Case 2:06-cv-12123-PJD-VMM Document 1 Filed 05/09/2006 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DlSTRICT COURT EASTERN DlSTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

PJainti ff, )

)

v.

)

)

SCHEFENACKER VISION

)

SYSTEMS USA, INC.,

)

)

Defendant. )

)

Case: 2:06-cv-12123 Assigned To: Duggan, Patrick J Referral Judge: Morgan, Virginia M Filed: 05-09-2006 At 10:48 AM CMP EEOC VS SCHEFENAG}:<ER (LE) .
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and to make whole Janet Nedrow. a fonner employee. Schefenacker subjected Nedrow to unlawful discrimination by involuntarily tenninating her employment on the basis of age.
JURISDlCTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337,1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 7(b) ofthc Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amcnded, 29 U.S.C. Section 621, et seq. (the tlADEAtI), which incorporates by reference Sections 16(c) and 17 of the Fair Lahor Standards Act of1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 216(c) and 217. 2. The unlawful employment practices alleged below were and are now being
1

Case 2:06-cv-12123-PJD-VMM Document 1 Filed 05/09/2006 Page 2 of 7
cOirunitted within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the ADEA, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 7(b) ofthe ADEA, 29 U.S.C. Section 626(b), as amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No.1 of 1978,92 Stal. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705. ·4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Schefenaekcr Vision Systems USA, Inc., (the "Employer"), has continuously been a Michigan Corporation doing business in the State of Michigan and the City of Marysville, and has continuously had and does now have at least twenty five employees. 5. At all relevant times, the Defendant Employer bas continuously becn an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSeclion I I(b), (g), and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 630(h), (g), and (h).
CONCl!,JATION 6. Prior to the institution of this lawsuit, the Commission'S representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful cmployment practiccs hereinafter alleged and to elrcet voluntary compliance with the ADEA through infonnal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. Section 626(h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Janet Nedrow
2

Case 2:06-cv-12123-PJD-VMM Document 1 Filed 05/09/2006 Page 3 of 7
filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of the ADEA by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have bcen fulfilled.
8. Since at least January 23, 2004, Defcndant Employer has cngaged in unlawful employment practices at its Marysville, Michigan facility in violation of Section 4(a)(I) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. Section 623(a)(I). Specifically, the Defendant Employer discriminated against and evcntually terminated Janct Nedrow from her position as a PC technician because of her age, sixty (60).
9. Thc effect of the practices complained ofabove has been to deprive Janet Ncdrow of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her age.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are wilIfui within the meaning ofthc ADEA.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. GRANT a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers,
successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any
employment practice which discriminates on the basis of ago. B. ORDER Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and
programs which provide equal employmcnt opportunities for persons who are at least age forty, and which eradicate the effect$ orits past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. ORDER Defcndant Employer to provide training regarding the Agc Discrimination in Employment Act, its prohibitions against age discrimination and to all current and future
3

Case 2:06-cv-12123-PJD-VMM Document 1 Filed 05/09/2006 Page 4 of 7

employees;

D. ORDER Defendant Employer to make whole Janet Nedrow by affording her other

affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendant Employer's unlawful

cmployment practices, including reinstatement to her formcr position; and by providing her with

appropriatc back pay with prejudgment intcrest and lost benefits, in amounts to be proved at trial,

and other affinnative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful practices.

E. ORDER Defendant Employer to pay liquidated damages in amounts to be

determined at trial.

F. GRANT such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper, including

mandatory EEO training of employee personneL

G. AWARD the Commission its costs in this action.

WRY TRIAL DEMAND

The COllllllission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by this Complaint.

Respectfully submittcd,

JAMES L. LEE Deputy Gencral Counsel

~ dJ;£{drJ6.
DATE

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 18011. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
~AYO -
Regional Attorney

INDIANAPOLIS DISTRICT OFFICE 101 W. Ohio St., Room 1900 Indianapolis, iN 46204 (317) 226·7202
4

Case 2:06-cv-12123-PJD-VMM Document 1 Filed 05/09/2006 Page 5 of 7 DALE PRICE (P55578) Trial Attorney DETROIT FlELD OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara Building 477 Michigan Ave., Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 226-7808
5

Case 2:06-cv-12123-PJD-VMM Document 1 Filed 05/09/2006 Page 6 of 7

JS 44 11199

CIVIL COVER SHEET COUNTY IN WHICH THIS ACTION A~

by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial COl) for tJ5e of the Clerk of Court tor the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.

