120 Concise Statement of Material Facts, 119 Motion for Leave to File, by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/13/2011)

12/13/2011 122 ORDER granting 119 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Exceed Page Limit Regarding Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 101 ; that Plaintiffs' Response to said Motion is due by 12/13/2011. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/13/11. (jg) (Entered: 12/13/2011)

12/13/2011 123 BRIEF in Opposition re 101 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/13/2011)

12/13/2011 124 NOTICE of Appearance by Yuanyou Yang on behalf of RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Yang, Yuanyou) (Entered: 12/13/2011)

12/15/2011 125 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply Brief in Opposition to Motion for Conditional Certification in Excess of 5−Page Limit by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sur−Reply in Opposition to Motion for Conditional Certification)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 25 of 72

(Becker, David) (Entered: 12/15/2011)

12/15/2011

ORDER granting 125 Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply Brief in Opposition to 88 Motion for Conditional Certification in Excess of 5−Page Limit filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC; Said Sur−Reply due by 12/15/2011. The parties are also reminded that all motions are to be accompanied by an appropriate proposed order. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/15/11. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 12/15/2011)

12/15/2011 126 Sur−Reply in Opposition re 88 Motion to Certify Class, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Additional Excerpts of Dunn Deposition Transcript) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/15/2011)

12/16/2011 127 Joint Proposed Case Management Order Jointly Submitted by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/16/2011 128

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on December 12, 2011 before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Sandra Wenger, Official Court Reporter, Telephone number 412−261−6254. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 12/23/2011. Redaction Request due 1/6/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/17/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/15/2012. (sw, ) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/16/2011 129

STIPULATION re 88 MOTION to Certify Class and Court−Facilitated Notice Parties Procedural Agreements Regarding December 19th Hearing by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/16/2011 130

MOTION for Leave to Participate Telephonically in 12/19/11 Hearing re 108 Order, Terminate Motions, Set Deadlines/Hearings, by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/17/2011

ORDER granting 130 Plaintiffs' MOTION for Leave to Participate Telephonically in 12/19/11 Hearing; Plaintiff Richard Csukas is granted leave to participate by telephone at said hearing. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/17/11. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bdk) (Entered: 12/17/2011)

12/19/2011

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 125 Motion for Leave to File. ERROR: Proposed Order was not attached. CORRECTION: Attorney is advised, that in the future, to file a proposed order, as an attachment, with all future Motions. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 12/19/2011)

12/19/2011 131

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Motion Hearing held on 12/19/2011 re 88 Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Court−Facilitated Notice indicating that The Court raised concerns and heard argument over the parties' disputes as to the propriety of expert testimony at the notice stage. Specifically, the Court was concerned with the Defendant's challenge to the propriety of using Dr. Campion as a witness, given that the Plaintiffs did not provide Dr. Campion's report with their opening brief, (see Docket No. 126 at 16), as well as Plaintiffs' challenge as to Dr. Pifer's proposed testimony. (See Docket No. 129 ). The Court ordered supplemental briefs limited to 10 pages each on the issue, to be due 1/4/12 at 5:00 p.m. The Court's consideration of the parties' joint proposed Amended Case Management Order (Docket No. 127 ) and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 115 ) will be stayed pending the Court's determination on the use, if any, of expert testimony at the conditional certification hearing. At present, no further hearing or argument is scheduled, but if the Court determines that further argument or testimony is necessary, the Court will convene same. Finally, the Court ordered production of the transcript of the hearing, costs to be split evenly by Plaintiffs and Defendant. An appropriate Order follows. (Court Reporter: S. Wenger)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 26 of 72

(jg, ) (Entered: 12/19/2011)

12/19/2011 132

ORDER indicating that the Court having convened a hearing to address the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Court Facilitated Notice 88 , and upon consideration of the stipulation 129 , as well as the parties' briefing on the motion (Docket Nos. 91 , 106 , 113 , 126 ), and argument made orally at the hearing today, it is hereby ordered that the motion for certification 88 is taken under advisement pending receipt of supplemental briefs on the issue of expert testimony at the notice stage in a disparate impact collective action case, as raised during the hearing; that said supplemental briefs are due from all parties on 1/4/12 at 5:00 p.m. Said briefs shall be limited to ten pages, and no permission will be granted for filing of a brief in excess of this limit; that, at present, no further argument nor hearing in the matter is scheduled. If, after consideration of the supplemental briefing, the Court determines that further argument or testimony is necessary, the Court will promptly convene a hearing to address same; that the Court's consideration of the joint proposed Amended Case Management Order 127 and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order 115 is stayed pending the Court's determinations on the issues of expert testimony and on the class certification issue, itself; that the transcript of today's hearing shall be produced, with costs to be split 50/50 by Plaintiffs and Defendant. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/19/11. (jg) (Entered: 12/19/2011)

12/27/2011 133 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 101 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Collective Action Allegations and Disparate Impact Claim by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/27/2011)

12/28/2011 134

ORDER 133 Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply as to 101 Motion for Summary Judgment on Collective Action Allegations and Disparate Impact Claim; that Defendanat PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC shall file its Reply in Support of said Motion on or before 1/11/12 at 5:00 PM. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/28/11. (jg) Modified on 12/29/2011 to change date from 1/1/12 to 1/11/12. (jim) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

01/04/2012 135 SUPPLEMENT by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC to 88 Motion to Certify Class,. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/04/2012)

01/04/2012 136

BRIEF in Support of 88 MOTION to Certify Class and Court−Facilitated Notice Memorandum Regarding Need for Expert Testimony at Conditional Certification Stage filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/04/2012)

01/11/2012 137 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 101 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Collective Action Allegations and Disparate Impact Claim by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/11/2012 138

ORDER granting 137 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 101 Motion for Summary Judgment on Collective Action Allegations and Disparate Impact Claim filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Defendant shall file its Reply in Suport of said Motion by 1/13/12 at 5:00 PM. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/11/12. (jg) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/12/2012 139 MOTION for attorney Tina C. Mazzulla to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $40, Receipt # 0315−2220102) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Cottington, Robert) (Entered: 01/12/2012)

01/12/2012 140 ORDER granting 139 Motion for Tina C. Mazzulla, Esquire to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/12/12. (jg) (Entered: 01/12/2012)

01/13/2012 141 Joint MOTION to Stay re 101 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Collective Action Allegations and Disparate Impact Claim, 88 MOTION to Certify Class and Court−Facilitated Notice Requesting Stay Pending Conclusion of Mediation by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/13/2012 142 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of Summary Judgment on Collective Action Allegations and Disparate Impact Claim, # 2 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 27 of 72

01/13/2012 143 COUNTER STATEMENT OF FACTS to Plaintiffs' Concise Statement of Facts, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Additional Kevin Cooney Dep. Excerpts) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/13/2012 144 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC re 143 Counter Statement of Facts . (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/17/2012 145

ORDER granitng 141 Joint Motion to Stay Rulings on Motion(s) Pending Completion of Mediation; that Court shall stay all consideration and or ruling on the pending Motion for Class Certification 88 and Motion for Summary Judgment 101 lmtil after the parties scheduled mediation session that is completed February 2, 2011. A Telephonic Status Conference shall be held 2/14/12 at 2:00 PM. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/17/12. (jg) (Entered: 01/17/2012)

01/17/2012 146 ORDER granting 142 Motion for Leave to File Brief Exceeding Page Limit; that Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on Collective Action Allegations and Disparate Impact 143 , which is in excess of 10 pages, is herby deemed as filed. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/17/12.(jg) (Entered: 01/17/2012)

01/27/2012 147 Joint MOTION to Strike the January 31, 2012 Status Hearing by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/27/2012)

01/27/2012 148 ORDER granting 147 Joint Motion to Cancel the Status Conference (Telephonic Post Certification Discovery Conference) set for 1/31/12 at 4:30 PM. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/27/12. (jg) (Entered: 01/27/2012)

02/03/2012 149

REPORT of Mediation: Case has not been resolved. DONALD E. ZIEGLER terminated. Attorney Donald E. Ziegler terminated. The parties are reminded of their obligation to complete the ADR questionnaire and return same to the Clerk of Court within 5 days of the conclusion of the ADR process. The questionnaire can be accessed at www.pawd.uscourts.gov. Click on the ADR icon. Mediation session was held on 2/2/2012. (map) (Entered: 02/03/2012)

02/14/2012 150 Proposed Order Jointly Revised Case Management Order by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Becker, David) (Entered: 02/14/2012)

02/15/2012 151

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Status Conference held on 2/14/2012 to follow up on the mediation for which the Court's consideration of pending motions had been stayed 145 . The parties provided an update on the status of the case. The Court adopted the proposed order revising the Court's case management order 150 , and such Order will issue hereafter. Due to the parties' concerns over a potential discovery issue, a telephonic status conference is scheduled for 2/23/12 at 4:00 p.m. The parties shall file a joint status report by 2/17/12 at 5:00 p.m., advising the Court of the necessity of said conference and the issues to be addressed. Defense counsel requested the opportunity to file a letter referring to the Court to cases that have been decided since the latest briefing in this case. Defense counsel shall file same, without legal argument, by 2/17/12 at 5:00 p.m. Plaintiffs' counsel shall have an opportunity to respond, also without legal argument, by 2/24/12 at 5:00 p.m. If necessary, the Court will hear further argument on the pending motions on 3/9/12 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Appropriate orders will follow. (Court Reporter: None) (jg) (Entered: 02/15/2012)

02/15/2012 152

REVISED AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER indicating that the pending Amended Case Management Order 83 shall be amended as follows: The fact discovery cut−off for the Individual Plaintiffs' claims shall be extended to 5/31/12 and the parties shall conduct the remainder of discovery according to the following conditions: (1) The parties shall supplement their disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) on or before 3/31/12; (2) The parties will coordinate to complete depositions proposed by Plaintiff by 4/13/12; (3) Plaintiffs shall have until 4/20/12 to file any motion to amend their complaint to conform to the proofs; (4) The parties shall, without waiving any of their rights, act cooperatively to avoid the need to re−take any depositions, in the event that conditional certification is granted; (5) In the event conditional certification is granted, the Court will set a discovery status conference to make necessary adjustments to the discovery schedule to accommodate additional discovery on collective action issues and the claims of other opt−in plaintiffs.(6) All other aspects of the Amended Case Management Order 83 remain in place. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/14/12. (jg) (Entered: 02/15/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 28 of 72

02/15/2012 153

ORDER indicating that the Court having convened a status conference in this matter, and upon considering representations from the parties' attorneys made during this conference, it is hereby ordered that a telephonic status conference is scheduled for 2/23/12 at 4:00 p.m. The parties shall file a joint status report by 2/17/12 at 5:00 p.m., and said report shall address (1) the necessity of the status conference; and, if the conference is deemed necessary, (2) a general background of the dispute; that defense counsel shall file a letter with the Court, referring the Court to certain recent cases which have been decided since the last round of briefing was completed. Said letter shall be filed by 2/17/12 at 5:00 p.m., and shall not include any legal argument. If they desire to do so, Plaintiffs shall file a responsive letter providing additional citations, if necessary, again without any legal argument, by 2/242/12 at 5:00 p.m.; that the parties shall be prepared to appear for argument on the pending motion for conditional certification 88 and motion for summary judgment 101 on 3/9/12 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5B, United States Courthouse, 700 Grant St., Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/14/12. (jg) (Entered: 02/15/2012)

02/17/2012 154 SUPPLEMENT to 101 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Collective Action Allegations and Disparate Impact Claim and 88 MOTION to Certify Class and Court−Facilitated Notice by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 02/17/2012)

02/17/2012 155 JOINT STATUS REPORT by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 02/17/2012)

02/24/2012 156

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Status Conference held on 2/23/2012 to address certain discovery issues raised by the parties. Both sides presented their views to the Court. The Court instructed Plaintiffs to file a motion to compel, if they find it necessary, by 3/6/12 at 12:00 p.m. Defendant's response is due 3/13/12 at 12:00 p.m. The parties were also told to call the Court if any issues arise during the deposition of one James Wiggins. The parties also discussed mediation possibilities, including the possibility of the Court holding a mediation conference. Neither party requested production of the transcript. An appropriate order follows. (Court Reporter: S. Wenger) (jg) Modified on 2/24/2012. (jg, ) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012 157

ORDER indicating that the Court having convened a status conference in this matter, and upon considering representations from the parties' attorneys made during this conference, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs shall file, if they deem it necessary, a motion to compel discovery related to Paragraph 1 of the Joint Status Report Regarding Discovery issues 155 by 3/6/12 at 12:00 p.m. Defendant shall file its response to same by 3/13/12 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/23/12. (jg) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012 158

SUPPLEMENT by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON to 154 Supplement. (Attachments: # 1 §In Re: Enterprise Rent−A−Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litig., MDL 2056, 2010 WL 3447783 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2010)., # 2 Pontius v. Delta Fin. Corp., CIV.A. 04−1737, 2005 WL 6103189 (W.D. Pa. July 22, 2005).) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

03/06/2012 159

MOTION to Compel DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND TO PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in support of PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND TO PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT, # 2 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

03/07/2012 160 BRIEF (Memorandum of Law) in Support re 159 Motion to Compel, filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (jv) (Entered: 03/08/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 29 of 72

03/08/2012

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 159 Motion to Compel. ERROR: Memorandum of Law should have been filed as a separate document. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed 160 BRIEF (Memorandum of Law) in Support re 159 Motion to Compel. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 03/08/2012)

03/12/2012 161

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Motion Hearing held on 3/9/2012 re 88 Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification 88 . After argument, the parties agreed that the positions taken with respect to 88 are substantially similar to those relating to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment 101 , such that oral argument or hearing would be unnecessary as to that motion. The Court briefly addressed the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel 159 . Based upon representations of Counsel, the Court will order production of the transcript of its 2/23/12 status conference (see Docket No. 156 ) and production of the 3/9/12 hearing. Costs for each transcript will be split, 50% by Plaintiffs and 50% by Defendant. Appropriate orders will follow. (Court Reporter: S. Wenger) (jg) (Entered: 03/12/2012)

03/12/2012 162

ORDER indicating that the Court having heard oral argument from the parties on Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification 88 , and the Court having considered the representations made at this hearing 161 , it is hereby ordered that, upon consent of the parties, there shall be no oral argument or hearing on Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 101 ), as the issues in that motion are substantially similar to the issues addressed in Plaintiffs' motion 88 . Thus, the Court will take all arguments presented under advisement for purposes of addressing both motions 88 and 101 ; that the transcript of the 3/9/12 161 shall be produced, with costs to be split, 50% by Plaintiffs and 50% by Defendant; that the transcript of the 2/23/12 Status Conference (see Docket No. 156 ) shall be produced, with costs to be split, 50% by Plaintiffs and 50% by Defendant. This transcript is necessary for the Court to address Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel 159 . Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/12/12. (jg) (Entered: 03/12/2012)

03/13/2012 163 BRIEF in Opposition re 159 Motion to Compel, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Mazzulla, Tina) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/30/2012 164 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Arbitrator's Order and Opinion, # 2 Proposed Order) (Mayer, Jeffrey) Modified on 4/2/2012. (plh) (Entered: 03/30/2012)

04/04/2012 165

ORDER indicating that the Court having received emails from both parties regarding the recently filed Motion for Leave to Supplement (Docket No. 164 ), it is hereby ordered that the parties shall meet and confer to resolve the dispute. Any further concerns related to the issue shall be brought to the Court by way of motion or response only. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/4/12. (jg) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/09/2012 166 NOTICE of Substitution of Attorney Appearance by Bruce C. Fox on behalf of RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. Attorney Mary Elizabeth Fischman terminated. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/10/2012 167 ORDER granting 166 Substitution of Attorney Appearance of Andrew J. Horowitz, Esquire for Mary Elizabeth Fischman, Esq. on behalf of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/10/12. (jg) (Entered: 04/10/2012)

04/11/2012 168 STIPULATION by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/11/2012

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 168 Stipulation. ERROR: Typed name omitted by s/. CORRECTION: Attorney advised of signature requirements. Attorney to resubmit with signature, using *ERRATA* event (Located under "Other Documents"). Attorney advised to link ERRATA event to 168 Stipulation. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/11/2012 169 MOTION to Withdraw 164 Motion for Leave to File Supplement by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (RE: DCKT # 169 )) (Mayer, Jeffrey) Modified to link to appropriate document on 4/12/2012. (jv) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/11/2012 170 Errata re 168 Stipulation by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE,

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 30 of 72

DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. Reason for Correction: Signature. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/12/2012 171 ORDER granting 169 Motion to Withdraw 164 Motion for Leave to File Supplement filed by Defendant PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/12/12. (jg) (Entered: 04/12/2012)

04/17/2012 172 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Authority by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 04/17/2012)

04/19/2012

ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 172 Defendant's Re−Submitted Motion for Leave to File Supplement: Plaintiffs' Response to said Motion is due by 4/27/2012. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/19/12. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) Modified on 4/19/2012. (jg, ) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

04/19/2012 173 MOTION to Extend Time by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

04/19/2012 174

ORDER granting 173 Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Time To File an Amended Complaint; that Plaintiffs will be allowed additional time to file an Amended Complaint at a time to be determined by the Court after the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification 88 and Motion to Compel 159 . Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/19/12. (jg) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

