Appendix — Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Wetzel

Supreme Court brief1976

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Pe FS oe

. Supreme Court of the Gnited States

by acs? Octoser TERM, 1974.

No. 74-1246

3 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

é : A CORPORATION,

ae. | Petitioner,

SANDRA WETZEL anp MARI ROSS, oN BEHALF OF.

a | THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

eg ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT

IN THE

Supreme Court of the GQnited States

OcTOBER TERM, 1974.

No. 74-1245

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

A CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

vs.

SANDRA WETZEL AnD MARI ROSS, ON BEHALF OF

THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.

INDEX

PAGE

EE cnn Un hee hns senses venestesceesesses l

DT HebetheccauGanebseeeGeaseceeccevncesess 16

PEE NO wdbnKhe ee cheese ds eeeedeeuscecesecoceee 20

Charge Before Pa. Civil Rights Commission ........... 24

Deposition of K. D. Spaulding, 10/17/72 ............. 26

Deposition of K. D. Spaulding, 11/27/72 ............. 81

Motion for Summary Judgment ...............0.20008, 84

Exhibit E Attached Thereto .................45- 86

Exhibit H Attached Thereto ..............00000. 88

Exhibit I Attached Thereto .................2.. 90

Exhibit J Attached Thereto ..........e+eeeeeees 92

Exhibit K Attached Thereto ...........0eeeeeees 94

Exhibit L Attached Thereto ..........eeeeeeeees 96

Exhibit M Attached Thereto ..........++eeeeeees 98

Charge of Discrimination—EEOC—Sandra Wetzel ...... 102

Charge of Discrimination—EEOC—Mari B. Ross ...... 105

Response to Motion for Summary Judgment ........... 107

Wetzel Affidavit—10/31/1973 ......... cence eeeees 101

Opinion of District Court—1/9/74 ......-0. cece eens 133

Motion for Reconsideration—1/30/74 ..........++55+ 164

Memorandum Order of District Court—2/20/74 ....... 183

Notice of Appeal... ccccccccccccccccsesssseeeue 187

Motion for Leave to Present Background Statistics and Af-

fidavit of K. D. Spaulding, Third Circuit ............ 188

Appellees’ Response in Opposition to Appellant’s Motion for

Leave to Present Background Statistics, Third Circuit 192

Appellant’s Response to Appellees’ Opposition to Motion for

Leave to Present Background Statistics, Third Circuit.. 194

Order—Third Circuit on Appellees’ Motion for Leave to

Present Background Statistics ..........-eeeeeeeee 197

Sratetes and Regulations ......csccscccsesesseaueuen 198

APPENDIX

DOCKET ENTRIES

72 169 Sandra Wetzel etc. vs. Liberty Mutual Ins.

Date

1972 Proceedings

Feb. 28—Complaint Filed ...........scccccccccces 1

Web. 26-—Gemmons Tesued ... 1.0 sce ccc ccccccces 1

Feb, 28—Pltfs Notice of service of Interrogatories to Deft

UEC sbbeeebecbecescccceccccce 2

Feb. 28—Pitfs Notice of service of Interrogatories to Deft

inns eb600000 6600000000 0-00 3

Feb. 28—Notice of taking the Depositions of Kenneth

Raymond on 4-3-72, Wilford Aune on 4-6-72, Dick

Dancer on 4-12-72 and James W. Roop on 4-17-72.. 4

Feb. 28—Plitf's Request for Production of Documents—

MECC UE hea secebccectecccccescccs 5

Feb. 28—Pitf's Motion for Class Action Determination filed 6

Mar 2—Marshal’s Form 285 returned served on deft on

DEP PEEE EER Cd 5580000 oc ceccceccces 7

Mar. 9—Praecipe for appearance of Kalvin M. Grove and

Robert A. Penney, Esqrs. as counsel for deft. filed... 8

Mar. 10—Praecipe for appearance for Liberty Mutual Ins.