I. (al PLAINTIFFS

DEFENOANTS

eadings or otller papors as required tates in Reptember 1974, is required

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

~ClIFFENACKER VISION SYSTEMS USA, INC.

(b) COUllty' of Resldonce of First Listed

County of Rcsidonce of First Listed

TUSCOLA

NOTE IN,~';,NO CONOEMNATION CASES, uSE THE 1

.oF THE

(C) Attornev's (Flr'm Namlllt. Address, and Telephone Number)

l'III ........,' .. III 1I.\r'>\0/.\ \

Dale Price (1'55578), Equal Employment Opportunity

Case: 2:06-cv-12123

Comluission, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865

Assigned To Duggan, Patrick J

Detroit. MI 48226 (313) 226-7808
Ii. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (PI... an 'X' in On. eo< Only)

III. CITIZI

Referral Judge: Morgan Virginia M
Filed: 05-09-2006 At 10:48 AM

-r

(For IJh CMP EEOC VS SCHEFENACKER (LE)

~ u.s. Govemment PI'iilintiff

D 3 Federal Question
(U,S, Government Not. Party)

LJ T Citizen of rms l':ilate

I I ,

, IIl~\o;;:... '~I I '~~ I~~~ L_J ~.

of Business In This State

"

[J 2 U,S, Government
Defendant

n 4 Diversity (Indl,,,,,. Clllzenship of Parties
inllem 111)

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One 80:0:: O~i~)-

Citi1:en of Another 1.-..1 2 II 2

CiIi><" or SubJeCi of a n Fn,.Tnn Cn'~ntn'

3 n3

05 Incorporated and Principal

[1 5

at Business In Another State

Foreign Nation

LJ6 0 6

CONTRACT

'l'OH'l',')

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

B~,\NKR!)F'l'C'i

OTHF.R 5T1>.TUTES

n '1 1 0 In~lJr~nl;e
0 120 MiolInrll: tJ 130 Miller Act
n 140 Nogotiable Instrument or D 150 R:e~v«y
Overpsymenl and Et'lroreemenl of Judgment
0 151 Medicare Act
0 152 Recovery (If Defal,jlted
Siudent Loans (Excl, Vaterans) rl 15:3 R~'X\v1tl')' Of Olo'€ot()il.:rm\lfll of Veteran's Benefits 0 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 100 OIhet COI'ltt'ad U 1!.l§ COr'lir.ac.t Product UQnliity

FlERSONAL INJURY
u 31 0 AWpIane
n '315 Airplane Prodl,u;( L.liI!Ibll~y
0 320 Asnult Libel At~d Siandar
D JJQ Fl'ldal'llll Employu(~'
lIsblllty
lJ 340 Marinll
n 3045 M..rir\!; P~tJ~
USb lilt/
I-, 350 Moior Vt;hit;lt;: 0 355 Moil';lr VehiCle
Product Liability 0 360 other P~r:!;ot'!al
Injury

PERSONAL 1NJURY n
[1 362 Personal lnj ury~ 0 Med, Malpractice IJ
U 365 ~.rraJsu.rnn'l"lna~;I f)'" 0

0 36B Asbestos PefF.lonal (j

Injul'j' Pn;tdud

f..i~biliIY

U

n

PERSONAl.. PftOPER,TY

o a7Q OIhar Fraud

LJ

U 371 Truth in Lending

o 3~0 O1her Pe~al

Property Damage U 3B5 Property Damage:

0

Produet Liability tJ

c"",.mn,:z HEAL PROPERTY
0 210 ",nd

CIVIL ~IGHTS
ro--441 (ltin~

tJ 220 Foreclosure 0 ~.:sO Renl lealie & Ejeclm 11

~(i1~.l H4O4UZ,simnplgaylmcoi

PRISONER PETITIONS

0

U 51 0 Motion;; to V<il~!t;

$lI!!nletlt'J:!