04/23/2012 175

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on February 23, 2012 before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Sandra Wenger, Official Court Reporter, Telephone number 412−261−6254. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 4/30/2012. Redaction Request due 5/14/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/24/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2012. (sw, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)

04/23/2012 176

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on March 9, 2012 before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Sandra Wenger, Official Court Reporter, Telephone number 412−261−6254. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 4/30/2012. Redaction Request due 5/14/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/24/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2012. (sw, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)

04/25/2012 177 RESPONSE to Motion re 172 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Authority filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

04/25/2012 178 ORDER denying as not relevant 172 Defendant's Re−Submitted Motion for Leave to File Supplement. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/25/12. (jg) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

05/09/2012 179

MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons more fully stated within, Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification 88 is granted, in part. The Court will convene a status conference to address any remaining notice issues once the Court receives the parties status reports and proposed notice and consent forms, as directed in the forthcoming Order. Said appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 5/9/12. (jg) (Entered: 05/09/2012)

05/09/2012 180 ORDER indicating that upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification 88 and all associated papers filed in support and opposition, and all argument on the matter, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs' Motion 88 is granted, in part. In accord with the Opinion filed herewith 179 , Plaintiffs shall pursue discovery as to the proposed class of

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 31 of 72

employees who were, on or about March 30 and 31, 2009, (a) 50 years of age or older; (b) who were employed by PGW; (c) who were members of the salaried workforce; and (d) who were terminated from employment with PGW by the RIF implemented on March 30 and 31, 2009. Accordingly, the Court will convene a telephonic status conference on 5/14/12 at 3:00 p.m. to address collective action discovery, and to set a timetable for same; that said Motion 88 is denied, in part, to the extent that the Plaintiffs seek approval of the Notice. In accord with the Court's Amended Case Management Order 83 , the Court shall convene a telephonic status conference to review the proposed notice. This conference call shall occur during the May 14th conference call scheduled above. As Defendant has indicated that there is only "one discrete matter" left to address (see Docket No. 106 at 35), the parties shall meet and confer and work diligently toward resolving that matter prior to the conference. If that issue cannot be resolved amicably, the parties shall file a joint stipulation on 5/14/12 by noon, describing the nature of the issue for the Courts review; that, because the Court has granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification, Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment on Collective Action Allegations and Disparate Impact Claim 101 is denied, without prejudice to Defendant renewing the motion after class discovery has been completed; As a consequence of the above rulings, it is finally ordered that Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Late−Noticed Depositions of 22 Witnesses 115 is denied, as moot. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 5/9/12. (jg) (Entered: 05/09/2012)

05/11/2012 181

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 159 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel; that Defendant is ordered to produce the following: 1. The RIF Guidelines currently in place at PGW. 2. Answers to the following interrogatories from Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories Directed to Defendant: a. Interrogatory # 1. b. Interrogatory # 8. c. Interrogatory # 11. d. Interrogatory # 12. e. Interrogatory # 13, only to the extent that PGW must provide information on Mr. Wiggins' ownership, compensation and other income earned from PGW, as well as the identity of other Kohlberg & Co. companies in which Mr. Wiggins has an ownership interest. f. Interrogatory # 14. g. Interrogatory # 18, to the extent that it applies to the interrogatories identified in this order. 3. All of the documents requested in the Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents Directed to Defendant. PGW shall comply within 30 days of this Court's Order, i.e. on or before 6/11/12. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 5/11/12. (jg) (Entered: 05/11/2012)

05/14/2012 182 MOTION for Clarification as to 181 Order on Motion to Compel, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 05/14/2012)

05/14/2012 183

NOTICE of Your Rights in Connection with Pending Age Discrimination Lawsuit against Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON (Fox, Bruce) Modified on 5/15/2012. (plh) (Entered: 05/14/2012)

05/15/2012 184

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Status Conference held on 5/14/2012 to address notice issues after conditionally certifying the collective action. The parties presented the Court with a draft Notice, which the Court accepted with modification. The parties also presented their positions with respect to Defendant's Motion for Clarification 182 , which, based on the Court's discussion with the parties, the Court will deny, as moot. The transcript of the conference will be produced, with costs to be split, 50% by Plaintiffs and 50% by Defendant. Appropriate orders will follow. (Court Reporter: S. Wenger) (jg) Modified on 5/15/2012. (jg, ) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

05/15/2012 185

ORDER indicating that the Court having convened a status conference to address the nature and form of notice in this conditionally−certified collective action case, the parameters of discovery going forward, and the Defendant's motion for clarification 182 , and the parties having had an opportunity to state their positions, it is hereby ordered that the parties shall file their agreed−upon Notice form by 5:00 p.m. on 5/14/12; that the parties shall adhere to the following schedule: 1. Defendant shall produce, by May 25, 2012, its most up−to−date list of potential class members; 2. Plaintiffs shall send the proposed Notice by 6/1/12; 3. Plaintiffs shall make clear that all opt−in letters shall be postmarked by 7/16/12. Potential plaintiffs whose letters are postmarked after that date shall not be considered for certification; 4. A telephonic status conference is scheduled for 7/19/12 at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall be prepared to discuss class discovery after having ascertained the contours of the opt−in class; that Defendant's Motion for Clarification 182 is denied, as moot, the Court having addressed with the parties the scope of its Memorandum Order 181 on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel 159 . Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 5/14/12. (jg) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 32 of 72

05/21/2012

NOTICE of Hearing: A Telephonic Status Conference is set for 5/29/2012 at 1:00 PM before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Text Only Entry: No PDF will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's Order or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

05/23/2012 186 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 05/23/2012)

05/23/2012 187 BRIEF in Support re 186 Motion for Certificate of Appealability filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 05/23/2012)

05/23/2012

ORDER re 186 Motion for Certificate of Appealability filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, indicating that Plaintiffs' response to motion 186 is due by 6/6/2012. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 5/23/12. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jim) (Entered: 05/23/2012)

05/30/2012 188

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: (Telephonic) Status Conference held on 5/29/2012 to address a number of issues. The parties agreed that, at least until Plaintiffs filed their response as to the Defendant's Motion for Certificate of Appealability 186 , nothing need be said regarding interlocutory appeal. The Court also heard the parties' positions as to an amendment deadline and related discovery concerns. The parties shall email to the Court a status report by 5:00 p.m. on 6/6/12 addressing any agreement as to interlocutory appeal and discovery. They shall also file proposed orders on the issue of amendment by the same deadline. If the parties are in agreement, they may file a single joint status report. Only PGW requested a copy of the transcript, so a copy of the transcript shall be produced, with costs to be borne entirely by PGW. (Court Reporter: S. Wenger) (jg) (Entered: 05/30/2012)

06/05/2012 189

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant's Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal and to File a Status Report by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/05/2012)

06/06/2012 190

ORDER granting 189 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 186 Defendant's Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal and to File a Status Report; that Plaintffs' Response to 186 Defendant's Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal, Status Report and Proposed Orders regarding Amendment are due by 6/13/2012. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/6/12. (jg) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012 191 Proposed Order on Amended Complaint by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012 192 MOTION REMOVE THE PROPOSED ORDER ON AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012

ORDER indicating that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remove the Proposed Order on Amendment of Complaint 192 is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall strike the Proposed Order 191 from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/6/12. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jim) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/13/2012 193 Proposed Order Amendment to Case Management Order by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Mazzulla, Tina) (Entered: 06/13/2012)

06/13/2012 194 Proposed Order on Amendment of Pleadings by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/13/2012)

06/13/2012 195 BRIEF in Opposition re 186 Motion for Certificate of Appealability filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/13/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 33 of 72

06/14/2012 196 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief to 195 Brief in Opposition of its 186 Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Mazzulla, Tina) (Entered: 06/14/2012)

06/15/2012 197 ORDER granting 196 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of its 186 Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal; said Reply Brief shall be filed by Defendant by 6/20/12. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/15/12. (jg) (Entered: 06/15/2012)

06/20/2012 198 REPLY to Response to Motion re 195 Brief in Opposition to Motion, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Mazzulla, Tina) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

06/20/2012 199

MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

06/21/2012 200 ORDER granting 199 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply Brief in Opposition to 186 Defendant's Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal; that Plaintiffs' Sur−Reply Brief is due by 6/27/2012. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/21/12. (jg) (Entered: 06/21/2012)

06/27/2012 201 Sur−Reply Brief re 186 Motion for Certificate of Appealability, filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/27/2012)

06/28/2012 202

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on May 29, 2012 before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Sandra Wenger, Official Court Reporter, Telephone number 412−261−6254. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 7/5/2012. Redaction Request due 7/19/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/30/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/26/2012. (sw, ) (Entered: 06/28/2012)

07/12/2012

ORDER indicating that the Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/19/12 at 10:00 AM is re−set for 7/19/2012 at 1:00 PM before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/12/12. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 07/12/2012)

07/20/2012 203

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Status Conference (via telephone) held on 7/19/12 indicating that the Court informed that parties that its order on the pending Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal 186 will be issued in the near term. The Court also established 3/1/13 as the deadline for fact discovery as to the opt−in plaintiffs. The Court will convene a telephonic post−fact discovery status conference on 3/1/13 at 3:00 p.m. The parties shall be prepared to discuss expert discovery and decertification schedules. One week prior to that conference, i.e. on 2/22/13, the parties shall file, on the docket, either a joint proposed order and/or separate proposed orders on expert discovery and decertification. The Court also established a summary judgment schedule, which will follow in an appropriate order. Neither party requested a copy of the transcript. (Court Reporter: S. Wenger) (jg) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012 204

ORDER indicating that the Court having convened a status conference to address the status of discovery in this matter, and with the agreement of the parties,it is hereby ordered that fact discovery pertaining to the opt−in plaintiffs shall close on 3/1/13, and that a telephonic status conference is scheduled for 3/1/13 at 3:00 p.m. The parties shall be prepared to discuss whether fact discovery is complete, to propose a schedule for expert discovery, and propose a schedule for decertification briefing. One week prior, i.e., by 5:00 p.m. 2/22/13, the parties shall either file joint or independent proposed orders pertaining to expert discovery and decertification; that the parties shall adhere to the following schedule with respect to Defendant's anticipated summary judgment motions on disparate treatment: 1. Any summary judgment motions and opening briefs are due by 12:00 p.m. 4/1/13; 2. All responses are due by 12:00 p.m. on 5/1/13; 3. All replies are due by 12:00 p.m. on 5/15/13 ; 4. All sur−replies are due by 12:00 p.m. on 5/29/13; 5. Oral argument is scheduled for 6/7/13 at 9:00 a.m.; that the Court will convene a telephonic status conference at 2:00 p.m. on 9/11/12. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 34 of 72

7/19/12. (jg) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012 205

MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that 186 Defendant's Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), is denied without prejudice to the Defendants renewing their arguments after the Court has ruled upon decertification (details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/20/12. (jg) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/30/2012 206 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Michael Breen. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 207 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Matthew Clawson. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 208 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Colleen Conaway. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 209 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by John DeAngelis. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 210 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Robert Diaz. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 211 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Charles Fellabaum. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 212 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Paul Marcelonis. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 213 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Stephen Shaw. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 214 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by John Titus. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 215 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Charles Voetzel. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 216 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Ronald Wickwire. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 217 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Richard Csukas. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 218 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by William Cunningham. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 219 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Rudolph Karlo. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 220 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Jeffrey Marietti. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 221 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by David Meixelsberger. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012 222 MOTION to Modify Order of Court by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/30/2012

ORDER re 222 Motion to Modify, filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, indicating that Defendant's Response to Motion is due 8/6/12 by 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/30/12. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jim) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

07/31/2012 223 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Benjamin Thompson. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/31/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 35 of 72

08/01/2012 224 CONSENT TO OPT IN as a class member by Mark McLure. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 08/01/2012)

08/06/2012 225 BRIEF in Opposition re 222 Motion to Modify, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Mazzulla, Tina) (Entered: 08/06/2012)

08/06/2012 226 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 08/06/2012)

08/07/2012 227 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 226 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief re 222 Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Order of Court; Plaintiff's Reply brief of up to 10 pages is due by 8/14/12. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/7/12. (jg) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

08/07/2012 228 REPLY BRIEF re 222 Motion to Modify, filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

08/09/2012 229 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Order of Court by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Surreply in Opposition to Motion to Modify Order of Court, # 2 Proposed Order) (Mazzulla, Tina) (Entered: 08/09/2012)

08/09/2012 230 ORDER granting 229 Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to 222 Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Order of Court filed by Defendant PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC; Defendant's Surreply is due by 8/13/2012. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/9/12. (jg) (Entered: 08/09/2012)

08/09/2012 231 Sur−Reply Brief in Opposition re 222 Motion to Modify, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Mazzulla, Tina) (Entered: 08/09/2012)

08/13/2012 232

ORDER indicating that Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Order of Court 222 is DENIED, to the extent that Plaintiffs wish to add Ms. Marilyn Workinger to the collective action. The motion is further denied to the extent that it seeks attorney's fees and costs. However, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the named plaintiffs Thompson, Karlo, Csukas, Marietti and McLure, all of whom filed their opt−ins late, shall be allowed to move forward as part of the conditionally−certified collective action. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/13/12. (jim) (Entered: 08/13/2012)

09/09/2012

ORDER indicating that the Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/11/12 at 2:00 PM is cancelled, counsel having advised the Court that said conference is unnecessary at this time. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 9/9/12. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 09/09/2012)

09/25/2012

ORDER indicating that a Telephonic Status Conference is set for 10/11/2012 at 1:30 PM before Judge Nora Barry Fischer; The parties are ordered to file an proposed Joint Agenda for said Conference with the Court by no later than 5:00 PM on 10/9/2012. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 9/25/12. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 09/25/2012)

10/10/2012 233

MOTION to Compel Deposition and to Hold in Contempt by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/11/2012 234

ORDER upon consideration of "Plaintiffs' Motion to Hold Anthony Hartman in Contempt" (Document No. 233 ), it is hereby ordered that both Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC and proposed Deponent Anthony Hartman, shall file a Response to said Motion no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 18, 2012; that counsel for Plaintiffs is hereby directed to serve this Order upon counsel for Anthony Hartman, or Anthony Hartman should Mr. Hartman have no counsel, by no later than 10/12/12. Counsel for Plaintiffs is directed to file notice of service of same by no later than 10/15/12. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/11/12. (jg) (Entered: 10/11/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 36 of 72

10/12/2012 235 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 10/12/2012)

10/12/2012 236

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Status Conference held on 10/11/2012 indicating that the Court convened a status conference to address the status of the case. Consistent with the email report, the Court reviewed the discovery status in this case. To that end, counsel for plaintiffs identified four (4) managers he wanted put up for depositions. Defendant's counsel agreed to produce these four individuals even though some no longer work for the defendant. Defendant's counsel agreed to work with plaintiffs counsel to schedule appropriate dates. Likewise defendant's counsel requested to depose the nine (9) plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel advised that all were available. Plaintiffs' counsel advised the Court that he would like to conclude depositions no later than mid−November, 2012. To facilitate scheduling and continue discovery progress, the Court will hold a Telephonic Status Conference on 10/26/12 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of that conference will be to confirm the deposition schedule of the 4 managers and 9 plaintiffs, and to confirm that plaintiffs' counsel has provided defendant with a list of additional proposed deponents. Next the Court discussed the issue of amendment. The Court will circulate a proposed order, and the parties will submit their objections, comments and concerns in a joint report to the law clerk by 10/19/12 at 5:00 p.m. Third, the Court addressed the plaintiffs' request to schedule a settlement conference or mediation with the Court. Plaintiffs' counsel advised of his preference that such a conference be held following the deposition of the 9 plaintiffs. Defendant's counsel needed authority from his client and the carrier to agree to a settlement conference, but he advised that they would prefer to hold such a conference at the end of fact discovery. The Court also inquired if the parties were interested in going back to paid mediation. The Court outlined its procedures regarding settlement conferences. Counsel were told to review this discussion and these procedures with clients and to further advise the Court regarding their positions at the telephonic status conference to be held on 10/26/12. (Court Reporter: R. Ford) (jg) (Entered: 10/12/2012)

10/15/2012 237 REPLY to Motion re 233 MOTION to Compel Deposition and to Hold in Contempt filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Myers, John) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/18/2012 238 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 233 Plaintiff's Motion to Hold Anthony Hartman in Contempt (& Compel Deposition) (details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/18/12. (jg) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/29/2012 239

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Telephone Status Conference held on 10/26/12 indicating that Counsel informed the Court that significant progress was made since the last conference. Almost all of Plaintiffs' depositions have been scheduled, and it appears that they will all be deposed by 11/15/12. Defendant's management employees have been made available for deposition, and Plaintiffs' attorney provided a list of additional witnesses to be deposed. Counsel discussed the possibility of a settlement conference with the Court, and Defendant's counsel objected to the Court presiding over any such settlement conference. Counsel then discussed the possibility of having another district judge or magistrate judge preside over said conference. Plaintiff agreed to provide a demand by the close of business on 10/31/12. Both counsel agreed to provide the Court with a joint status report concerning the potential for a Court annexed settlement conference by 11/7/12 at 5:00 p.m. (Court Reporter: None) (jg) (Entered: 10/29/2012)