Co. filed by Clem R. Kyle, Esq. ................ 9

Mar. 10—Memorandum order fixing preliminary confer-

ence of counsel for 4-4-72 at 11 A.M. (Weber, J.) .. 10

Mar. 14—Stipulation for extension of time to answer and

eee er ee sesevesedorsccccces 11

Mar. 14—Order ent. upon filing stip for extension of time,

granting time to Liberty Mutual Ins. to answer to and

including 4/20/72 (Weber, J.) ..........ee00e.

Apr. 5—Hearing on conference of counsel re deposition

held before Weber, J. and concluded Cav. Memo. filed

(protective order dictated on record of the deposi-

GD ccccnnsnscecesusecitsascednbiadabases

Apr. 5—Order ent. re pretrial schedule to be observed by

SS Geek GD. bob onesccdecsseadisecséces

Rap, TPE GS oo 2.0 bese 0neskecswnssesesses

May 1—Deft’s Answers to pltfs Interrogatories (Second

ep Ge Gos: DED cccccnccccceuwesecdteus

May 1—Deft’s Answers to pltfs Interrogatories (First Set)

See Gee, OGD ov vcsnccnseciccddcicesedbees

May 16—Proposed demand for jury trial filed by pltf. ..

May 17—Memorandum order striking proposed demand

for jury trial under Rule 383; directing that motion

be filed under Rule 393; if motion is filed, deft. to re-

spond in 15 days, matter will be decided on briefs

GWE, GaP cocucccccsccccecsensececedecance

May 22—Notice, motion for jury trial and proposed order

Sle GP GE cccdcucceceecuceacnesnuesoseoes

May 23—Order entered directing deft file a Response to

Pitfs Motion for Jury Trial on or before 6-5-72 show-

ing cause if any why the court should not order Jury

Wee GCUPEL Gat éuvocdcucedenosouceokauans

June 5—Deft’s response to pltfs’ motion for jury trial and

SONGS CUEIT ENG occ ccccccesscccecccesecees

June 9—Memorandum Order directing Pitf file reply brief

on or before 6-23-72 and court will determine matter

Gis Gee SE ckacodeccbnseseiaa enc

June 28—Deposition of Kenneth W. Raymond filed ... .

July 3—Motion for extension of time in which to file brief _

on plitfs’ rule 23 motion and proposed order filed

BP GD ivcccnvccewcdsiccscesccetssvesowssse 23A

July 5—Deft’s response to pltf's reply brief re: Demand

Gor Sary tiled 2 cccccccccccccccccccccoccccsces 24

July S—Order entered extending to 7/21/72 the time for

deft to submit brief in re Rule 23 motion (Weber,

BD nedediccccdddcdiecceseaeceicdésdcteesene 25

Aug. 1—Notice to counsel fixing argument on Motion for

Class Action for 8/16/72 at 1:30 P.M. before

We, B. cccccccccecesscteddscdsbsccbecoess 26

Aug. 4—Deposition of Kenneth W. Raymond filed ..... 27

Aug. 16—Hearing held on Motion for Class Action De-

termination and Demand for Jury Trial before Weber,

J. Hearing memo filed. (Rep. J. Lilienthal) (Con-

Gee oc ccdcceccedccudecesectsbésooess 28

Aug. 17—Memorandum Order dated 8/16/72 entered

granting pltfs Motion for determination of class

action; order is conditional, subject to further Order.

CUR, GD. ccccecvecceccceseccecdctscccccs 29

Aug. 17—Order dated 8/16/72 entered deferring determi-

nation on pltfs’ Demand for Jury Trial until pretrial

enna, Ges TaD. occce cencaceessececeoss 30

Aug. 18—Notice of taking depositions of Edmund A. Carr

on 9/11; of Daniel Phillips on 9/12 of W. Lawrence

Usher on 9/13 filed by plfs ............-00e008s 31

Aug. 29—Pltfs Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Deft-

Wee GIR GD ccccesccdcccccceccecevcesscees 32

Sept. 11—Notice, application for class notification with

proposed notice and proposed order filed by pltfs .. 33

Sept. 14—Memorandum Order entered directing that be-

fore any notice is approved by this court it will have

to consider further the proposition of the class or

SE Ge GA GD oh bo bb 56 cd ccedicecdndes

Sept. 27—Deft’s Answers to Pitf's Interrogs (Third Set)

GR, GReR. BED cccccccccscccccccavcccseces

Oct. 6—Notice of depositions of Kenneth Spaulding and

Kenneth Raymond on 10/17/72 at 10:00 A.M. and

3:00 P.M. respectively filed by Pitfs ............