0

Hab~as CorpU$'

U :;;0411 (011510 LlIfld

Ac;cDmrnD[blljl.ll1~

0 530 General

U

29'f7'rCf' . n 245 Tor1 PrQ<lI,j~ L.1~bllhy
n

0 444 \NeHere

U 535 Death Penalty

u 440 Oltter Civil Right!! U 5-40 MlIl'Idsmua. & OIMr

0 550 CIvil ftlghts

0

0 555 Prison Condition

610 Agril;\ll\l.m: 620 Other Food & Drug 625 Drug Related SeitUltl
of Prop!!I1)1' 21: !SIll
630 Liquor LBWS
G40 RR & Tflj(;~
EiSO Airline Reg$. 6600CCI,jpalionai
Safetyn-Jeslth 690 Other
L6,BOR
71 I:) FAir I.RlOOf ~tlilnd;trds Act
720 Labor1TY1gmt.
Rel ... tlo .... s.
70m I,RlbaiMgrrn. Heporting &. Di~cI!I~ull!.' A~
7040 Railway Labor Acrt
700 Other Labor UtigiNl(ltl
791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

0 422 Mpeal 28 uSC 158
rl 42'3 Wrthdraw~1
28 USC 157
PROpeRTY RIGHTS
n 820 Copyri",htlS n 830 Patenl
U 840 Trademark
SOCIAl ~ft:I)"lh'
11 161 lilA 11l95~ 0 B62 Black lung (923) 11 86J DIWf'.JDIWN (405('(1))
u 864 SStD Title XVt
II 865 RSI i405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
o 670 ialleg (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendent)
o 871 IR::S-ihifd Party
26 USC 7609

U 400 State Re~pporIi(lnrnenl
n 41 QAnlltrl,j:l1
o 430 flanks and Banking
LJ 450 Commcrc:eliCC
I I 460 Oeportalion
o 470 Racke:l!'!er Intluencl'ld & Corrupt Of9sl1lzalJooiio
n 810 SelCC::U'f'e Service
o 850 $ecJ rilies/Corn rlilJ(flUtlSJ E)!"ch;an.ge
r1 875 CW$\QtTlet Challet\ge 1z Lise 3410
u aei AgriClJllur~1 Ar;t$
n 892 i:r.....nomit 81;;d)~i%i.'I1km N:J.
U 8~:3 ErMru1mlilntEIt Mlallt'f'l:
o B94 Energy Allocation ACI U 895 Freedom (If
Information Act 1..J 900 '(fft:~?rit.I:' L,Jnder
Equt11 A,""u to Ju~tlo::oj!
o 950 c¢n$l!lUIlonality of
State Statutes U agO OIlJef SMutory Al;tl(ln~

1:.:11 VliJRIC Nl

LACE AN "l(" IN ONE BOl( ONLY)

~ ~n;a, D "
I I

oet:!edil'tg

2 RemCl'lled'rom State Court

U J Remanded from Appellat0 Court

n .. R,eltl$tated
Weonened

Tr.,nsf~rr¢id from

D LJ allather district 5 (.pecify)

6 Multi district

Litigation

Appeal to District
D "/ JuMidiIgl!eillfsrlro~tm~

.' ~AUSE OF ACTION (CID&tho U.S. Civ~ ~,tatute under whj~ you afe rmn3 and write brief stEltElmant of cause.
. 0 nOl CRe Juns letlonal atatule!! un ass diven,ity.

Thii!! is an ;iI."tion under Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") {(1 COrrect unlawful employment practices on the basis of age.

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

n CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
..UNDER F.RC P, 23

VIII. RELAlE'D CASE(S) in.lruction.),

IF ANY

JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

in complaint:
:J No

DATE

R£::r;:ORD

Case 2:06-cv-12123-PJD-VMM Document 1 Filed 05/09/2006 Page 7 of 7
PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 83.11

1.

Is this a case that has been previously dismissed?

If yes, give the following information:
Court: ___________________________________

DYes ~ No

Case No.: __________________~_______

Judge: ________________________

2.

Other than stated above, are there any pending or previously

discontinued or dismissed companion cases in this or any other

DYes

court, including state court? (Companion cases are matters in which it appears substantially similar evidence will be offered or the same

~ No

or related parties are present and the cases arise out of the same

transaction or occurrence.)

If yes, give the following informatioh: Court: ____________________________

Case No.: _________,--_________________ Judge: __________________________

Notes:

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Case No. 2:06-cv-12123

Plaintiff, v.