11/07/2012 240

ORDER ORDER indicating upon upon consideration of Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works' request for an extension to the filing of joint status report concerning the potential for a Court annexed settlement conference due to the conditions at Defendant's insurers' New York City office and Plaintiffs' lack of opposition to same, communicated to the Court by email on 11/7/12, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ordered that the parties deadline for filing of joint status report concerning the potential for a Court annexed settlement conference, originally set for November 7, 2012 at 5:00p.m. 239 , is extended to 11/9/12 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/7/12. (lks) (Entered: 11/07/2012)

11/09/2012 241

ORDER indicating upon consideration of Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works' request for an extension to the filing of joint status report concerning the potential for a Court annexed settlement conference due to the conditions at Defendant's insurers' New York City office and Plaintiffs' proposal, communicated to the Court by email on November 9, 2012, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ordered that the parties' deadline for filing of joint status report concerning the potential for a Court annexed settlement conference, originally extended until November 9, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. 240 , is extended to November 16, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 37 of 72

Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/9/12. (lks) (Entered: 11/09/2012)

11/17/2012 242

ORDER indicating that upon consideration of Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works' request for an extension to the filing of joint status report concerning the potential for a Court annexed settlement conference due to the conditions at Defendant's insurers' New York City office and Plaintiffs' agreement to same, communicated to the Court by email on 11/16/12, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ordered that the parties deadline for filing of joint status report concerning the potential for a Court annexed settlement conference, set for 11/16/12 at 5:00p.m. 241 , is extended to 11/21/12 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/17/12. (lks ) (Entered: 11/17/2012)

11/20/2012 243 MOTION for Settlement Conference by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 11/20/2012)

11/21/2012

ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 243 Plaintiffs' Motion for Settlement Conference: Defendant's Response to said Motion is due by 11/28/12. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/21/12. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 11/21/2012)

11/28/2012 244 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION to 243 Motion for Settlement, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) Modified to remove from public view since court filed correctly as 245 RESPONSE BRIEF in Opposition re 243 Motion for Settlement on 11/29/2012 (jv). (Entered: 11/28/2012)

11/28/2012 245 RESPONSE BRIEF in Opposition re 243 Motion for Settlement filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (jv) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

11/29/2012

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 244 Response in Opposition. ERROR: Wrong event selected. CORRECTION: Removed from public view since court Re−docketed as 245 RESPONSE BRIEF in Opposition re 243 Motion for Settlement. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv (Entered: 11/29/2012)

11/29/2012 246 ORDER denying 243 Plaintiffs' Motion for Settlement Conference (details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/29/2012. (bdk) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

02/14/2013 247

STIPULATION of Dismissal CLAIMS OF COLLEEN CONAWAY, ROBERT DIAZ AND CHARLES FELLABAUM by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 02/14/2013)

02/14/2013 248 ORDER granting 247 Stipulation of Dismissal of Claims of Colleen Conaway, Robert Diaz, and Charles E. Fellabum, each party to bear its own fees and costs. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/14/13. (jg) (Entered: 02/14/2013)

02/26/2013

ORDER indicating that the Telephonic Post Fact Discovery Status Conference set for 3/1/13 at 3:00 PM is re−set for 3/5/13 at 9:00 AM before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/26/13. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

03/05/2013 249

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/5/13 with both parties' counsel to discuss the status of discovery in this case and scheduling. Counsel stated that there was fact discovery that needed to be completed, but there were no disputes that needed to be resolved by the Court. The Court discussed the scheduling of expert discovery and motions for summary judgment, Daubert challenges, and/or decertification. The Court stated it would hold a hearing on all such motions on 8/27/13. Counsel stated they would inform the Court if any conflicts arose with this date. The Court stated that given the number of likely motions it would schedule the conference to last from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Court discussed the possibility of a settlement conference with another district judge or magistrate judge. Counsel agreed to meet and confer to discuss a possible settlement conference and will email the Court's law clerk if they wish to hold same. An appropriate Order follows. (Court Reporter: None) (jg) (Entered: 03/05/2013)

03/05/2013 250 ORDER indicating that upon consideration of the parties' proposed draft scheduling order received by email on 2/22/13 and argument on same during a telephonic status conference held on 3/5/13 249 , it is hereby ordered that the summary judgment deadlines set forth in the Court's 7/19/12 Order 204 are terminated and the parties shall adhere to the following deadlines: A.

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 38 of 72

Expert Discovery: Expert discovery shall commence and proceed as follows: 1. Opening expert reports on issues to which each party bears the burden of proof shall be exchanged by 4/17/13; 2. Rebuttal expert reports on issues as to which the opposing party bears the burden of proof shall by exchanged by 5/17/13; 3. Expert depositions shall be completed by 6/14/13; 4. All expert discovery shall be completed by 6/14/13; B. Motions for summary judgment/ decertification: Motions for summary judgment shall comply with Local Rule 56. Parties shall adhere to the following schedule: 1. All motions for summary judgment and/or decertification shall be filed no later than 6/14/13; 2. All responses thereto shall be filed no later than 7/16/13; 3. All replies shall be filed no later than 7/30/13; 4. Sur−reply briefs if any shall be filed no later than 8/16/13; C. Daubert Motions: Any motion to challenge the competency of any expert shall be filed and briefed as follows: 1. All Daubert Motions shall be filed no later than 6/14/13; 2. All responses thereto shall be filed no later than 7/16/13; 3. All replies shall be filed no later than 7/30/13; 4. Sur−reply briefs if any shall be filed no later than 8/16/13; D. Oral Argument: Argument on the above−listed motions shall be heard on 8/27/13 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5B, 5th Floor, United States Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/5/13. (jg) (Entered: 03/05/2013)

03/18/2013 251

MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 2nd Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/19/2013

ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 251 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint: Defendant's Response to said Motion is due by 3/26/13. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/19/13. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 03/19/2013)

03/26/2013 252 BRIEF in Opposition re 251 Motion for Leave to File, Second Amended Complaint filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (Becker, David) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/27/2013

ORDER indicating that upon consideration of 252 Defendant's Response Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 251 , Plaintiffs shall file a Reply to said Response by no later than 4/3/13. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/27/13. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 03/27/2013)

03/29/2013 253

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 251 Motion for Leave to File by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) Modified on 4/1/2013 to correct document linkage. (ept) (Entered: 03/29/2013)

03/29/2013 254 ORDER granting 253 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply as to 252 Defendants' Response Brief in Opposition to 251 Plaintiffs' Motion to File Second Amended Complaint; Plaintiffs shall file their Reply to said Response by no later than 4/15/13. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/29/13. (jg, ) (Entered: 03/29/2013)

04/01/2013

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 253 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION: Linked to appropriate document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ept) (Entered: 04/01/2013)

04/16/2013 255

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Reply Brief, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit P, # 20 Exhibit Q, # 21 Exhibit R, # 22 Exhibit S, # 23 Exhibit T, # 24 Exhibit U, # 25 Exhibit V, # 26 Exhibit W, # 27 Exhibit X, # 28 Exhibit Y, # 29 Exhibit Z, # 30 Exhibit AA, # 31 Exhibit BB, # 32 Exhibit CC, # 33 Exhibit DD, # 34 Exhibit EE, # 35 Exhibit FF, # 36 Exhibit GG, # 37 Exhibit HH, # 38 Exhibit II, # 39 Exhibit JJ, # 40 Exhibit KK) (Fox, Bruce) Modified to remove duplicative attachment description on 4/17/2013. (jv) (Entered: 04/16/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 39 of 72

04/16/2013 256 ORDER granting 255 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit; that Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is deemed to be filed by Plaintiffs on 4/15/13. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/16/13. (jg) (Entered: 04/16/2013)

04/16/2013 257 Joint MOTION to Extend Time to Case Scheduling Order by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 04/16/2013)

04/16/2013 258

REVISED CASE SCHEDULING ORDER indicating that the that the pending Case Sclieduling Order [Doc. 250] shall be amended as follows: A. Expert Discovery: 1. Opening expert reports on issues to which each party bears the burden of proof shall be exchanged by 5/8/13; 2. Rebuttal expert reports on issues as to which the opposing party bears the burden of proof shall be exchanged by 5/30/13; 3. Expert depositions shall be completed ty 6/26/13; 4. All expert discovery shall be completed by 6/26/13; B. Motions for Summary Judgment and/or Decertification and Daubert Motions: 1. All motions for summary judgment and/or decertification and Daubert Motions shall be filed no later than 6/26/13; 2. All responses shall be filed no later than 7/31/13; 3. All replies shall be filed no later than 8/28/13; 4. All sur−replies, if any, shall be filed no later than 9/11/13; C. Oral Argument: Argument on the motions for summary judgment and/or decertification shall be heard 9/20/13 at 1:00 PM (re−scheduled from 8/27/13 at 9:00 AM). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/16/13. (jg) (Entered: 04/16/2013)

04/16/2013 259 MOTION for Leave to File A Surreply In Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 04/16/2013)

04/17/2013

ORDER granting 259 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File A Surreply In Opposition to 251 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; Said Sur−Reply is due by no later than 4/23/13. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/17/13. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 04/17/2013)

04/23/2013 260 Sur−Reply Brief in Opposition re 251 Motion for Leave to File, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 04/23/2013)

04/29/2013 261 MOTION for Settlement Conference by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 04/29/2013)

04/30/2013

ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 261 Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion to Schedule Settlement Conference: Defendant's Response to said Motion is due by 5/7/13. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/30/13. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 04/30/2013)

04/30/2013

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 261 Motion for Settlement. ERROR: Document not complete, missing first page. CORRECTION: Attorney to refile the complete document as an ERRATA (Located under "Other Documents"). Attorney also advised to link ERRATA event to 261 Motion for Settlement Conference. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 04/30/2013)

04/30/2013 262 Errata re 261 Motion for Settlement, by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. Reason for Correction: Missing First Page. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 04/30/2013)

05/03/2013

ORDER indicating that by agreement of the parties and for good cause shown, the exchange deadline for opening expert reports originally set for 5/8/13 258 , is re−set for 5/10/13. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 5/3/13. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 05/03/2013)

05/06/2013 263 RESPONSE in Opposition re 261 Motion for Settlement, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) Modified entry to match document title on 5/7/2013. (jv)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 40 of 72

(Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/07/2013 264

ORDER indicating that upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Schedule Expedited Settlement Conference 261 , Defendant's Opposition 263 , and upon conferral with the Honorable Judge Arthur Schwab, Plaintiffs' Motion 261 is granted; that the above−captioned matter is referred to the Honorable Arthur J. Schwab for purposes of a mediation and/or settlement conference, to be scheduled by Judge Schwab, pursuant to his Practices and Procedures. See Practices and Procedures of Judge Arthur Schwab, http://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/Documents/Judge/schwab_pp.pdf. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 5/7/13. (jg) (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/07/2013 265

ORDER OF COURT SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE JUDGE ARTHUR J. SCHWAB. Based upon 261 Plaintiff's Motion and 264 Judge Nora Barry Fischer's Order granting Plaintiff's Motion, a Status Conference will be held on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at 9:00AM in Courtroom 7C. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 5/7/2013. (lcb) (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/08/2013 266

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Arthur J. Schwab: Settlement Conference/Status held on 5/8/2013. Settlement discussions held. Parties have reached a settlement as to two of the parties: Benjamin D. Thompson and Ron Wickwire. Stipulation for dismissal to be filed tomorrow for those individuals. Order to be entered scheduling a further status/settlement conference. (Court Reporter: Deborah Rowe/Virginia Pease) (lck) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013 267

ORDER OF COURT SCHEDULING AN ADDITIONAL STATUS/SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. A Status/Settlement Conference shall be held in Courtroom 7C on June 13, 2013, at 9:00AM. See Order of Court for further details, including deadlines for submissions due before this Conference. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 5/8/2013. (lcb) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/14/2013 268 ORDER indicating that 251 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is denied, without prejudice, to resubmission, if necessary, at the conclusion of the settlement negotiations, which are ongoing before Judge Schwab. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 5/14/13. (jg) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/30/2013

TEXT ORDER RESCHEDULING THE TIME of the Settlement Conference for 6/13/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7C before Judge Arthur J. Schwab. (Previously set for 06/13/13 at 9:00 AM) Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 05/30/13. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (lck) (Entered: 05/30/2013)

05/31/2013 269

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on May 8, 2013 before Judge Arthur J. Schwab. Court Reporter Virginia S. Pease, Telephone number 412−208−7385. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 6/7/2013. Redaction Request due 6/21/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/1/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/29/2013. (vp, ) (Entered: 05/31/2013)

06/04/2013 270 MOTION to Compel Discovery and Extend Case Management Schedule by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 06/04/2013)

06/04/2013 271

BRIEF in Support re 270 Motion to Compel Discovery and For Extension of Case Management Schedule filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 06/04/2013)

06/04/2013 272

ORDER indicating that upon consideration of Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC's (PGW) Motion to Compel and For Extension of Case Management Schedule 270 , the Motion is hereby granted, in part, and denied, in part. Accordingly, it is ordered that (1) Plaintiffs are compelled to supplement their responses to Interrogatory Numbers 1 and 11 of PGW's first set of discovery requests to the named−plaintiffs, Interrogatory Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 of PGW's second set of discovery requests to the named−plaintiffs, and Interrogatory Numbers 11, 12, 14,

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 41 of 72

15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of PGW's first set of discovery requests to each of the opt−in plaintiffs, by June 17, 2013, and (2) Plaintiffs are compelled to provide all materials relied upon by their experts by June 7, 2013. The dates contained in the Case Management Order remain. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/4/13. (gj) (Entered: 06/04/2013)

06/05/2013

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 270 Motion to Compel. ERROR: MULTIPLE Relief Motion Filed as One Relief. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that Motions of this nature are to be filed using the Motion Event and clicking on all the reliefs sought in said motion. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 06/05/2013)

06/06/2013 273

MOTION for Partial Reconsideration re 272 Order on Motion to Compel, by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Reconsideration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, Part 1, # 8 Exhibit E, Part 2, # 9 Exhibit E, Part 3, # 10 Exhibit F, Part 1, # 11 Exhibit F, Part 2, # 12 Exhibit F, Part 3, # 13 Exhibit F, Part 4, # 14 Exhibit F, Part 5, # 15 Exhibit F, Part 6, # 16 Exhibit G, Part 1, # 17 Exhibit G, Part 2, # 18 Exhibit G, Part 3) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/07/2013)

06/07/2013

ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 273 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Reconsideration on Moiton to Compel: Defendant's Response to said Motion is due by 6/10/13. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/7/13. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 06/07/2013)

06/07/2013

W/ 273 BRIEF in Support (as attachment 1) re 273 Motion for Reconsideration, filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (jv) (Entered: 06/10/2013)

06/10/2013

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 273 Motion for Reconsideration. ERROR: Brief in Support of Motion should have been filed as a separate document. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed W/ 273 BRIEF in Support (as attachment 1) re 273 Motion for Reconsideration. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 06/10/2013)

06/10/2013 274 BRIEF in Opposition re 273 Motion for Reconsideration, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 06/10/2013)

06/11/2013 275 MOTION to Excuse Four Plaintiffs from Settlement Conference by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/11/2013)

06/11/2013 276

ORDER GRANTING 275 Motion to Excuse Plaintiffs Csukas, VoeltzeI, DeAngelis, and Marcelonis, from Settlement Conference. The aforementioned Plaintiffs may be excused from the June 13, 2013 settlement conference, provided that their counsel have full settlement authority to act on their behalf. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 06/11/13. (lck) (Entered: 06/11/2013)

06/11/2013 277

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Telephone Status Conference held on 6/11/13 to discuss Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration 273 regarding the Order on the Motion to Compel. The Court heard from both parties on the status of discovery. Upon consideration of counsel's argument, the Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration 273 . The Court's Order on the Motion to Compel 272 stands. To the extent, that certain documents cannot be produced and/or if any discovery disputes remain after the settlement conference to be held on 6/13/13 with Judge Schwab, the Court will convene a status conference with the counsel and possibly any relevant plaintiffs, to address same. The parties will advise the Court's law clerk of any discovery disputes by phone or email. The transcript was ordered by the parties with the costs to be split 50/50. An appropriate order follows.(Court Reporter: S. Hall) (jg) (Entered: 06/11/2013)

06/11/2013 278 ORDER indicating that that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Reconsideration 273 is denied. Accordingly, the Court's Order on the Motion to Compel 272 remains in full force. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/11/13. (jg) (Entered: 06/11/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 42 of 72

06/13/2013 279 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Arthur J. Schwab: Settlement Conference held on 6/13/2013, Conference continued until 6/14/2013 at 8:00 AM in Courtroom 7C before Judge Arthur J. Schwab.). (Court Reporter: Deborah Rowe) (lck, ) (Entered: 06/13/2013)

06/14/2013 280

ORDER indicating that upon consideration of reports of a Settlement Conference in front of Judge Schwab 279 , the Revised Case Scheduling Order 258 and having been advised that Defendant intends to file a Motion for Class Decertification, it is hereby ordered that the Court shall convene a Telephonic Status Conference with the parties for 6/18/13 at 11:00 AM; that the Case Scheduling Order 258 shall be amended as follows: A. Motion for decertification: Parties shall adhere to the following schedule: 1. Any motion for decertification with evidentiary support and briefing shall be filed no later than 6/28/13 at 5:00 PM; 2. Any response thereto shall be filed no later than 7/17/13 at 5:00 PM; 3. All replies shall be filed no later than 7/24/13 at 5:00 PM; 4. Sur−reply briefs, if any, shall be filed no later than 7/31/13 at 5:00 PM; B. Hearing and Oral Argument: Argument on the above−listed motion shall be heard on 8/2/13 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 5B, 5th Floor, United States Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; C. Deadlines for Motions for Summary Judgment and Daubert challenges are vacated until resolution of the Motion for Decertification and any appeal thereof.. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/14/13. (jg) (Entered: 06/14/2013)