Oct. 6—Notice of deposition of Marian Holliday on

10/18/72 at 2:00 P.M. filed by pltfs ............

Oct. 12—Notice, motion for production of documents and

proposed order filed by pltfs .............20005-

Oct. 13—Notice of service of Interrogs upon defts. filed

By PEMD nc ccccccccccccccccccccccccscoscceess

Oct. 16—Motion for permission to obtain discovery and

proposed order filed by deft ............---2505.

Oct. 17—Order entered directing deft to file response to

Motion for Production by 11/1/72 and moving party

file reply on or before 11/8/72. (Weber, J.) ......

Nov. 2—Response of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. to

Motion for Production of Documents, filed ........

Nov. 9—Motion for protective order and proposed order

re pitfs’ 4th set of interrogs. filed by deft ..........

Nov. 9—Order entered directing that Court will hear

counsel with respect to all pending discovery motions

on 11/27/72 at 3:30 P. M. (Weber, J.) ..........

Nov. 13—Deft’s Answers to Pltfs Interrogs filed. (Nos.

BERD cccccecescesecccccseccesesceseecesses

Nov. 14—Transcript of argument held 8/16/72 before

Weber, J. filed (Rep. L. Lilientha) ..............

Nov. 16—Deposition of Mari Ross filed ..............

Nov. 16—Deposition of Sandra Wetzel filed ..........

Nov. 16—Deposition of Wilfred B. Aune filed. (Taken

EVE UED coccecccecocceeeceesesoseceseeses

Nov. 16—Deposition of Wilfred B. Aune filed. (Taken

PPD SE bURds duckedb ud cendedsieudsésess 50

Nov. 16—Deposition of James W. Roop filed. (Taken

SORTED. BESUeReeU Nich deddkueaddnddddécdeces 51

Nov. 16—Deposition of James W. Roop filed. (Taken

gg EE er rn eer ee 52

Nov. 16—Deposition of Richard R. Danser, filed. (Taken

fg OPE eee TCC TTT TTT ee 53

Nov. 16—Deposition of Richard R. Danser, filed. (Taken

OU hic ceS Sb ON Wie cee dwSSENS 04s dace 54

Nov. 16—Deposition of Marian Holliday filed ........ 55

Nov. 27—Hearing held on Motion for Production, Motion

for Permission to Obtain Discovery and Motion for

Protective Order before Weber, J. and taken Cav.

(Memo filed) (Rep. None) ...............00.. 56

Dec. 19—Transcript of Oral Argument held 11/27/72

before Weber, J. filed. (Rep: M. Mimless) ........ 57

Dec. 19——Notice of fifth set of interrogs to deft filed by

Se ddddcéhebdeddeoUedcddcacncenecsesveess 58

Dec. 21—Deposition of Daniel D. Phillips filed ........ 59

Dec. 21—Deposition of Edmund A. Carr filed ......... 60

Dec. 21—Continued Deposition of Edmund A. Carr filed 61

1973

Jan. 18—Motion for Protective Order filed by deft ...... 62

Jan. 19—Deft’s Answers to Pitfs Interrogs filed. (Nos.

1-46) (Fifth Set of Interrogs) .................. 63

Jan. 22—Protective Order entered directing that deft’s

answer to pltfs interrogatory fifth Set No. 21 be

placed in a sealed envelope and marked “To Be

Opened Only as Directed by the Court. (Weber, J.) 63A

Jan. 30—Deposition of Kenneth Spaulding filed ........ 64

Jan. 30—-Continued Deposition of Kenneth W. Raymond

4t lg. BPPPPPTTTITRITITL TTT eT

Feb. 2—Letter of 1/31/73 to Clerk with Sealed Fifth Set

of Interrog No. 21 to Pltf with deft’s answer thereon

filed. (Placed in Safe per Order of 1/22/73) ......