Hon. Patrick J. Duggan Magistrate Virginia M. Morgan

SCHEFENACKER VISION SYSTEMS USA, INC.,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

LAURIE A. YOUNG DEBORAH M. BARNO (P44525) NEDRA D. CAMPBELL (P58768) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Counsel for Plaintiff 477 Michigan Ave., Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 226-7808/6584 (fax) ___________________________________/

TODD J. SHOUDY (P41895) JENNIFER H. GONZALEZ (P65527) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC Counsel for Defendant 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, Michigan 48243 (313) 568-5330/6691 (fax)

CONSENT DECREE This action was commenced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), under the authority granted to it under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et. seq. The EEOC alleged in its Complaint that Schefenacker Vision Systems USA, Inc. (hereinafter “Schefenacker” or “Defendant”) discriminated against Janet Nedrow because of her age during a reduction-in-force (RIF). The Complaint (the “Litigation”) arose out of a Charge of Discrimination filed by Janet Nedrow, Charging Party, against Schefenacker, Charge No. 230-2004-02422. Schefenacker, in its Answer to the Complaint and in its response to the Charge denied and continues to deny that it

discriminated against the Charging Party or any other employee because of their age or any other protected classification and has denied and continues to deny that it has any liability to the Commission and/or the Charging Party for any claim asserted in the Litigation or any other matter whatsoever.
As a result of settlement discussions, the EEOC and Schefenacker have resolved their differences and have agreed that this action should be settled by entry of this Consent Decree. It is the intent of the parties that this Consent Decree be a final and binding settlement in full disposition of any and all claims alleged against Schefenacker or which might have been alleged against Schefenacker in the Complaint filed on behalf of Charging Party Janet Nedrow.
It is therefore the finding of this Court, made on the pleadings and the record as a whole, that: 1) the Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action; 2) the purpose and provisions of the ADEA will be promoted and effectuated by the entry of this Consent Decree; and 3) this Consent Decree resolves all matters in controversy between the parties as provided in paragraphs 1 through 14 below.
NON-ADMISSION 1. This Decree, being entered with the consent of the Commission and the Defendant, shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case and shall not be construed as an admission by the Defendant of any violation of the ADEA or any other law, rule or regulation dealing with or in connection with equal employment opportunities. Defendant denies and continues to deny that it has violated any law whatsoever, and has denied and continues to deny that it has any liability for any claim asserted in the Litigation. Similarly, consent to performance under this Decree by the Commission does not constitute an admission that any

claim asserted by it in the Litigation was not valid or that any defense of the Defendant was valid.

MONETARY RELIEF

2.

Schefenacker agrees to pay monetary relief to Janet Nedrow in the amount of

$28,500

(Twenty-eight thousand five hundred dollars). The Commission will forward a release

(see Appendix A) to Janet Nedrow for her execution after this Consent Decree has been

entered by the Court. The Commission will notify counsel for Defendant on receipt of

the release executed by Janet Nedrow and forward the original to counsel for Defendant

via regular mail. Within fourteen (14) days after counsel for Defendant receives this

release, Schefenacker shall issue a check in a lump sum and mail it via certified mail to

Nedrow’s home address, 385 Mayer Road, St. Clair, Michigan 48079. A copy of the

check shall be sent to Laurie Young, Regional Attorney, care of Nedra Campbell, Trial

Attorney, EEOC, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Detroit, Michigan 48226, within

fourteen (14) days of its issuance.

REPORTING 3. During the term of this Decree, Schefenacker agrees to provide the EEOC with quarterly
reports of any incidents of discrimination, harassment or intimidation based on age. For each incident, Schefenacker must set forth any remedial action that was taken. Schefenacker shall provide the EEOC with the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all individuals involved in the complaint, including the victim, the alleged harasser, and the members of management responsible for handling the complaint. All such reports shall be sent to Laurie Young, Regional Attorney, care of Nedra Campbell, Trial Attorney, EEOC, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Detroit, Michigan 48226, by the fifteenth (15th) day of the month after the previous quarter ends.

NON-DISCRIMINATION 4. Schefenacker will continue to comply with the ADEA. This requirement applies to
Schefenacker’s officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and any other individuals working with Schefenacker. Such compliance shall include providing a work environment free from discrimination, harassment and intimidation.