06/14/2013 281 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Arthur J. Schwab: Settlement Conference held on 6/14/2013. Settlement discussions held.Case not resolved. (lck) (Entered: 06/14/2013)

06/19/2013 282

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nora Barry Fischer: Telephone Status Conference held on 6/18/13 to discuss the state of the case. The Court reviewed the scheduling order of 6/14/13 280 . Due to counsel's prepaid vacation, the Court will reschedule the date set for argument on the Motion for Decertification, for 8/9/13 at 2:00 PM. Further, if necessary, the Court will hear testimony from experts on same on 8/16/13 at 1:00 PM. The Court also reviewed the status of outstanding discovery disputes, the parties stated they would be meeting and conferring in the upcoming week to resolve any issues. The parties were advised to bring matters to the Court's attention as soon as possible after same. The Court raised the option of trying the individual actions in the case consolidated for trial. The parties will confer with their clients on same. The transcript was ordered by the parties with the costs to be split 50/50. An appropriate order follows. (Court Reporter: S. Hall) (jg) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

06/19/2013 283

ORDER indicating that upon consideration of the Court's scheduling order of 6/14/13 280 , and for good cause shown during a telephonic status conference held in the above captioned matter 282 , it is hereby ordered that the argument on motions for decertification originally set for 8/2/13 at 9:00 AM. 280 is reset for 8/9/13 at 2:00 PM. Further, if necessary, expert testimony on said motions will be heard on 8/16/13 at 1:00 PM. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/18/13. (jg) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

06/25/2013

ORDER indicating that the Motion Hearing set for 8/9/13 at 2:00 PM is re−set for 8/15/13 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5B before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Ordered by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/25/13. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jg) (Entered: 06/25/2013)

06/25/2013 284 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and, MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 06/25/2013)

06/25/2013 285

ORDER granting 284 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and for Leave to File Documents Under Seal; that Defendant's Brief in Support of Decertification and Accompanying Fact Statement may exceed the 20 page limitation but shall not exceed 50 pages. In addition, Defendant may file the portions of the brief in support of decertification, the accompanying fact statement, any portion of the Dabuert motions, and accompanying attachments containing confidential information under seal. After receiving notice of the order of court, you must provide the sealed document to the Clerk of Courts both on paper and on disk, in pdf format. The sealed version of the document WILL NOT be docketed by the Clerk of Court until the party electronically files the redacted version of the documents, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. You would be required to serve the sealed document on counsel using traditional service methods. (Decision to Unseal Document deferred). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/25/13. (jg) (Entered: 06/25/2013)

06/25/2013 286 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on June 13, 2013 before Judge Arthur J. Schwab. Court Reporter Deborah Rowe, Telephone number 412−471−2510. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 43 of 72

made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 7/2/2013. Redaction Request due 7/16/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2013. (dsr, ) (Entered: 06/25/2013)

06/26/2013 287 ORDER indicating that in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 455, it is hereby ordered that the undersigned recuses herself from the above captioned case. The Clerk of Court is directed to reassign this matter to another member of this Court. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/26/13. (jg) (Entered: 06/26/2013)

06/26/2013

Judge Terrence F. McVerry presiding. (mjl) (Entered: 06/26/2013)

06/28/2013 288 MOTION to Decertify the Proposed Collective Action by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

06/28/2013 289 REDACTED BRIEF in support of 288 MOTION Decertify the Proposed Collective Action by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

06/28/2013 290

REDACTED STATEMENT OF FACTS in support of 288 MOTION Decertify the Proposed Collective Action, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit 40, # 42 Exhibit 41, # 43 Exhibit 42, # 44 Exhibit 43, # 45 Exhibit 44, # 46 Exhibit 45, # 47 Exhibit 46, # 48 Exhibit 47, # 49 Exhibit 48, # 50 Exhibit 49, # 51 Exhibit 50, # 52 Exhibit 51, # 53 Exhibit 52, # 54 Exhibit 53, # 55 Exhibit 54, # 56 Exhibit 55, # 57 Exhibit 56, # 58 Exhibit 57, # 59 Exhibit 58, # 60 Exhibit 59, # 61 Exhibit 60, # 62 Exhibit 61, # 63 Exhibit 62, # 64 Exhibit 63, # 65 Exhibit 64, # 66 Exhibit 65, # 67 Exhibit 66, # 68 Exhibit 67, # 69 Exhibit 68, # 70 Exhibit 69, # 71 Exhibit 70, # 72 Exhibit 71, # 73 Exhibit 72, # 74 Exhibit 73, # 75 Exhibit 74, # 76 Exhibit 75, # 77 Exhibit 76, # 78 Exhibit 77, # 79 Exhibit 78, # 80 Exhibit 79, # 81 Exhibit 80, # 82 Exhibit 81, # 83 Exhibit 82, # 84 Exhibit 83, # 85 Exhibit 84, # 86 Exhibit 85, # 87 Exhibit 86, # 88 Exhibit 87, # 89 Exhibit 88, # 90 Exhibit 89, # 91 Exhibit 90, # 92 Exhibit 91, # 93 Exhibit 92, # 94 Exhibit 93, # 95 Exhibit 94, # 96 Exhibit 95, # 97 Exhibit 96, # 98 Exhibit 97, # 99 Exhibit 98, # 100 Exhibit 99) (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

07/01/2013 291

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on Tuesday, June 11, 2013, before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Court Reporter Shirley Hall, Telephone number 412.765.0408. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 7/8/2013. Redaction Request due 7/22/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/1/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/30/2013. (sah, ) (Entered: 07/01/2013)

07/01/2013 292

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on Tuesday, June 18, 2013, before Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Court Reporter Shirley Hall, Telephone number 412.765.0408. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 7/8/2013. Redaction Request due 7/22/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/1/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/30/2013. (sah, ) (Entered: 07/01/2013)

07/01/2013 293 SEALED DOCUMENT by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to 285 Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (jv) (Entered: 07/02/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 44 of 72

07/01/2013 294

SEALED DOCUMENT by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to 285 Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit 40, # 42 Exhibit 41, # 43 Exhibit 42, # 44 Exhibit 43, # 45 Exhibit 44, # 46 Exhibit 45, # 47 Exhibit 46, # 48 Exhibit 47, # 49 Exhibit 48, # 50 Exhibit 49, # 51 Exhibit 50, # 52 Exhibit 51, # 53 Exhibit 52, # 54 Exhibit 53, # 55 Exhibit 54, # 56 Exhibit 55, # 57 Exhibit 56, # 58 Exhibit 57, # 59 Exhibit 58, # 60 Exhibit 59, # 61 Exhibit 60, # 62 Exhibit 61, # 63 Exhibit 62, # 64 Exhibit 63, # 65 Exhibit 64, # 66 Exhibit 65, # 67 Exhibit 66, # 68 Exhibit 67, # 69 Exhibit 68, # 70 Exhibit 69, # 71 Exhibit 70, # 72 Exhibit 71, # 73 Exhibit 72, # 74 Exhibit 73, # 75 Exhibit 74, # 76 Exhibit 75, # 77 Exhibit 76, # 78 Exhibit 77, # 79 Exhibit 78, # 80 Exhibit 79, # 81 Exhibit 80, # 82 Exhibit 81, # 83 Exhibit 82, # 84 Exhibit 83, # 85 Exhibit 84, # 86 Exhibit 85, # 87 Exhibit 86, # 88 Exhibit 87, # 89 Exhibit 88, # 90 Exhibit 89, # 91 Exhibit 90, # 92 Exhibit 91, # 93 Exhibit 92, # 94 Exhibit 93, # 95 Exhibit 94, # 96 Exhibit 95, # 97 Exhibit 96, # 98 Exhibit 97, # 99 Exhibit 98, # 100 Exhibit 99) (jv) (Entered: 07/02/2013)

07/03/2013 295

MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief of Professor Sandra Sperino by RICHARD CSUKAS, RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Sperino CV) (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 07/03/2013)

07/11/2013 296 RESPONSE to Motion re 295 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief of Professor Sandra Sperino Brief in Opposition filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Mayer, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/11/2013)

07/12/2013 297 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/12/2013)

07/15/2013 298 ORDER granting 297 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 7/15/2013. (kly) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

07/15/2013 299 Renewed MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

07/16/2013

TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 299 Renewed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Response to Motion due by 7/25/2013. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 7/16/2013. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 07/16/2013)

07/17/2013 300 BRIEF in Opposition re 288 Motion for Decertification filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/17/2013)

07/17/2013 301

Appendix to 300 Brief in Opposition to Motion, by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V.1, # 23 Exhibit V.2, # 24 Exhibit W, # 25 Exhibit X, # 26 Exhibit Y, # 27 Exhibit Z) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/17/2013)

07/17/2013 302

Appendix to 301 Appendix, by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit BB, # 2 Exhibit CC, # 3 Exhibit DD, # 4 Exhibit EE, # 5 Exhibit FF, # 6 Exhibit GG, # 7 Exhibit HH, # 8 Exhibit II, # 9 Exhibit JJ, # 10 Exhibit KK, # 11 Exhibit LL, # 12 Exhibit MM, # 13 Exhibit

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 45 of 72

NN, # 14 Exhibit OO, # 15 Exhibit PP, # 16 Exhibit QQ, # 17 Exhibit RR, # 18 Exhibit SS, # 19 Exhibit TT, # 20 Exhibit UU, # 21 Exhibit V V, # 22 Exhibit WW, # 23 Exhibit XX, # 24 Exhibit YY, # 25 Exhibit ZZ) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/17/2013)

07/17/2013 303

Appendix to 301 Appendix, by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit BBB, # 2 Exhibit CCC, # 3 Exhibit DDD, # 4 Exhibit EEE, # 5 Exhibit FFF, # 6 Exhibit GGG, # 7 Exhibit HHH, # 8 Exhibit III, # 9 Exhibit JJJ, # 10 Exhibit KKK, # 11 Exhibit LLL, # 12 Exhibit MMM, # 13 Exhibit NNN, # 14 Exhibit OOO, # 15 Exhibit PPP, # 16 Exhibit QQQ, # 17 Exhibit RRR, # 18 Exhibit SSS, # 19 Exhibit TTT, # 20 Exhibit UUU, # 21 Exhibit VVV, # 22 Exhibit WWW, # 23 Exhibit XXX, # 24 Exhibit YYY, # 25 Exhibit ZZZ) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/17/2013)

07/17/2013 304

Appendix to 301 Appendix, by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit BBBB, # 2 Exhibit CCCC, # 3 Exhibit DDDD, # 4 Exhibit EEEE, # 5 Exhibit FFFF, # 6 Exhibit GGGG, # 7 Exhibit HHHH, # 8 Exhibit IIII, # 9 Exhibit JJJJ, # 10 Exhibit KKKK, # 11 Exhibit LLLL, # 12 Exhibit MMMM, # 13 Exhibit NNNN, # 14 Exhibit OOOO, # 15 Exhibit PPPP, # 16 Exhibit QQQQ, # 17 Exhibit RRRR, # 18 Exhibit SSSS, # 19 Exhibit TTTT, # 20 Exhibit UUUU, # 21 Exhibit VVVV, # 22 Exhibit WWWW, # 23 Exhibit XXXX, # 24 Exhibit YYYY, # 25 Exhibit ZZZZ) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/17/2013)

07/18/2013 305 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages For Reply In Support of Decertification by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 07/18/2013)

07/18/2013 306 Pretrial Stipulation by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 07/18/2013)

07/25/2013 307

Renewed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendant's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Decertification of the Proposed Collective Action by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Defendant's Reply Brief In Support of Its Motion for Decertification of the Proposed Collective Action, # 2 Exhibit Index, # 3 Exhibit 100, # 4 Exhibit 101, # 5 Exhibit 102, # 6 Exhibit 103, # 7 Exhibit 104, # 8 Exhibit 105, # 9 Exhibit 106, # 10 Exhibit 107, # 11 Exhibit 108, # 12 Exhibit 109, # 13 Exhibit 110, # 14 Exhibit 111, # 15 Exhibit 112, # 16 Exhibit 113, # 17 Exhibit 114, # 18 Exhibit 115, # 19 Exhibit 116, # 20 Exhibit 117, # 21 Exhibit 118, # 22 Exhibit 119, # 23 Exhibit 120, # 24 Exhibit 121, # 25 Exhibit 122, # 26 Exhibit 123, # 27 Exhibit 124, # 28 Exhibit 125, # 29 Exhibit 126, # 30 Exhibit 127, # 31 Exhibit 128, # 32 Exhibit 129, # 33 Exhibit 130, # 34 Exhibit 131, # 35 Exhibit 132, # 36 Exhibit 133, # 37 Proposed Order ) (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/25/2013)

07/25/2013 308 RESPONSE in Opposition re 299 Motion for Leave to File, Second Amended Complaint filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/25/2013)

07/26/2013 309 ORDER granting 307 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 07/26/13. (mcp) (Entered: 07/26/2013)

07/30/2013 310 MOTION for Leave to File BRIEF EXCEEDING PAGE LIMIT by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2013)

07/30/2013 311 Proposed Order re 310 Motion for Leave to File BRIEF EXCEEDING PAGE LIMIT by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/30/2013)

07/31/2013 312 ORDER granting 310 Motion for Leave to File BRIEF EXCEEDING PAGE LIMIT. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 7/31/2013. (kly) (Entered: 07/31/2013)

07/31/2013 313 Joint MOTION to Seal Document 302 Appendix, 304 Appendix, 303 Appendix, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 46 of 72

08/01/2013 314 ORDER granting 313 Motion to Seal Document. Decision to Unseal Document deferred. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/1/2013. (kly) (Entered: 08/01/2013)

08/01/2013 315

Sur−Reply Brief in Opposition to Motion for Decertification re 288 Motion to Decertify the Proposed Collective Action, filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15) (Fox, Bruce) Modified docket text on 8/9/2013. (tt) (Entered: 08/01/2013)

08/02/2013 316 MOTION To Bar Proposed Expert Opinion Of Anthony G. Greenwald Related To Purported Implicit Social Bias by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 08/02/2013)

08/02/2013 317 MOTION To Bar Dr. Campion's Expert Opinion On Reasonable Human Resource Practices by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 08/02/2013)

08/02/2013 318

REDACTED Motion to Bar Dr. Michael Campion's Statistical Analysis by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8 − Filed Under Seal, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 08/02/2013)

08/02/2013 319 REDACTED Motion to Bar Expert Opinion Of David Duffus Regarding The O'Donoghue Expert Report by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Filed Under Seal, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 08/02/2013)

08/05/2013 320

ORDER denying 295 MOTION OF PROFESSOR SANDRA SPERINO TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS WITH RESPECT TO PGWS MOTION FOR DECERTIFICATION. The Court also hereby RESCHEDULES the hearing/oral argument set for Thursday, August 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM to Wednesday, August 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM. Should the Court find that expert testimony is necessary, the parties will be advised accordingly and provided with appropriate notice. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 08/05/13. (mcp) (Entered: 08/05/2013)

08/05/2013 321 SEALED DOCUMENT by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to 285 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. (plh) (Entered: 08/05/2013)

08/05/2013 322 SEALED DOCUMENT by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to 285 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. (plh) (Entered: 08/05/2013)

08/05/2013 323

MOTION to Strike 317 MOTION To Bar Dr. Campion's Expert Opinion On Reasonable Human Resource Practices, 316 MOTION To Bar Proposed Expert Opinion Of Anthony G. Greenwald Related To Purported Implicit Social Bias, 318 Redacted Document, 319 Redacted Document, by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 08/05/2013)

08/06/2013

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 323 Motion to Strike. ERROR: Signature on document and filer do not match. CORRECTION: Attorney advised of signature requirements. Attorney to resubmit the document using the Errata event. This message is for informational purposes only. (plh) (Entered: 08/06/2013)

08/06/2013 324 Errata re 323 Motion to Strike, by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. Reason for Correction: Signature Requirements. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 08/06/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 47 of 72

08/06/2013

TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 324 Errata (Motion to Strike). Response to Motion due by 8/13/2013. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/6/2013. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 08/06/2013)

08/06/2013 325 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice of Ben Thompson by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Becker, David) (Entered: 08/06/2013)

08/06/2013 326 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice of Ron Wickwire by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Becker, David) (Entered: 08/06/2013)

08/06/2013 327

MOTION for Leave to File Supplementation of Certain Exhibits by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit BBB, # 3 Exhibit EEE, # 4 Exhibit GGG, # 5 Exhibit QQ, # 6 Exhibit TT, # 7 Exhibit YY) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 08/06/2013)

08/06/2013 328 Consent MOTION to Continue Oral Argument on PGW's Motion for Decertification by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 08/06/2013)

08/07/2013 329 ORDER granting 325 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Plaintiff, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON, shall be dismissed and the caption shall be amended. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/7/2013. (kly) (Entered: 08/07/2013)