Feb. 7—Memorandum Order entered Granting defts

Motion for Protective Order in answering questions

7, 8, 9 and 10 of the 4th Set of Interrogs. (Weber, J.)

Mar. 12—Motion for Reconsideration filed by Pitf. ....

Mar. 20—Conference of Counsel held 3/19/73 before

Weber, J. and concluded. (Memo filed) (Rep: None)

Mar. 22—Order entered denying Pltf’s Motion for Recon-

sideration of its Memorandum Order of 2/17/73.

(Waban, 3.) ccccccccccccnccccnccccccccccses

Mar. 26—Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Pitfs . .

Mar. 30—Order entered directing plts; submit brief in re

motion for summary judgment by 4/30/73; deft. by

S/1S/TS. CWeleat, F.) co vccccccccccccccsccecces

April 4—Notice of deposition of Mary Kay Reardon on

5/10/73 at 9:00 A.M. filed by deft ............

April 4—Notice of deposition of Alice Welch on 6/5/73

at 9:00 A.M. filed by deft ...........eeeeeeeee

April 4—Notice of deposition of Marilyn A. Huffstutter on

5/8/73 at 9:00 A.M. filed by deft ..............

April 4—Notice of deposition of Margaret A. Hans on

5/16/73 at 9:00 A.M. filed by deft ............

April 4—Notice of deposition of Ms. Boydyne M. Ross

on 5/1/73 at 9:00 A.M. filed by deft. ..........

April 11—Notice of interrogs on pltf filed by deft ......

April 25—Stipulation for extension of time for parties to

file briefs and evidentiary materic! re motion for

summary judgment and proposed order filed .....

April 26—Order entered granting extension of time of

parties to file briefs in support of Motion for Motion

of Summary until 6/15/73; deft file their briefs ex-

tended to 7/13/73. (Weber, J.) ........0e ce eee

May 21—Motion for protective order re sealing of deposi-

tion exhibits and proposed order filed by deft ......

May 23—Pitfs Answers to Deft’s First set of Interrogs

ey ty Nn in cad ian edi nkececndctece xs

May 25—Proposed protective order filed ............

June 2i—Affidavit of Sandra Wetzel in Support of Pitfs

Motion for Summary Judgment filed ............

June 21—Affidavit of Mari Ross in support of Pitf's Motion

for Summary Judgment filed ...................

June 21—Affidavit of Howard A. Specter in Support of

Pitf's Motion for Summary Judgment filed ........

June 25—Motion for an extension of time in which to re-

spond to pltfs’ motion for summary judgment and pro-

posed order fled by deft .....cccccsccccccccees

June 27—Motion of the United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission to file a brief and present

oral argument as Amicus Curiae filed ..........

June 28—Order entered granting motion of counsel for

U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

to file brief and present oral argument as amicus

curiae. Name of Local counsel for U. S. Equal Em-

ployment Opportunity Comm. shall be noted on

docket as party to receive copy of all notices and

pleadings in this case. (Weber, J.) ..............

June 28—Order entered setting hearing on Motion for

Summary Judgment for 9/24/73 at 9:30 a.m. (Web-

rer rr eee een ne

June 29—Protective Order entered 6/28/73 directing that

all personnel files being marked as exhibits to the de-

positions of deft’s present and past employees and all

statements being marked and attached as exhibits be

placed in a sealed envelope and filed with the Clerk of

the Court and marked (To Be Opened Only as Di-

rected by the Court). (Weber, J.) .........-..45.

July 5—Deft’s Amended Answers to Pitf’s Fifth Set of

GE PPPPTUTTITITIT TTT TTT TTT TT Tee

July 16—Discovery Deposition of Boydyne Ross with

Amendment and exhibits attached thereto filed. (Ex’s

marked Only to Be Opened by Court Order) ......

July 16—Ex’s received from Commerce Reporting Com-

pany. (Large envel placed in file) (Marked To Be

Opened as Directed by the Court) ..............

July 16—Deposition of Mary Kelly filed ..............

July 19—Deposition of Diane C. Turnipseed filed ......

July 19—Deposition of Marilyn A. Huffstutter filed ....

July 19—Deposition of Donna Diklich filed ...........