NON-RETALIATION 5. Consistent with its legal obligations, Schefenacker will not intimidate, retaliate, harass or
interfere with any person’s exercise of rights under the ADEA, because a person files charges with the EEOC, or because a person gives testimony, assists, or participates in any EEOC investigation or proceeding. This prohibition against retaliation expressly applies to Schefenacker’s directors, officers, agents, successors, assigns and employees.

TRAINING

6. Schefenacker will provide training to its managers and supervisors on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et. seq. and its prohibitions against discrimination. The training shall include a discussion of what behavior constitutes age discrimination. The training shall also include a discussion of the provisions of Schefenacker’s anti-discrimination policy. An attendance list of each individual who completed the training shall be sent to Laurie Young, Regional Attorney, care of Nedra Campbell, Trial Attorney, EEOC, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Detroit, Michigan 48226, within fifteen (15) days of the completion of the training. The training must take place within six (6) months of the signing of this Decree. In addition, Schefenacker shall provide anti-discrimination training to all new managers, supervisors, and employees within ten (10) days of his/her first day of work. This training for new employees shall include an overview of Schefenacker’s anti-discrimination policy and its complaint procedures. Finally, prior to the implementation of its next reduction-in-force (if any), even after the expiration of this Consent Decree, Schefenacker will conduct age discrimination training for all individuals responsible for deciding which employees Schefenacker terminates pursuant to the reduction-in-force.
POSTING OF NOTICE 7. Schefenacker shall continue to post the Federal 5 in 1 Labor Law Poster.
DURATION 8. The provisions of this Consent Decree shall remain in full force and effect for one (1)
year upon entry of the Decree.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE 9. The Court shall retain jurisdiction and will have all available equitable powers, including
injunctive relief, to enforce this Decree. Upon motion of either party, the Court may schedule a hearing for the purpose of reviewing compliance with this Decree. The parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to compliance prior to seeking review by the Court, and shall be required to give notice to each other ten (10) days before moving for such review. All parties may conduct expedited discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of determining compliance with this Decree or defending against a claim of non-compliance, with fifteen (15) business days notice for depositions, and with fifteen (15) business days for responses to written discovery.
MISCELLANEOUS 10. Each party will bear its own costs and fees. 11. If any provision of this Decree is found to be unenforceable by a Court, only the
specific provision in question shall be affected and the other enforceable provisions shall remain in full force. 12. This Decree constitutes the entire agreement and commitments of the Parties. Any modifications to this Decree must be mutually agreed upon in writing and signed by the Parties. 13. The terms of this Consent Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future

owners, officers, directors, employees, creditors, agents, trustees, administrators, successors, representatives, and assigns of Schefenacker. 14. This Consent Decree constitutes the entry of final judgment within the meaning of Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on all claims asserted in, or which might have been asserted in, this action.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
______________________________ NEDRA CAMPBELL (P58768) Trial Attorney DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building 477 Michigan Ave, Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 226-3407
Dated:

SCHEFENACKER VISIONS SYSTEMS, USA. INC. By: DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC
______________________________ TODD J. SHOUDY (P41895) JENNIFER GONZALEZ (P65527) Attorneys for Defendant 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, Michigan 48243 (313) 568-5330
Dated:

IT IS SO ORDERED:
s/Patrick J. Duggan Patrick J. Duggan United States District Judge
Dated: December 4, 2006
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on December 4, 2006, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marilyn Orem Case Manager

APPENDIX A RELEASE

In consideration of the payment to me by Schefenacker Vision Systems USA, Inc. (hereinafter “Schefenacker” or “Defendant”) of $28,500, and in consideration of the Consent Decree agreed to by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Civil Action 2:06-CV12123, entered by the Court on the ___ day of _____________________ 2006, of which this Release is a part, I, Janet Nedrow, hereby fully and forever release and discharge Schefenacker, its affiliated companies, and any affiliated or parent corporations, and their successors and assigns, including their present and former directors, officers, shareholders, employees and agents, from any claim or obligation based on unlawful employment discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et. seq.
I agree that I will be solely and individually responsible for paying any applicable income taxes which may be due and owing, if any, as a result of Defendant’s payment of the above sum. I acknowledge that I have not relied on any representations made by Defendant or the EEOC relating in any way to the tax treatment of the payments pursuant to this agreement.
I have read this Release and I execute it voluntarily, without coercion or threat of reprisal.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Release is signed and executed by me on the __________ day of _______________________________, 2006.