08/07/2013 330 ORDER granting 326 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Plaintiff, RON WICKWIRE, shall be dismissed. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/7/2013. (kly) (Entered: 08/07/2013)

08/07/2013 331 ORDER granting 327 Motion for Leave to File Supplementation of Certain Exhibits. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/7/2013. (kly) (Entered: 08/07/2013)

08/07/2013 332 ORDER granting 328 Motion to Continue. Oral Argument on PGW's Motion for Decertification originally set 8/28/2013 is RESCHEDULED to 9/10/2013 at 09:00 AM before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/7/2013. (kly) (Entered: 08/07/2013)

08/13/2013 333 BRIEF in Opposition re 323 Motion to Strike, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 08/13/2013)

08/13/2013 334 Renewed MOTION to Seal Document Re−Filed By Plaintiffs In The Public Record by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 08/13/2013)

08/14/2013

TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 334 Motion to Seal Document Response to Motion due by 8/15/2013 by 12 NOON. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/14/2013. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 08/14/2013)

08/15/2013 335 ORDER granting 334 Motion to Seal Document. Decision to Unseal Document deferred. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/15/2013. (kly) (Entered: 08/15/2013)

08/20/2013 336

REPLY re 323 Motion to Strike, MOTIONS TO BAR EXPERT TESTIMONY filed by RICHARD CSUKAS, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D. THOMPSON. (Fox, Bruce) Modified to remove "Brief" from description of entry on 8/21/2013. (jv) (Entered: 08/20/2013)

09/10/2013

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Motion Hearing held on 9/10/2013 re 288 MOTION to Decertify the Proposed Collective Action filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. The Court has taken the matter under advisement. (Court Reporter: Debbie Rowe) Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 09/10/2013)

09/12/2013 337 MOTION for Leave to File Post−Argument Memorandum by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 48 of 72

MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement Proposed Post−Argument Memorandum) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/12/2013)

09/13/2013 338 ORDER granting 337 Motion for Leave to File Post−Argument Memorandum. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 9/13/2013. (kly) (Entered: 09/13/2013)

09/18/2013 339 MOTION for Leave to File Response To Plaintiffs' Post−Argument Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion for Decertification by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Post−Argument Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/19/2013 340 ORDER granting 339 Motion for Leave to File Response To Plaintiffs' Post−Argument Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion for Decertification. Response due by 9/24/2013. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 9/20/2013. (kly) (Entered: 09/19/2013)

09/19/2013 341 RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Post−Argument 315 Memorandum In Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Decertification filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 09/19/2013)

09/20/2013

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 341 Response. ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION: Linked to appropriate document. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 09/20/2013)

09/27/2013 342

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on September 10, 2013 before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Court Reporter Deborah Rowe, Telephone number 412−471−2510. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 10/4/2013. Redaction Request due 10/18/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/28/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/26/2013. (dsr, ) (Entered: 09/27/2013)

03/31/2014 343

Memorandum Opinion and Order of Court: DEFENDANTS 288 MOTION FOR DECERTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED COLLECTIVE ACTION is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and the claims of Opt−in Plaintiffs Michael Breen, Matthew Clawson, Stephen Shaw, and John Titus are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFFS RENEWED 299 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; DEFENDANTS 316 MOTION TO BAR PROPOSED EXPERT TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY G. GREENWALD RELATED TO PURPORTED IMPLICIT SOCIAL BIAS is DENIED AS MOOT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE; DEFENDANTS 317 MOTION TO BAR DR. CAMPIONS EXPERT OPINION ON REASONABLE HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICES is DENIED AS MOOT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE; DEFENDANTS 318 MOTION TO BAR DR. MICHAEL CAMPIONS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS is DENIED AS MOOT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE; DEFENDANTS 319 MOTION TO BAR EXPERT OPINION OF DAVID DUFFUS REGARDING THE ODONOGHUE EXPERT REPORT is DENIED AS MOOT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and PLAINTIFFS 323 MOTION TO STRIKE MOTIONS TO BAR EXPERT TESTIMONY is DENIED AS MOOT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 03/31/14. (mcp) (Entered: 03/31/2014)

04/21/2014 344 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, filed by JEFFREY MARIETTI, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 04/21/2014)

04/23/2014 345 MOTION for Settlement Conference by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 04/23/2014)

04/24/2014 346

ORDER granting 345 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SCHEDULE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. The Court hereby refers the above−captioned matter to Judge Schwab for the purpose of a settlement conference to be scheduled at the mutual convenience of the court, counsel and the parties pursuant to his Practices and Procedures. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 04/24/14. (mcp) (Entered: 04/24/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 49 of 72

04/24/2014 347

ORDER OF COURT SCHEDULING STATUS/SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE for May 6, 2014, at 10:00AM before this Court. Chief trial counsel, parties, and individuals with full settlement authority shall personally attend said conference. See Order for further details including required pre−conference submissions. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 04/24/2014. (lcb) (Entered: 04/24/2014)

04/25/2014 348 MOTION to Compel the Attendance of James Wiggins at Settlement Conference by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 04/25/2014)

04/28/2014

TEXT ORDER − 348 Motion to Compel filed by JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM Responses due by 4/30/2014 at noon.. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 4/28/14. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (lck) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014 349 STIPULATED Motion for Extension of Deadlines in Light of Settlement Conference by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/29/2014 350 ORDER granting 349 Stipulation filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. PGW shall have until 6/2/2014 to answer or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiffs's Second Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs shall have until 6/2/2014 to file their motion for interlocutory appeal. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 4/29/2014. (kly) (Entered: 04/29/2014)

04/30/2014 351 RESPONSE to Motion re 348 MOTION to Compel the Attendance of James Wiggins at Settlement Conference with separate confidential letter sent to Settlement Judge filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Mayer, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/30/2014)

04/30/2014 352 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice of Charles Voeltzel by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 04/30/2014)

04/30/2014 353 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice of Paul Marcelonis by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 04/30/2014)

04/30/2014 354 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice of Richard Csukas by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 04/30/2014)

04/30/2014 355 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice of John DeAngelis by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 04/30/2014)

05/01/2014 356 ORDER DENYING 348 Motion to Compel the Attendance of James Wiggins. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 5/1/14. (lck) (Entered: 05/01/2014)

05/01/2014 357 ORDER granting 352 Stipulation filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 5/1/2014. (kly) (Entered: 05/01/2014)

05/01/2014 358 ORDER granting 353 Stipulation filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 5/1/2014. (kly) (Entered: 05/01/2014)

05/01/2014 359 ORDER granting 354 Stipulation filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 5/1/2014. (kly) (Entered: 05/01/2014)

05/01/2014 360 ORDER granting 355 Stipulation filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 5/1/2014. (kly) (Entered: 05/01/2014)

05/06/2014

TEXT ORDER: The Settlement Conference held this 6th day of May, 2014, was unsuccessful. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 05/06/2014. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (lcb) (Entered: 05/06/2014)

05/06/2014

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Arthur J. Schwab: Settlement Conference held on 5/6/2014. Case did not settle. (Court Reporter: Richard Ford) Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (lck) (Entered: 05/07/2014)

06/02/2014 361 MOTION to Strike 344 Amended Complaint by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 50 of 72

06/02/2014 362 BRIEF in Support re 361 Motion to Strike filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014 363 ANSWER to 344 Second Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014 364 MOTION for Leave to Appeal by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce). Added MOTION to Stay Proceedings on 6/3/2014 (jv). (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/03/2014

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 364 Motion for Leave to Appeal, Motion to Stay. ERROR: MULTIPLE Relief Motion Filed as One Relief. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that Motions of this nature are to be filed using the Motion Event and clicking on all the reliefs sought in said motion. Clerk of Court added Motion to Stay Proceedings to existing relief. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 06/03/2014)

06/03/2014

TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 361 Motion to Strike and 362 Brief in Support of Motion. Response to Motion due by 6/23/2014. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 6/3/2014. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 06/03/2014)

06/03/2014

TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 364 Motion for Leave to Appeal, Motion to Stay. Response to Motion due by 6/23/2014. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 6/3/2014. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 06/03/2014)

06/23/2014 365 REPLY BRIEF to 364 Motion for Leave to Appeal, Motion to Stay, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Mayer, Jeffrey) Modified to change that this is a response brief not just a response on 6/24/2014. (jv) (Entered: 06/23/2014)

06/23/2014 366 BRIEF in Opposition re 361 Motion to Strike Portions of Second Amended Complaint filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/23/2014)

06/24/2014

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 365 Response in Opposition. ERROR: Wrong event selected. CORRECTION: Modified original entry as REPLY BRIEF. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 06/24/2014)

07/03/2014 367 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 364 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO CERTIFY FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND STAY PROCEEDINGS. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 07/03/14. (mcp) (Entered: 07/03/2014)

07/03/2014

ORDER OF COURT: A Telephonic Status Conference is hereby scheduled for 7/11/2014 at 10:00 AM. Counsel shall jointly contact the Court. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 07/03/14. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mcp) (Entered: 07/03/2014)

07/03/2014 368 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 361 MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 07/03/14. (mcp) (Entered: 07/03/2014)

07/14/2014 369 Proposed Order Scheduling Deadlines for Motions Practice (Joint) by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/14/2014

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Telephone Conference held on 7/11/2014. (Court Reporter: Shirley Hall) Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/14/2014 370

SCHEDULING ORDER: The Parties will file all motions for summary judgment and motions to bar expert testimony1 by July 31, 2014; briefs in opposition to the above motions will be due on September 30, 2014; any reply brief shall be filed on or before October 14, 2014; and any sur−reply brief shall be filed on or before October 28, 2014. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 07/14/14. (mcp) (Entered: 07/14/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 51 of 72

07/31/2014 371 MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014

ORDER granting 371 MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. After receiving notice of the order of court, you must provide the sealed document to the Clerk of Courts both on paper and on disk, in pdf format. In the alternative, you may contact the Intake Section and make arrangements to email the pdf to the Clerk of Courts. The sealed version of the document WILL NOT be docketed by the Clerk of Court until the party electronically files the redacted version of the documents, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. You would be required to serve the sealed document on counsel using traditional service methods. Decision to Unseal Document deferred. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 07/31/14. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mcp, ) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 372 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Individual Disparate Treatment Claims by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 373 BRIEF in Support re 372 Motion for Summary Judgment, REDACTED filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 374 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Plaintiffs' Individual Disparate Impact Claims by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 375 BRIEF in Support re 374 Motion for Summary Judgment, REDACTED filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 376

Supplemental CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS on Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact and Disparate Treatment Claims re 374 Motion for Summary Judgment, 372 Motion for Summary Judgment by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (REDACTED), # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 134, # 4 Exhibit 135, # 5 Exhibit 136, # 6 Exhibit 137, # 7 Exhibit 138, # 8 Exhibit 139, # 9 Exhibit 140, # 10 Exhibit 141, # 11 Exhibit 142, # 12 Exhibit 143, # 13 Exhibit 144 (UNDER SEAL), # 14 Exhibit 145, # 15 Exhibit 146, # 16 Exhibit 147 (REDACTED), # 17 Exhibit 148, # 18 Exhibit 149 (UNDER SEAL), # 19 Exhibit 150, # 20 Exhibit 151, # 21 Exhibit 152 (UNDER SEAL), # 22 Exhibit 153 (UNDER SEAL), # 23 Exhibit 154, # 24 Exhibit 155 (REDACTED)) (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 377 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Karlo's and Plaintiff McLure's Retaliation Claims by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 378 BRIEF in Support re 377 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Karlo's and Plaintiff McLure's Retaliation Claims filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 379

CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS on Plaintiff Karlo's and Plaintiff McLure's Retaliation Claims re 377 Motion for Summary Judgment by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4 (UNDER SEAL), # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11 (REDACTED), # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19 (UNDER SEAL), # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25 (UNDER SEAL), # 27 Exhibit 26 (UNDER SEAL), # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit 33 (UNDER SEAL), # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35 (UNDER SEAL), # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit 40, # 42 Exhibit 41) (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 380 Renewed MOTION to Bar Proposed Expert Opinion of Anthony G. Greenwald related to Purported Implicit Social Bias by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4) (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 381 Renewed MOTION to Bar Dr. Michael Campion's Statistical Analysis by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7 (UNDER

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 52 of 72

SEAL), # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19) (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 382 Renewed MOTION to Bar Dr. Campion's Expert Opinion on Reasonable Human Resource Practices by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5) (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 383

MOTION to Bar Purported Rebuttal Expert Opinions of David Duffus by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 1 (UNDER SEAL), # 4 Exhibit 2 (UNDER SEAL), # 5 Exhibit 3 (UNDER SEAL), # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5 (UNDER SEAL), # 8 Exhibit 6 (UNDER SEAL), # 9 Exhibit 7 (UNDER SEAL), # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10) (Becker, David) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 384 MOTION to Seal Document 376 Concise Statement of Material Facts,,, Exhibit 142 by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

08/01/2014 385 ORDER granting 384 Motion to Seal Document. 376 −11 Concise Statement of Material Facts, SEALED. Decision to Unseal Document deferred. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/1/2014. (kly) (Entered: 08/01/2014)

08/04/2014 386 SEALED DOCUMENT by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal dated 7/31/2014. (jv) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014 387 SEALED DOCUMENT by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal dated 7/31/2014. (jv) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014 388 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit Index) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal dated 7/31/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 144, # 2 Exhibit 147, # 3 Exhibit 149, # 4 Exhibit 152, # 5 Exhibit 153, # 6 Exhibit 155) (jv) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014 389 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit List) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal dated 7/31/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4, # 2 Exhibit 19, # 3 Exhibit 25, # 4 Exhibit 26, # 5 Exhibit 33, # 6 Exhibit 35) (jv) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014 390 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit 7) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal dated 7/31/2014. (jv) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014 391 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit 1) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal dated 7/31/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 3, # 3 Exhibit 5, # 4 Exhibit 6, # 5 Exhibit 7) (jv) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

09/30/2014 392 BRIEF in Opposition re 382 Motion to Bar Expert Opinion of Dr. Michael Campion on Reasonable HR Practices filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 393 BRIEF in Opposition re 381 Motion to Bar Dr. Michael Campion's Statistical Analysis filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 394 BRIEF in Opposition re 383 Motion to Bar Purported Rebuttal Expert Opinions of David Duffus filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 395 BRIEF in Opposition re 380 Motion to Bar Proposed Expert Opinion of Anthony G. Greenwald related to Purported Implicit Social Bias filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER.

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 53 of 72

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 396 BRIEF in Opposition re 377 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Karlo and McLure's Retaliation Claims filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 397 COUNTER STATEMENT OF FACTS Regarding Retaliation Claims 396 Brief in Opposition to Motion by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 398 RESPONSE (Re Retaliation Claims) to 379 Concise Statement of Material Facts, filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 399

Appendix (Index) to 397 Counter Statement of Facts by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 400 BRIEF in Opposition re 374 Motion for Summary Judgment on Disparate Impact Claims filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 401 BRIEF in Opposition re 372 Motion for Summary Judgment on Disparate Treatment Claims filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 402 COUNTER STATEMENT OF FACTS on Disparate Impact and Disparate Treatment Claims 400 Brief in Opposition to Motion, 401 Brief in Opposition to Motion by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 403 RESPONSE to Statement of Facts to 290 Redacted Document, 294 Sealed Document, filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 404 RESPONSE to 376 Concise Statement of Material Facts, filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 405

Appendix (Index) to 402 Counter Statement of Facts, by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

10/07/2014 406 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 370 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 10/07/2014)

10/08/2014 407 ORDER granting 406 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The deadline for reply briefs is extended to 10/23/2014. The deadline for sur−reply briefs is extended to 11/17/2014. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/8/2014. (kly) (Entered: 10/08/2014)

10/23/2014 408 REPLY re 401 Brief in Opposition re 372 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Individual Disparate Treatment Claims filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) Modified to link to appropriate document on 10/24/2014. (jv) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

10/23/2014 409 REPLY BRIEF re 400 Brief in Opposition re 374 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Individual Disparate Impact Claims filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) Modified to link to appropriate document on 10/24/2014. (jv) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 54 of 72

10/23/2014 410 RESPONSE to 402 Counter Statement of Facts, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Index, # 2 Exhibit 156, # 3 Exhibit 157, # 4 Exhibit 158, # 5 Exhibit 159) (Becker, David) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

10/23/2014 411 REPLY re 396 Brief in Opposition re 377 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Karlo's and Plaintiff McLure's Retaliation Claims filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) Modified to link to appropriate document on 10/24/2014. (jv) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

10/23/2014 412 RESPONSE to 397 Counter Statement of Facts, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

10/23/2014 413 REPLY re 395 Brief in Opposition re 380 Motion to Bar Proposed Expert Opinion of Anthony G. Greenwald related to Purported Implicit Social Bias filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5) (Becker, David) Modified to link to appropriate document on 10/24/2014. (jv) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

10/23/2014 414 REPLY re 393 Brief in Opposition re 381 Motion to Bar Dr. Michael Campion's Statistical Analysis filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 20, # 2 Exhibit 21) (Becker, David) Modified to link to appropriate document on 10/24/2014. (jv) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

10/23/2014 415 REPLY re 392 Brief in Opposition re 382 Motion to Bar Dr. Campion's Expert Opinion on Reasonable Human Resource Practices filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) Modified to link to appropriate document on 10/24/2014. (jv) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

10/23/2014 416 REPLY re 394 Brief in Opposition re 383 Motion to Bar Purported Rebuttal Expert Opinions of David Duffus filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) Modified to link to appropriate document on 10/24/2014. (jv) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

10/23/2014 417

MOTION to Strike 397 Counter Statement of Facts, 290 Redacted Document, 376 Concise Statement of Material Facts, 402 Counter Statement of Facts, 379 Concise Statement of Material Facts, Unsupported Facts and Deem Improperly Contested Facts Admitted by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

10/24/2014

TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 417 Motion to Strike. Response to Motion due by 10/31/2014. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/24/2014. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 10/24/2014)

10/31/2014 418 BRIEF in Opposition re 417 Motion to Strike, filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 10/31/2014)

11/03/2014 419 MOTION to Withdraw Sunny Yang as Counsel by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 11/03/2014)

11/04/2014

TEXT ORDER granting 419 Motion to Withdraw Sunny Yang as counsel Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 11/4/2014. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 11/04/2014)

11/07/2014 420 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Strike/Deem Facts Admitted by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/10/2014 421 ORDER granting 420 Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Strike/Deem Facts Admitted. Reply due by 11/10/2014. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 11/10/2014. (kly) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/10/2014 422 REPLY to Response to Motion re 418 Brief in Pooposition re 417 Motion to Strike, and Deem Facts Admitted filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) Modified to link to appropriate document on 11/12/2014. (jv) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/17/2014 423 Sur−Reply in Opposition to PGW's re 381 Motion to Bar Dr. Campion's Statistical Analysis, filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Fox, Bruce

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 55 of 72

(Entered: 11/17/2014)

11/17/2014 424 Sur−Reply (Disparate Impact Claims) re 374 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 11/17/2014)

11/17/2014 425 Sur−Reply (Disparate Treatment) re 372 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 11/17/2014)

11/17/2014 426 Sur−Reply (Retaliation Claims) re 377 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 11/17/2014)

11/17/2014 427 Sur−Reply in Opposition re 383 Motion to Bar Rebuttal Opinion of David Duffus filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 11/17/2014)

11/17/2014 428 Sur−Reply in Opposition re 380 Motion to Bar Expert Testimony of Anthony G. Greenwald, Ph.D. filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 11/17/2014)

11/17/2014 429 Sur−Reply in Opposition re 382 Motion to Bar Expert Testimony of Dr. Michael Campion on Reasonable Human Resources Practices filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 11/17/2014)

11/20/2014 430

MOTION for Oral Argument on Motions for Summary Judgment and Motions to Bar Expert Testimony re 381 Renewed MOTION to Bar Dr. Michael Campion's Statistical Analysis filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, 382 Renewed MOTION to Bar Dr. Campion's Expert Opinion on Reasonable Human Resource Practices filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, 383 MOTION to Bar Purported Rebuttal Expert Opinions of David Duffus filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, 380 Renewed MOTION to Bar Proposed Expert Opinion of Anthony G. Greenwald related to Purported Implicit Social Bias filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, 377 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Karlo's and Plaintiff McLure's Retaliation Claims filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, 374 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Plaintiffs' Individual Disparate Impact Claims filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, 372 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Individual Disparate Treatment Claims filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 11/20/2014)

11/20/2014 431 RESPONSE to Motion re 430 MOTION for Oral Argument on Motions for Summary Judgment and Motions to Bar Expert Testimony re 381 Renewed MOTION to Bar Dr. Michael Campion's Statistical Analysis filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, 382 Renewed MOTION filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 11/20/2014)

11/21/2014

TEXT NOTICE of Conference: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 12/2/2014 at 01:30 PM with Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Counsel shall make arrangements to contact the Court at (412) 208−7495 on one telephone line. Text only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice in the matter. (kly) (Entered: 11/21/2014)

12/02/2014

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Status Conference held on 12/2/2014. (Court Reporter: NONE) Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 12/02/2014)

12/02/2014

TEXT ORDER granting 430 Motion for Oral Argument re 380 PGWs RENEWED MOTION TO BAR PROPOSED EXPERT OPINION OF ANTHONY G. GREENWALD RELATED TO PURPORTED IMPLICIT SOCIAL BIAS, 381 PGWs RENEWED POST−DECERTIFICATION MOTION TO BAR DR. MICHAEL CAMPIONS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, 382 PGWs RENEWED MOTION TO BAR DR. CAMPIONS EXPERT OPINION ON REASONABLE HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICES and 383 PGWs MOTION TO BAR PURPORTED REBUTTAL EXPERT OPINION OF DAVID DUFFUS.

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 56 of 72

Oral Argument shall be held on December 29, 2014 at 10:00AM in Courtroom 6C before Judge McVerry. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 12/2/2014. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 12/02/2014)

12/22/2014

ORDER: Oral Argument scheduled for Monday, December 29, 2014 at 10:00 AM is hereby rescheduled to Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 6C before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 12/22/14. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mcp) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

01/13/2015

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Motion Hearing held on 1/13/2015 re 380 Renewed MOTION to Bar Proposed Expert Opinion of Anthony G. Greenwald related to Purported Implicit Social Bias filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, 381 Renewed MOTION to Bar Dr. Michael Campion's Statistical Analysis filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, 382 Renewed MOTION to Bar Dr. Campion's Expert Opinion on Reasonable Human Resource Practices filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC and 383 MOTION to Bar Purported Rebuttal Expert Opinions of David Duffus filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC, The Court has taken the matter under advisement. (Court Reporter: Richard Ford) Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

02/03/2015 432 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Authority Presented at Oral Argument by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/04/2015 433 ORDER granting 432 Motion for Leave to File Response to Supplemental Authority Presented at Oral Argument. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 2/4/2015. (kly) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

05/01/2015 434 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment and Motions in Limine by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A − Claus Declaration) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 05/01/2015)

05/01/2015 435

TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 434 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment and Motions to Bar Expert Testimony. Response to Motion due by 5/15/2015. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 5/1/2015. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 05/01/2015)

05/15/2015 436 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 434 Motion for Leave to File, and Motion Strike Declaration of John Claus filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Becker, David) (Entered: 05/15/2015)

06/08/2015 437

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 434 PLAINTIFFS MOTION [FOR] LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO BAR EXPERT TESTIMONY; and granting 436 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF JOHN D. CLAUS. The declaration of John D. Claus 434 −2 is hereby STRICKEN from the record. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 06/08/15. (mcp) (Entered: 06/08/2015)

06/10/2015 438

MOTION for Reconsideration re 437 Order on Motion for Leave to File, SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO BAR EXPERT TESTIMONY WITH DECLARATION OF JOHN D. CLAUS AND GRANTING PGWS MOTION TO STRIKE by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Envelope A − PGW's Initial Disclosures, # 3 Exhibit B − PGW's Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Discovery Requests) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/10/2015)

06/11/2015 439 TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 438 Motion for Reconsideration. Response to Motion due by 6/17/2015. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 6/11/2015. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

06/17/2015 440 BRIEF in Opposition re 438 Motion for Reconsideration filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 57 of 72

06/30/2015 441

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 438 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO BAR EXPERT TESTIMONY WITH DECLARATION OF JOHN D. CLAUS AND GRANTING PGWS MOTION TO STRIKE. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 06/30/15. (mcp) (Entered: 06/30/2015)

07/13/2015 442

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT granting 380 DEFENDANTS RENEWED MOTION TO BAR PROPOSED EXPERT OPINION OF ANTHONY G. GREENWALD RELATED TO PURPORTED IMPLICIT SOCIAL BIAS; granting 381 DEFENDANTS RENEWED POST−DECERTIFICATION MOTION TO BAR DR. MICHAEL CAMPIONS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; granting 382 DEFENDANTS RENEWED MOTION TO BAR DR. CAMPIONS EXPERT OPINION ON REASONABLE HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICES; and granting in part and denying in part 383 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO BAR PURPORTED REBUTTAL EXPERT OPINION OF DAVID DUFFUS. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 07/13/15. (mcp) (Entered: 07/13/2015)

08/05/2015 443 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 08/05/2015)

08/06/2015 444 ORDER granting 443 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal. Plaintiff has file a Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal on or before 8/26/2015. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/6/2015. (kly) (Entered: 08/06/2015)

08/26/2015 445 MOTION for Leave to Certify for interlocutory Appeal by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Horowitz, Andrew). Added MOTION to Stay on 8/27/2015 (jv). (Entered: 08/26/2015)

08/26/2015 446 BRIEF in Support re 445 Motion for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 08/26/2015)

08/27/2015

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 445 Motion for Leave to Appeal, Motion to Stay. ERROR: MULTIPLE Relief Motion Filed as One Relief. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that Motions of this nature are to be filed using the Motion Event and clicking on all the reliefs sought in said motion. Clerk of Court added to Motion Stay. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015 447

TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 445 Motion for Leave to Appeal (Interlocutory), Motion to Stay and 446 Brief in Support of Motion. Response to Motion due by 9/3/2015 by 12(NOON). Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/27/2015. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

09/02/2015 448

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT granting 372 PGW's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUAL DISPARATE TREATMENT CLAIMS; granting 374 PGW's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUAL DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIMS; denying 377 PGW's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF KARLOS AND PLAINTIFF MCLURES RETALIATION CLAIMS; and denying 417 PGW's COMBINED MOTION TO STRIKE UNSUPPORTED FACTS AND DEEM IMPROPERLY CONTESTED FACTS ADMITTED. An appropriate judgment will follow. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 09/02/15. (mcp) (Entered: 09/02/2015)

09/02/2015 449

Joint MOTION Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal re 445 MOTION for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) MOTION to Stay filed by JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 09/02/2015)

09/03/2015 450 JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC and against Plaintiffs Rudolph A. Karlo, Mark K. McLure, William S. Cunningham, Jeffrey Marietti, and David Meixelsberger on Count One (Disparate Treatment Under the Age Discrimination in

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 58 of 72

Employment Act) and Count Two (Disparate Impact Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act) of the Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 09/03/15. (mcp) (Entered: 09/03/2015)

09/03/2015 451 ORDER withdrawing 445 Plaintiffs MOTION TO CERTIFY FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND STAY PROCEEDINGS; and granting 449 the JOINT MOTION REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO CERTIFY FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 09/03/15. (mcp) (Entered: 09/03/2015)

09/03/2015

Set Motion/Briefing Schedule: Plaintiffs may renew and refile their Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay Proceedings on or before September 11, 2015, and said motion shall relate back to August 26, 2015 for the purpose of any jurisdictional or procedural deadline(s); and PGW may file a response/brief in opposition to Plaintiffs Renewed Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay Proceedings on or before September 18, 2015. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mcp) (Entered: 09/03/2015)

09/11/2015 452 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Horowitz, Andrew). Added MOTION to Stay on 9/14/2015 (jv). (Entered: 09/11/2015)

09/11/2015 453 BRIEF in Support re 452 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 09/11/2015)

09/14/2015

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 452 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b), Motion to Stay. ERROR: MULTIPLE Relief Motion Filed as One Relief. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that Motions of this nature are to be filed using the Motion Event and clicking on all the reliefs sought in said motion. Clerk of Court added MOTION to Stay. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 09/14/2015)

09/18/2015 454 BRIEF in Opposition re 452 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b), Motion to Stay filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 09/18/2015)

09/20/2015 455 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Pursuant to Rule 54(b) by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 09/20/2015)

09/22/2015 456 ORDER granting 455 Motion for Leave to File in Support of Motion to Certify Pursuant to Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 9/22/2015. (kly) (Entered: 09/22/2015)

09/29/2015 457 REPLY BRIEF re 452 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b), Motion to Stay filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 09/29/2015)

10/02/2015 458 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT granting the 452 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b); AND denying the 452 Motion to Stay the proceedings pending the resolution of the appeal. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/02/15. (mcp) (Entered: 10/02/2015)

10/02/2015 459

ORDER re 450 Judgment and 458 Memorandum Opinion and Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b): In light of the Courts determination that there is no just reason for delay, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the 450 judgment entered in favor of Defendant Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC and against Plaintiffs Rudolph A. Karlo, Mark K. McLure, William S. Cunningham, Jeffrey Marietti, and David Meixelsberger on Count One (Disparate Treatment Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act) and Count Two (Disparate Impact Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act) of the Second Amended Complaint, is hereby CERTIFIED as a FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/02/15. (mcp) (Entered: 10/02/2015)

10/02/2015

A telephonic status conference with counsel regarding the future direction of this litigation is hereby scheduled on Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. Counsel are responsible for coordinating the call to Chambers on one telephone line at that time. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/02/15. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mcp) (Entered: 10/02/2015)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 59 of 72

10/06/2015

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/6/2015. Defendant shall file a Motion to Bifurcate with a Brief in Support on or before 10/9/2015 by 12NOON and Plaintiff shall respond to said Motion on or before 10/14/2015. (Court Reporter: Virginia Pease) Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 10/06/2015)

10/07/2015 460

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 459 Order by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. Filing fee $505, receipt number 0315−3732928. Motion for IFP N/A. Certificate of Appealability N/A. Court Reporter(s): Deborah Rowe. The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. The Transcript Purchase Order form will NOT be mailed to the parties. The form is available on the Court's internet site. (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 10/07/2015)

10/09/2015 461 MOTION to Sever and/or for Separate Trials by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 10/09/2015)

10/13/2015 462 BRIEF in Opposition re 461 Motion to Sever filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 10/13/2015)

10/14/2015

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 462 Brief in Opposition to Motion. ERROR: Signature on document and filer do not match. CORRECTION: Attorney advised of signature requirements. Attorney to resubmit the document using the *ERRATA* event (Located under "Other Documents" in the electronic filing system). Attorney also advised to link ERRATA event to 462 Brief in Opposition to motion. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/14/2015 463 Errata re 462 Brief in Opposition to Motion by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. Reason for Correction: Signature on document and filer do not match. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/16/2015 465 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT granting 461 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEVER AND/OR FOR SEPARATE TRIALS. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/16/15. (mcp) (Entered: 10/16/2015)

10/16/2015 466

ORDER: A Telephonic Status Conference is hereby scheduled on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 10:00 AM to discuss the scheduling of successive trials on the remaining retaliation claims of Plaintiffs Rudolph A. Karlo and Mark K. McLure. Counsel are responsible for coordinating the call to Chambers. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/16/15. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mcp) (Entered: 10/16/2015)

10/19/2015 467 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Jeffrey J. Mayer by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 10/19/2015)

10/20/2015 468 ORDER granting 467 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jeffrey J. Mayer terminated. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/15/2015. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 10/20/2015)

10/21/2015

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Telephone Conference held on 10/21/2015. Trial Scheduling Orders shall follow. (Court Reporter: Virginia Pease) Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 10/21/2015)

10/21/2015 469

TRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER: Plaintiff's witness list due by 12/7/2015. Defendant's Witness list due by 12/7/2015. Motions in Limine due by 12/7/2015. Response to Motions in Limine due by 12/14/2015 Proposed Voir Dire by 1/4/2016. Proposed Jury Instructions due by 1/4/2016. Proposed Verdict Slips due by 1/4/2016. Stipulation due by 1/4/2016. Jury Trial set for 1/19/2016 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6C before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Exhibit List due by 12/7/2015 Witness List due by 12/7/2015Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/21/2015. (kly) (Entered: 10/21/2015)

10/21/2015 470 TRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER: Plaintiffs' witness list due by 12/7/2015. Defendant's Witness list due by 12/7/2015. Motions in Limine due by 12/7/2015. Response to Motions in Limine due by 12/14/2015. Proposed Voir Dire by 1/4/2016. Proposed Jury Instructions due by 1/4/2016. Proposed Verdict Slips due by 1/4/2016. Stipulation due by 1/4/2016. Jury Trial set

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 60 of 72

for 2/1/2016 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6C before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Exhibit List due by 12/7/2015. Witness List due by 12/7/2015. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/21/2015. (kly) (Entered: 10/21/2015)

11/12/2015 471 MOTION for attorney Rachel E.A. Atterberry to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $40, Receipt # 0315−3770360) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Proposed Order) (Cottington, Robert) (Entered: 11/12/2015)

11/16/2015 472

TEXT ORDER denying 471 Motion for Rachel E.A. Atterberry, Esquire to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Counsel is advised to follow the updated Local Rule (LCvR 83.2.B) to apply for Pro Hav Vice admission using the ERRATA event. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 11/16/2015. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 11/16/2015)

11/16/2015 473

BILL OF COSTS by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC in the amount of $60482.82 against Rudolph Karlo, Mark McLure, William Cunningham, Jeffrey Marietti and David Meixelsberger. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of David S. Becker, # 2 Exhibit A − Summary Chart, # 3 Exhibit B − Backup Documentation, # 4 Exhibit C − Summary Chart, # 5 Exhibit D − Backup documentation) (Becker, David) (Entered: 11/16/2015)

11/17/2015 474 Letter from the Clerk of Court indicating that no action will be taken on the Bill of Costs until disposition of the Notice of Appeal. (jv) (Entered: 11/17/2015)

11/23/2015 475 Errata re 471 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Reason for Correction: Filed by correct filer. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Proposed Order) (Atterberry, Rachel) (Entered: 11/23/2015)