_________________________________________

Janet Nedrow

County of

)

) SS

State of Michigan

)

Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____

day of ___________________, 2006. Notary Public.

County of __________________________________

Commission Expires: _____________________

 </s> CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?939025628222053-L_3...

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv-12123-PJD-VMM

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Schefenacker Vision Systems USA, Incorporated Assigned to: Honorable Patrick J Duggan Referred to: Honorable Virginia M Morgan Cause: No cause code entered

Date Filed: 05/09/2006 Date Terminated: 12/04/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Nedra D. Campbell Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-3410 Email: nedra.campbell@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dale R. Price, Jr. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Suite 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-7808 Email: dale.price@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 09/28/2006

V.
Defendant Schefenacker Vision Systems USA, Incorporated

represented by Jennifer H. Gonzalez Dykema Gossett 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, MI 48243-1668 313-568-6800 Email: jgonzalez@dykema.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd J. Shoudy Fletcher, Fealko,

1 of 3

6/6/2007 12:30 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?939025628222053-L_3...

522 Michigan Street Port Huron, MI 48060 810-987-8444 Email: tshoudy@fletcherclark.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/09/2006 05/25/2006 05/25/2006 05/30/2006 06/13/2006 06/13/2006
08/21/2006 09/28/2006 09/28/2006 09/29/2006 10/02/2006 11/30/2006

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Schefenacker Vision Systems USA, Incorporated.(BSoc, ) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
2 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by Schefenacker Vision Systems USA, Incorporated.(Shoudy, Todd) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer H. Gonzalez on behalf of Schefenacker Vision Systems USA, Incorporated. (Gonzalez, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
4 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Scheduling Conference set for 6/13/2006 03:00 PM before Honorable Patrick J Duggan. (MOre, ) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
Minute Entry -Scheduling Conference held on 6/13/2006 before Honorable Patrick J Duggan. (MOre, ) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
5 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/2/2007 02:15 PM before Honorable Patrick J Duggan. Dispositive Motion Cut-off set for 12/15/2006 Discovery due by 11/30/2006, Trial set for January/February, 2007. Signed by Honorable Patrick J Duggan. (Refer to image for additional dates)(MOre, ) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
6 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Honorable Patrick J Duggan. (MOre, ) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
7 WITNESS LIST by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Price, Dale) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
8 [FILING ERROR - DOCUMENT TITLED SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY]NOTICE of Withdrawal of Attorney Dale R. Price, Jr by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Price, Dale) . (Entered: 09/28/2006)
9 WITNESS LIST by Schefenacker Vision Systems USA, Incorporated (Gonzalez, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
10 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information by Nedra D. Campbell on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Campbell, Nedra) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
11 [FILING ERROR - STIPULATED ORDER SENT IN VIOLATION OF RULE 11] CONSENT DECREE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Campbell, Nedra) Modified on 11/30/2006 (DWor, ). (Entered: 11/30/2006)

2 of 3

6/6/2007 12:30 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?939025628222053-L_3...

12/04/2006

12 CONSENT DECREE Signed by Honorable Patrick J Duggan. (MOre, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/06/2007 13:33:15

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:06-cv-12123-PJD-VMM

Billable Pages:

1

Cost:

0.08

3 of 3

6/6/2007 12:30 PM


[CONTENT] May 2006 | EEOC | Detroit | the U.S. District Court | the Eastern District | Michigan | Shefenacker Vision Systems USA, Inc. | the Age Discrimination | ADEA ||| EEOC | sixty years old ||| November 2006 ||| 28,500 ||| ADEA | EEOC ||| 2006 | last 2007 |||  [SUMMARY] In May 2006, the EEOC's Detroit office filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Shefenacker Vision Systems USA, Inc. alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  The EEOC alleged that the defendant had fired a woman during a reduction-in-force event solely because she was sixty years old.  The parties came to an agreement in the form of a consent decree in November 2006, which was adopted by the court.  The decree ordered the defendant to pay the complainant $28,500 in monetary relief and enjoined the defendant from discriminating or retaliating in the future.  Further, the defendant was ordered to institute an ADEA training program for its supervisors and managers, post a notice of equal employment rights in its place of business and provide the EEOC with reports on each incidence of discrimination based on race and all remedial action taken.

The decree was entered in 2006 and scheduled to last 2007. No further docket entries exist, so the case is closed.