11/24/2015 476

TEXT ORDER granting 475 Errata filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC granting 471 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Rachel E.A. Atterberry. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 11/24/2015. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 11/24/2015)

12/01/2015 477 Joint MOTION to Extend Time to File Certain Pre−Trial Documents by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/01/2015)

12/02/2015 478

ORDER granting 477 Motion to Extend Time for Extend Time to File Certain Pre−Trial Documents. The parties shall exchange exhibit lists by 12/21/2015. The parties shall provide the Court their trial exhibit lists by 1/4/2016 by 12NOON. The parties shall provide designations of discovery excerpts by 1/4/2016 by 12NOON. Responses to Motions in Limine shall be filed by 12/21/2015 by 12NOON. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 12/2/2015. (kly) (Entered: 12/02/2015)

12/07/2015 479 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)

12/07/2015 480 MOTION in Limine to Bar Evidence Regarding the Existence of Insurance (Karlo) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)

12/07/2015 481 MOTION in Limine Bar Evidence of Defendant's Present Financial Status (Karlo) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)

12/07/2015 482 MOTION in Limine Bar Evidence Regarding Administrative Proceedings and Dismissed Claims and Motion for Limiting Instruction (Karlo) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)

12/07/2015 483 MOTION in Limine Bar Evidence Regarding Events Prior to March 31, 2009 Reduction in Force and Events Subsequent to End of Plaintiff's Contract Position (Karlo) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)

12/07/2015 484 MOTION in Limine Bar Evidence Regarding Other Charges, Lawsuits or Claims of Discrimination and Retaliation (Karlo) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 61 of 72
12/07/2015 485 MOTION in Limine Bar Questioning or Evidence Regarding Whether Any PGW Employee Was Aware of a "Lawsuit" Involving Plaintiff (Karlo) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 486 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 487 MOTION in Limine to Bar Evidence Regarding the Existence of Insurance (McLure) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 488 MOTION in Limine to Bar Evidence of Defendant's Present Financial Status (McLure) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 489 MOTION in Limine to Bar Evidence Regarding Administrative Proceedings and Dismissed Claims and Motion for Limiting Instruction (McLure) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 490 MOTION in Limine to Bar Evidence Regarding Events Prior to March 31, 2009 Reduction in Force and Events Subsequent to End of Plaintiff's Contract Position (McLure) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 491 MOTION in Limine to Bar Evidence Regarding Other Charges, Lawsuits or Claims of Discrimination and Retaliation (McLure) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 492 MOTION in Limine to Bar Questioning or Evidence Regarding Whether Any PGW Employee Was Aware of a "Lawsuit" Involving Plaintiff (McLure) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 493 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 494 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 495 MOTION in Limine REGARDING CONTRACT EMPLOYMENT STATUS by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 496 BRIEF in Support re 495 Motion in Limine REGARDING CONTRACT EMPLOYMENT STATUS filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 497 MOTION in Limine REGARDING PURPORTED SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 498 BRIEF in Support re 497 Motion in Limine REGARDING PURPORTED SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 499 MOTION in Limine REGARDING DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/07/2015 500 BRIEF in Support re 499 Motion in Limine REGARDING DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
12/21/2015 501 RESPONSE to Motion re 495 MOTION in Limine REGARDING CONTRACT EMPLOYMENT STATUS (Karlo) filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 502 RESPONSE to Motion re 495 MOTION in Limine REGARDING CONTRACT EMPLOYMENT STATUS (McLure) filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 503 RESPONSE to Motion re 499 MOTION in Limine REGARDING DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS (Karlo) filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/21/2015)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 62 of 72
12/21/2015 504 RESPONSE to Motion re 499 MOTION in Limine REGARDING DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS (McLure) filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 505 RESPONSE to Motion re 497 MOTION in Limine REGARDING PURPORTED SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS (Karlo) filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 506 RESPONSE to Motion re 497 MOTION in Limine REGARDING PURPORTED SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS (McLure) filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 507 BRIEF in Opposition re 489 Motion in Limine, 482 Motion in Limine regarding administrative proceedings and dismissed claims filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 508 BRIEF in Opposition re 483 Motion in Limine, 490 Motion in Limine, REGARDING OTHER ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 509 BRIEF in Opposition re 491 Motion in Limine, 484 Motion in Limine REGARDING OTHER CHARGES, LAWSUITS OR CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 510 BRIEF in Opposition re 487 Motion in Limine, 480 Motion in Limine Regarding the Existence of Insurance filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 511 BRIEF in Opposition re 492 Motion in Limine, 485 Motion in Limine, REGARDING WHETHER ANY PGW EMPLOYEE WAS AWARE OF A "LAWSUIT" filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 512 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiff's Witness List 493 Pretrial Statement by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 513 BRIEF in Opposition re 488 Motion in Limine, 481 Motion in Limine REGARDING PGWS FINANCIAL STATUS filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 514 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiff's Witness List 494 Pretrial Statement by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/29/2015 515 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE PURPORTED EXPERT TESTIMONY BY JEFFREY P. BELACK by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
12/29/2015 516 BRIEF in Support re 515 Motion in Limine TO EXCLUDE PURPORTED EXPERT TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY P. BELACK filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
12/30/2015 517 TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 515 Motion in Limine and 516 Brief in Support of Motion. Response to Motion due by 1/5/2016. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 12/30/2015. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
12/30/2015 518 Joint MOTION to Extend Time to File Certain Pre−Trial Documents (Karlo) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
12/30/2015 519 Joint MOTION to Extend Time to File Certain Pre−Trial Documents (McLure) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
12/30/2015 520 NOTICE of withdrawal of Motion in Limine re Jeffrey Belack by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE re 515 Motion in Limine (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
12/31/2015 521 ORDER granting 518 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PRE−TRIAL DEADLINES (Karlo); and granting 519 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PRE−TRIAL DEADLINES (McLure). Response to motion due by 1/5/2016 at noon. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 63 of 72

12/31/15. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mcp) (Entered: 12/31/2015)

01/04/2016 522 Proposed Voir Dire by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 01/04/2016)

01/04/2016 523 PROPOSED VERDICT FORM by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 01/04/2016)

01/04/2016 524 PROPOSED VERDICT FORM by MARK K. MCLURE. (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 01/04/2016)

01/05/2016 525 Exhibit List Plaintiff and Defendant's Exhibit List (Karlo) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Exhibit List) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/05/2016 526 Proposed Voir Dire and Verdict Form by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Verdict Form (Karlo)) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/05/2016 527 DESIGNATION of Deposition Excerpts to be offered at trial by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C (Karlo)) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/05/2016 528 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiff Karlo's Exhibits by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/05/2016 529 Exhibit List Plaintiff and Defendant's Exhibit List (McLure) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Exhibit List) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/05/2016 530 Proposed Voir Dire and Verdict Form by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Verdict Form (McLure)) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/05/2016 531 DESIGNATION of Deposition Excerpts to be offered at trial by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C (McLure)) (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/05/2016 532 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiff McLure's Exhibits by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/05/2016 533 Proposed Jury Instructions with Agreement and Objections Provided (McLure) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/05/2016 534 Proposed Jury Instructions with Agreement and Objections Provided (Karlo) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/05/2016 535 STIPULATION TO LIMIT LIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY AND EXTEND DEADLINE by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/05/2016 536 STIPULATION TO LIMIT LIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY AND EXTEND DEADLINE by MARK K. MCLURE. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/06/2016 537

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 480 487 PGW's motions in limine to bar evidence regarding the existence of insurance; granting 481 488 PGW's motions in limine to bar evidence regarding its present financial status; granting 482 489 PGW's motions in limine to bar evidence regarding administrative proceedings and dismissed claim; deferring a ruling on 482 489 PGW's motions for a limiting instruction; granting 483 490 PGW's motions in limine to bar evidence regarding events prior to the March 31, 2009 reduction in force and events subsequent to the end of Plaintiffs contract position; granting 484 491 PGW's motions in limine to bar evidence regarding other charges, lawsuits or claims of discrimination and retaliation; granting in part and denying in part 485 492 PGW's motions in limine to bar questioning or evidence regarding whether any PGW employee was aware of a lawsuit involving plaintiff; granting in part and denying in part 495 Plaintiffs' motion in limine regarding contract employment status; denying as moot 497 Plaintiffs' motion in limine regarding purported settlement negotiations; denying 499 Plaintiffs' motion in limine regarding discrimination claims; and denying as moot 515 Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude purported expert testimony by Jeffrey P. Belack. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 01/06/15. (mcp) (Entered: 01/06/2016)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 64 of 72

01/07/2016 538 TEXT NOTICE of Hearing: Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/14/2016 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 6C before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Text only entry; no PDF document will issue. (kly) (Entered: 01/07/2016)

01/08/2016 539 ORDER granting 535 Stipulation filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 01/08/16. (mcp) (Entered: 01/08/2016)

01/08/2016 540 ORDER granting 536 Stipulation filed by MARK K. MCLURE. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 01/08/16. (mcp) (Entered: 01/08/2016)

01/11/2016 541 DESIGNATION of Deposition Excerpts to be offered at trial by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/11/2016)

01/11/2016 542 Renewed MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE PURPORTED EXPERT TESTIMONY BY JEFFREY P. BELACK by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/11/2016)

01/11/2016 543 BRIEF in Support re 542 Motion in Limine (Renewed) TO EXCLUDE PURPORTED EXPERT TESTIMONY BY JEFFREY P. BELACK filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Karlo), # 2 Exhibit B (McLure)) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/11/2016)

01/11/2016 544 MOTION to Accept Motion in Limine Nunc Pro Tunc re 542 Renewed MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE PURPORTED EXPERT TESTIMONY BY JEFFREY P. BELACK filed by MARK K. MCLURE, RUDOLPH A. KARLO by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/11/2016)

01/11/2016 545 DESIGNATION of Deposition Excerpts to be offered at trial by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 01/11/2016)

01/12/2016 546

ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 544 MOTION to Accept Motion in Limine Nunc Pro Tunc re 542 Renewed MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE PURPORTED EXPERT TESTIMONY BY JEFFREY P. BELACK . PGW shall file a response on or before Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 1/12/16. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mcp) (Entered: 01/12/2016)

01/12/2016 547 OBJECTIONS to 530 Proposed Voir Dire, 526 Proposed Voir Dire by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/12/2016)

01/12/2016 548 MOTION for Settlement Conference as to McLure by MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/12/2016)

01/12/2016 549 Proposed Jury Instructions (Proposed Limiting Instruction) by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/12/2016)

01/13/2016 550 OBJECTIONS to 523 Proposed Verdict Form, 522 Proposed Voir Dire, 524 Proposed Verdict Form by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/13/2016)

01/13/2016 551 OBJECTIONS to and Conditional Counter Designations in Response 541 Designation of Deposition Excerpts, 545 Designation of Deposition Excerpts by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/13/2016)

01/13/2016 552 RESPONSE to Motion re 542 Renewed MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE PURPORTED EXPERT TESTIMONY BY JEFFREY P. BELACK filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/13/2016)

01/14/2016

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Final Pretrial Conference held on 1/14/2016. (Court Reporter: Virginia Pease) Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 01/14/2016)

01/15/2016 553

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 542 PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PURPORTED EXPERT TESTIMONY BY JEFFREY P. BELACK; and granting 544 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR THE COURT TO ACCEPT RENEWED MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PURPORTED EXPERT TESTIMONY BY JEFFREY P. BELACK NUNC PRO TUNC. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 01/15/16. (mcp) (Entered: 01/15/2016)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 65 of 72

01/15/2016 554

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 528 DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF KARLO'S EXHIBITS and 551 DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL COUNTER−DESIGNATIONS IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 01/15/16. (mcp) (Entered: 01/15/2016)

01/18/2016 555 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Admission of Joint Exhibits by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/18/2016)

01/18/2016 556 MOTION for Supplemental Instruction by RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K. MCLURE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/18/2016)

01/18/2016 557 STIPULATED CHRONOLOGY by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/18/2016)

01/19/2016

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Jury Selection held on 1/19/2016. Voir Dire conducted. Jury Selection completed. Plaintiff made opening statement. Defendant made opening statement. A witness and evidence were presented. Jury Trial will continue on Wednesday, January 20, 2015 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 6C before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (Court Reporter: Virginia Pease & Shirley Hall) Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 01/19/2016)

01/19/2016 558

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on January 19, 2016 before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Court Reporter virginia pease, Telephone number 412−208−7385. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction and Redaction Request must be separately mailed to the court reporter of said proceedings. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 1/26/2016. Redaction Request due 2/9/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/19/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/18/2016. (vp) (Entered: 01/19/2016)

01/20/2016 559 ORDER granting 555 Stipulation filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 1/20/2016. (kly) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

01/20/2016 560 TEXT ORDER denying 556 Motion for Supplemental Instruction. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 1/20/2016. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

01/20/2016 561 ORDER granting 557 Stipulation filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 1/20/2016. (kly) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

01/20/2016

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Jury Trial held on 1/20/2016. Witnesses and Evidence were presented. Jury Trial will continue on Thursday, January 21, 2015 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 6C before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (Court Reporter: Virginia Pease & Shirley Hall) Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

01/20/2016 562

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on January 20, 2016 before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Court Reporter Virginia Pease, Telephone number 412−208−7385. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction and Redaction Request must be separately mailed to the court reporter of said proceedings. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 1/27/2016. Redaction Request due 2/10/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/22/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/19/2016. (vp) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

01/21/2016 563 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 01/21/2016)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 66 of 72

01/21/2016 564 TEXT ORDER denying 563 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 1/21/2016. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 01/21/2016)

01/21/2016

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Jury Trial held on 1/21/2016. Witnesses and Evidence were presented. Plaintiff rested. Defendant rested. Jury Trial will continue with instructions and closing arguments on Friday, January 22, 2015 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 6C before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (Court Reporter: Virginia Pease & Shirley Hall) (kly) Modified on 1/22/2016. (kly) (Entered: 01/21/2016)

01/22/2016

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 563 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. ERROR: Proposed Order was not attached. CORRECTION: Attorney is advised that all future Motions filed in civil cases require a proposed order as an attachment to the motion. Attorney does not need to act on this instance because the motion was already ruled upon. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

01/22/2016 565 Jury Question #1 and Answer #1. (kly) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

01/22/2016 566 Jury Question #2 and Answer #2. (kly) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

01/22/2016 567

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on January 21, 2016 before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Court Reporter Virginia S. Pease, Telephone number 412−208−7385. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction and Redaction Request must be separately mailed to the court reporter of said proceedings. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 1/29/2016. Redaction Request due 2/12/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/22/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/21/2016. (vp) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

01/22/2016 568 Jury Questions #3 and Answer #3. (kly) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

01/22/2016

TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Jury Trial completed on 1/22/2016. If you used courtroom technology during your trial, please complete a short survey at: http://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/Applications/pawd_outreach/SurveyCRT/SurveyCRT.cfm. Jury was given final instructions. Plaintiff closed. Defendant closed. Jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in an amount of $922,060.00. (Court Reporter: Shirley Hall) Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

01/22/2016 569 Exhibit List for jury trial held from January 19, 2016 − January 22, 2016. (kly) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

01/22/2016 570 Witness List for jury trial held from January 19, 2016 − January 22, 2016. (kly) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

01/22/2016 571 Peremptory Challenges. (kly) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

01/22/2016 572 JURY VERDICT in favor of RUDOLPH A. KARLO and against Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC. (kly) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

01/22/2016 573 JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff, Rudolph A. Karlo and against Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC in the amount of $922,060.00. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 1/22/2016. (kly) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

01/25/2016 574 ORDER OF COURT: Counsel shall file a petition for attorneys' fees relating to the individual retaliation claim of Plaintiff Karlo on or before March 7, 2016. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 01/25/15. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mcp) (Entered: 01/25/2016)

01/26/2016 575 ORDER vacating the 470 Trial Management Order and cancelling the jury selection / trial scheduled to commence on Monday, February 1, 2016. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 01/26/16. (mcp) (Entered: 01/26/2016)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 67 of 72

02/16/2016 576 STIPULATION of Dismissal as to Plaintiff Mark McLure only by MARK K. MCLURE. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 02/16/2016)

02/17/2016 577 ORDER OF COURT granting 576 Stipulation of Dismissal as to Plaintiff Mark McLure only. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 02/17/16. (mcp) (Entered: 02/17/2016)

02/19/2016 578 MOTION for Leave to File Oversized Brief Instanter by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 02/19/2016)

02/19/2016 579 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Motion for New Trial by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David). Added MOTION to Alter Judgment, MOTION for New Trial on 2/22/2016 (jv). (Entered: 02/19/2016)

02/19/2016 580

Appendix to 579 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14) (Becker, David) (Entered: 02/19/2016)

02/22/2016

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 579 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. ERROR: MULTIPLE Relief Motion Filed as One Relief. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that Motions of this nature are to be filed using the Motion Event and clicking on all the reliefs sought in said motion. Clerk of Court added MOTION for New Trial and MOTION to Alter Judgment. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 02/22/2016)

02/22/2016 581

ORDER granting 578 DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERSIZED BRIEF INSTANTER; ordering a response to 579 DEFENDANT'S COMBINED RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL on or before March 21, 2016; and staying 574 the briefing schedule on the petition for attorneys' fees relating to the individual retaliation claim of Plaintiff Karlo pending the resolution of PGW's combined motion. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 02/22/16. (mcp) (Entered: 02/22/2016)

03/17/2016 582 MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Brief in Opposition to PGW's Post−Trial Motions by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

03/18/2016 583 ORDER granting 582 Motion for Leave to File Overlength Brief in Opposition to PGW's Post−Trial Motions. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 3/18/2016. (kly) (Entered: 03/18/2016)

03/21/2016 584

BRIEF in Opposition re 579 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Motion to Alter Judgment, Motion for New Trial, filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Day 1 Trial Transcript Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit B − Day 2 Trial Transcript Excerpts, # 3 Exhibit C − Day 3 Trial Transcript Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit D − Day 4 Trial Transcript Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit E − Trial Exhibit 34, # 6 Exhibit F − Trial Exhibit 24) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 03/21/2016)

03/22/2016 585 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Reply In Support of Defendant's Combined Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, and Motion for New Trial by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wills, Tina) (Entered: 03/22/2016)

03/23/2016 586 ORDER granting 585 Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Defendant's Combined Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law to Alter or Amend Judgment, and Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 3/23/2016. (kly) (Entered: 03/23/2016)

04/05/2016 587

REPLY BRIEF re 579 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Motion to Alter Judgment, Motion for New Trial, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Trial Transcript Excerpts (Day 1), # 2 Exhibit 2 − Trial Transcript Excerpts (Day 2), # 3 Exhibit 3 − Trial Transcript Excerpts (Day 3), # 4 Exhibit 4 − Trial Transcript Excerpts (Day 4), # 5 Exhibit 5 − John Felker Deposition Excerpts) (Becker, David) (Entered: 04/05/2016)

04/06/2016 588 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Post−Trial Motions by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 04/06/2016)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 68 of 72

04/07/2016 589 ORDER granting 588 Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Post−Trial Motions. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 4/7/2016. (kly) (Entered: 04/07/2016)

04/20/2016 590

Sur−Reply in opposition re 579 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,, Motion to Alter Judgment,, Motion for New Trial,, filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Day 1 Transcript Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit B − Day 2 Transcript Excerpts, # 3 Exhibit C − Day 3 Transcript Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit D − Day 4 Transcript Excerpts) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 04/20/2016)

04/28/2016 591

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on January 22, 2016 before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Court Reporter Virginia Pease, Telephone number 412−208−7385. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction and Redaction Request must be separately mailed to the court reporter of said proceedings. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 5/5/2016. Redaction Request due 5/19/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/31/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/27/2016. (vp) (Entered: 04/28/2016)

05/18/2016 592

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 579 DEFENDANT'S COMBINED RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. Counsel shall file any petition for attorneys' fees, along with all documentation in support thereof, relating to the individual retaliation claim of Plaintiff Rudolph Karlo on or before June 15, 2016. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 05/18/16. (mcp) (Entered: 05/18/2016)

06/07/2016 593 MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (Exhibits to Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs) by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/08/2016 594

ORDER granting 593 MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. After receiving notice of the order of court, you must provide the sealed document to the Clerk of Courts both on paper and on disk, in pdf format. In the alternative, you may contact the Intake Section and make arrangements to email the pdf to the Clerk of Courts. The sealed version of the document WILL NOT be docketed by the Clerk of Court until the party electronically files the redacted version of the documents (using Redacted Document event located under Other Documents), unless otherwise ordered by the Court. You would be required to serve the sealed document on counsel using traditional service methods. Decision to Unseal Document deferred. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 6/8/2016. (kly) (Entered: 06/08/2016)

06/14/2016 595

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 537 Order on Motion in Limine, 573 Judgment, 69 Order, Terminate Motions, Set deadlines/Hearings, 592 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Order on Motion to Alter Judgment, Order on Motion for New Trial, 553 Order on Motion in Limine, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 68 Motion Hearing, 564 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 448 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Strike, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. Filing fee $505, receipt number 0315−3991018. Motion for IFP N/A. Certificate of Appealability N/A. Court Reporter(s): N/A. The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. The Transcript Purchase Order form will NOT be mailed to the parties. The form is available on the Court's internet site. (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

06/15/2016 596 MOTION for Attorney Fees (PETITION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS) by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016 597

BRIEF in Support re 596 Motion for Attorney Fees (PETITION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS) filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C−UNDER SEAL, # 4 Exhibit D−UNDER SEAL, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J−UNDER SEAL) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/16/2016 598 MEMORANDUM ORDER deferring ruling on 596 Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs pending the disposition of the pending appeal(s). Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 69 of 72

06/16/16. (mcp) (Entered: 06/16/2016)

06/17/2016 600 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit C) by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. This document Sealed pursuant to 594 Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C − Part 2, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit J) (tt) (Entered: 06/17/2016)

06/20/2016 601 Praecipe for Writ of Execution by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 06/20/2016)

06/21/2016

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 601 Praecipe for Writ of Execution. ERROR: All documents were submitted as one main document. CORRECTION: Attorney to refile the Praecipe for Writ of Execution with the Praecipe as the main document, then attach each remaining documents as separate attachments to the Praecipe. Attoreny is to use the errata event to refile the document, linking it to document #601. This message is for informational purposes only. (ept) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016 602

Errata re 601 Praecipe for Writ of Execution by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. Reason for Correction: All documents were submitted as one main document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Writ of Execution, # 2 Exhibit Judgment in a Civil Action, # 3 Exhibit Interrogatories to Garnishee, # 4 Exhibit Motion for Special Appointment to Serve Process, # 5 Exhibit Claim for Exemption) (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016 603 MOTION to Stay re 601 Praecipe for Writ of Execution, 602 Errata, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016 604 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION to 603 Motion to Stay, filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016 605 WRIT of EXECUTION issued (gmp) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016 606 Order signed by Clerk appointing JOHN GUSDONEVICH as process server (gmp) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016 607 Emergency MOTION to Stay re 605 Writ Issued, 606 Order Appointing Process Server by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016 608 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION to 607 Motion to Stay, filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/22/2016 609

ORDER denying as moot 603 PGW's Motion to Stay Writ of Execution Pending Posting of Supersedeas Bond or Depositing of Judgment into Court; and granting 607 PGW's Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement of Writ of Execution Pending Posting of Supersedeas Bond. As set forth therein, it is hereby ORDERED that all enforcement actions related to the Writ of Execution are hereby STAYED for fourteen (14) days from the issuance of this Order, to allow PGW time to post a supersedeas bond or to deposit funds for the judgment with the Clerk of Court. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 06/22/16. (mcp) (Entered: 06/22/2016)

06/22/2016 610

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on January 13, 2015 before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Court Reporter Richard Ford, Telephone number (412) 261−0802. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction and Redaction Request must be separately mailed to the court reporter of said proceedings. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 6/29/2016. Redaction Request due 7/13/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/25/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/20/2016. (rtf) (Entered: 06/22/2016)

06/23/2016 611 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Writ of Execution served on Adam Dawson on June 22, 2016, filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Horowitz, Andrew) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/23/2016 612 Emergency MOTION to Dissolve and Discontinue Attachment, Lien and Garnishment Caused by Service of Writ of Execution in light of Stay re 611 Affidavit of Service filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 70 of 72

06/24/2016 613 RESPONSE in Opposition re 612 Emergency Motion TO DISSOLVE JUDGMENT LIEN AND GARNISHMENT CREATED BY SERVICE OF WRIT OF EXECUTION IN LIGHT OF STAY, filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Fox, Bruce) Modified on 6/27/2016 to edit docket text. (ksa) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016 614

Emergency MOTION for Supersedeas Bond Approval, to Dissolve Writ of Execution and to Stay Pending Appeal by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Supersedeas Bond, # 2 Proposed Order) (Becker, David) Modified on 6/27/2016 ERROR: MULTIPLE RELIEF DOCUMENT FILED AS ONE RELIEF; RE−FILED BY COURT. (ksa) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016 615 RESPONSE in Opposition re 614 Motion for Bond filed by RUDOLPH A. KARLO. (Fox, Bruce) Modified on 6/27/2016 to edit docket text. (ksa) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016 616 REPLY in support re 614 Motion for Bond, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) Modified on 6/27/2016 to edit docket text. (ksa) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016 617

ORDER OF COURT denying as moot 612 PGW's EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISSOLVE JUDGMENT LIEN AND GARNISHMENT CREATED BY SERVICE OF WRIT OF EXECUTION IN LIGHT OF STAY; and granting 614 PGW's EMERGENCY MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND, TO DISSOLVE WRIT OF EXECUTION AND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULE 62(d) for the reasons set forth therein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the supersedeas bond (attached hereto as Exhibit A) is APPROVED, the writ of execution and all outstanding judgment liens, levies, garnishments, and/or attachments created thereby and/or arising therefrom are DISSOLVED, and any further proceeding(s) to enforce the judgment pending appeal are STAYED until the appeal is decided (or otherwise resolved) and the mandate is issued. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 06/24/16. (Attachments: # 1 Approved Supersedeas Bond) (mcp) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016 618 Supersedeas BOND in the amount of $922,060.00 Receipt Number 926−316, posted by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC American Home Assurance Company as Surety. (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016

MOTION to Stay Proceedings Under Rule 62(d) by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Filed with document 614 ) (ksa) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

06/27/2016

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 614 Motion for Bond. ERROR: MULTIPLE Relief Motion Filed as One Relief. CORRECTION: Attorney Becker advised in future that Motions of this nature are to be filed using the Motion Event and clicking on all the reliefs sought in said motion. Clerk of Court added/docketed Motion to Stay Proceedings Under Rule 62(d). This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

06/30/2016 619 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re 595 Notice of Appeal, by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC for proceedings held on January 14, 2016 before Judge McVerry, from Court Reporter(s): V. Pease. (Becker, David) (Entered: 06/30/2016)

08/04/2016 620

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on January 14, 2016 Court Reporter Virginia Pease, Telephone number 412−208−7385. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction and Redaction Request must be separately mailed to the court reporter of said proceedings. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 8/11/2016. Redaction Request due 8/25/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/6/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/2/2016. (vp) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/05/2016

Record complete for Appeal purposes. The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified copy of the docket entries. (jv) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

01/10/2017 621 JUDGMENT OF USCA as to 460 Notice of Appeal, filed by JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM Affiriming/Reversing/Remanding judgment/order of the district court. Mandate will follow. Costs taxed to the Appellees (cw3) (Entered: 01/10/2017)

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 71 of 72

01/27/2017 622 MOTION for Reconsideration re 598 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/27/2017 623 BRIEF in Support re 622 Motion for Reconsideration filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/30/2017

Judge Mark R. Hornak added. Judge Terrence F. McVerry no longer assigned to case. (gmp) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

02/01/2017 624

SCHEDULING ORDER. A Telephonic Status Conference is hereby SCHEDULED for 2/7/17 at 4:00 PM before Judge Mark R. Hornak. The Court will conduct the call via an AT&T call−in number, which requires participants to dial−in and provide an access code. To obtain the information required to participate in the conference, please log−in to ECF and open the attached document from the docket of the case (the document will not open from the link in the e−mail). The document has a security setting of "Case Participants Only", so only those individuals will have access to view the document. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 2/1/17. (jad) (Entered: 02/01/2017)

02/03/2017 625

ORDER RESCHEDULING CONFERENCE. Based on a telephone call to Chambers from counsel for the Defendant, and with the consent of counsel for the Plaintiffs, the Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/7/17 at 4:00 PM EST is hereby RESCHEDULED for 2/14/17 at 11:15 AM EST before Judge Mark R. Hornak. The call will be conducted via an AT&T dial−in number. The information required to the participate can be found at 624 Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 2/3/17. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bdb) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

02/14/2017 626 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Hornak: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/14/17. (Court Reporter: Deborah Rowe) (jad) (Main Document 626 replaced on 2/14/2017) (bdb). Modified on 2/14/17 to reflect a law clerk was not present at conference. (bdb) (Entered: 02/14/2017)

02/14/2017 627

ORDER. Defendant's response to Plaintiff's 622 Motion for Reconsideration shall be filed on or before February 28, 2017, and any reply in support of the Motion may be filed within 7 days of the filing of the Response. Counsel for Defendant shall file a notice on the docket of the filing of any petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court as to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of January 10, 2017, along with a notice of any disposition of such a petition, and notice of any decision to not file, or to withdraw, any such petition. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 2/14/17. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bdb) (Entered: 02/14/2017)

02/15/2017 628 STANDING ORDER AND PROCEDURES ON CIVIL MOTION PRACTICE. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 2/15/17. (bdb) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/28/2017 629 BRIEF in Opposition re 622 Motion for Reconsideration filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Excerpts of Appellant's Brief, # 2 Exhibit B − Declaration of Jeffrey Gronbeck) (Becker, David) (Entered: 02/28/2017)

03/02/2017 630 ORDER. On or before 3/16/17, Plaintiff shall reply to 629 Brief in Opposition re 622 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 3/2/17. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bdb) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/06/2017 631 REPLY to Response to Motion re 629 BRIEF in Opposition re 622 Motion for Reconsideration filed by WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER. (Fox, Bruce) (Entered: 03/06/2017)

03/21/2017 632

MEMORANDUM ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that 622 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED, and Plaintiff may file an Amended Fee Petition on or before April 22, 2017. The Defendant shall file any Response thereto within thirty (30) days of the filing of that Amended Fee Petition, and the Plaintiff may file any supporting Reply within fourteen (14) days of the filing of any such Response. The Court's 598 Order deferring consideration of the Plaintiffs Fee Petition is VACATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and 596 Plaintiffs initial Fee Petition is DISMISSED AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court further gives notice that it would enter an ORDER holding all filing obligations set forth in this ORDER in abeyance if, on or

Case: 2:10-cv-1283 As of: 03/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT 72 of 72

before April 5, 2017, the Defendant files with the Clerk of this Court supplemental security in an amount equal to at least 66% of the amount cumulatively claimed as to attorney's fees and costs in the Plaintiffs initial fee Petition. Should the Defendant take that action, it would appear to the Court that the "security of payment" issues fairly raised by the Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration would have been mitigated.. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 3/21/17. (bdb) (Entered: 03/21/2017)

04/05/2017 633

ORDER Holding Filing Deadlines in Abeyance. Based on a joint telephone call to Chambers by counsel for all parties, and for good cause, the Court ORDERS that all pending filing deadlines in this Court are held in abeyance, pending further Order of this Court. The parties shall file a joint status report, or other document appropriate to the circumstances, on or before May 5, 2017. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 04/05/2017. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (Hornak, Mark) (Entered: 04/05/2017)

05/05/2017 634 JOINT STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. (Becker, David) (Entered: 05/05/2017)

05/08/2017 635 ORDER APPROVING 634 Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. The above−captioned action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 5/8/17. (bdb) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/09/2017 637

MANDATE of USCA as to 460 Notice of Appeal, filed by JEFFREY MARIETTI, MARK K. MCLURE, RUDOLPH A. KARLO, DAVID MEIXELSBERGER, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM. The judgment of the District Court entered October 2, 2015, be and the same is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings; The Order of the District Court dated July 13, 2015, be and the same is hereby VACATED IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART; and the Order of the District Court dated March 31, 2014, be and the same is hereby AFFIRMED. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court. Costs taxed to the Appellees and in favor of Appellants in the amount of $1200.20. (Attachments: # 1 Opinion) (tt) (Entered: 02/06/2019)

05/09/2017 638 ORDER of USCA as to 595 Notice of Appeal, filed by PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC. The matter is hereby dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with prejudice and each party to bear their own cost. A certified copy of this order is issued in lieu of a formal mandate. (tt) (Entered: 02/06/2019)


[CONTENT] September 29, 2010 | 50 years of age | the U.S. District Court | the Western District | the Age Discrimination | 29 | U.S.C. | 621 | Pittsburgh Glass Works | LLC |||  ||| ADEA ||| November 29, 2010 ||| December 22, 2010 | ADEA ||| May 9, 2012 | Court | Nora Barry Fischer | age 50 ||| July 20, 2012 | Court | Court ||| February | August 2013 | five ||| 2016 | 922,060 [SUMMARY] On September 29, 2010, a class of male employees 50 years of age or older filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621, against Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC.  The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for lost compensation in front pay and back pay, attorneys' fees and costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, lost pension benefits, and liquidated damages, claiming that they were abruptly terminated without explanation.  Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that their employment was terminated because of their age in violation of the ADEA.

On November 29, 2010, the defendant moved to dismiss Count III of the complaint for failure to state a claim because plaintiffs were not employees of defendant at the time of the alleged retaliation.

On December 22, 2010, the plaintiffs moved to dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract, alleging that the ADEA waiver in its releases was invalid and unenforceable.

On May 9, 2012, the Court (Judge Nora Barry Fischer) granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification because all members of the proposed class were over age 50 when they were terminated, all of their terminations were in the course of a single, company-wide reduction in force, and the plaintiffs relied on common evidence to prove their alleged discrimination.

On July 20, 2012, the Court denied the defendant's motion for interlocutory appeal because the Court's decision regarding certification was merely conditional and therefore not a final ruling.

In February and August 2013, five plaintiffs dismissed their claims with prejudice.

In 2016, after trial, the court ruled in favor of plaintiffs for $922,060.