July 19—Exhibits to Deposition of Marilyn A. Huffstutter

filed. (Placed in Safe—Marked to be opened only as

directed by the Court) (2 envelopes) ............

July 19—Exhibits to Deposition of Diane A. Turnipseed

filed. (Placed in Safe—Marked to be opened only as

directed by the Court) (1 envelope) ............

July 19—Exhibits to Deposition of Donna Diklich filed

(Placed in Safe—Marked to be opened only as

directed by the Court) (1 envelope) ............

July 23—Deposition of Mary Kay Reardon filed ........

July 23—Exhibits to Deposition of Mary Kay Reardon

filed. (Marked, To Be Opened Only as Directed by

the Court) (Placed in Safe) ..............000.

July 27—Deposition of Carol Dolaoglu filed ..........

July 31—Deposition of Zoanne Salter filed ............

July 31—Deposition of Ethel Smith filed ............ 97

July 31—Exhibits to Deposition of Zoanne Salter filed.

Marked “To Be Opened only as directed by Court.”

1 envelope. (Placed in safe) .........20eeeeeee

July 31—Exhibits to Deposition of Ethel Smith filed.

Marked “To Be Opened only as directed by Court.”

1 envelope. (Placed in safe) ............00008.

Aug. 17—Notice, motion for amendment of memorandum

order on pltfs’ motion to determine class action and

proposed order filed by pltfs ...............45. 98

Aug. 27—Order entered fixing hearing on Motion to Mod-

ify for 9/24/73 at 9:30 A.M. (Weber, J.) ........ 98A

Aug. 31—Motion of the Chamber of Commerce of the

United States for Leave to Participate as Amicus

= PPP errPrr rrr errr Prrererrry Terr Tee ere 99

Sept. 4—Response of Deft to Pitfs Motion to Summary

FURMITE GE ccc ccccctcccccccnccecsoccencs 100

Sept. 4—Certificate of service of Motion of Chamber of

Commerce of the U. S. for Leave to Participate as

Amicus Curiae and Brief of the Chamber of Com-

merce of the U. S. in support of the deft filed ...... 101

Sept. 12—Notice rescheduling hearing set for 9/24/73 at

9:30 A.M. to 9/24/73 at 11:00 A.M. before Weber,

DB TD ccccdccccaveccscedécceeesecceecesces 102

Sept. 14—Response of Deft to Motion for Amendment of

Memorandum Order on Pitfs Motion to Determine

Gs A GD cc ccccccccccctceseccciovdes 103

Sept. 20—Deposition of Carolyn Ann Pastore filed .... 104

Sept. 20—Deposition of Carol Rusching Tilley filed .... 105

Sept. 20—Deposition of Alice Welch filed ............ 106

Sept. 20—Deposition of Lenore King filed ............ 107

Sept. 20—Deposition of Margaret Gail Martin filed .... 108

Sept. 20—Exhibits to Deposition of M. Gail Martin filed.

(Marked To Be Opened Only as Directed by the

Gee Ge BR OD oo dcccccuséwdubennssca:

Sept. 20—Exhibits to Deposition of Alice Welch filed.

(Marked to be Opened Only as Directed by the

Court) (Placed in safe) .........c.cceeee aeeaes

Sept. 20—Exhibits to Deposition of Carolyn Ann Pastore

filed (Marked to be opened only as Directed by the

ee NEED bcincucciadcdeecuanaas

Sept. 20—Exhibits to Deposition of Carol Rusching Tilley

filed. (Marked to be opened only as directed by the

Court) (Placed in safe) .....................

Sept. 20—Exhibits to Deposition of Lenore G. King filed.

(Marked to be opened only as directed by the Court)

Pe ee ED eit cata ade cascccuekane coe.

Oct. 2—Notice fixing arg. on 10/31/73 at 9:30 A.M. be-

Se SN Waaddedbveenuccn une we 109

Oct. 29—Deft’s Further Amended Answers to Pltf’s In-

terrogs (Fifth Set) filed ..... ccc cccccccccccce 110

Oct. 31—Hearing held on Motion for Summary Judgment;

Motion to Amendment of Memorandum Order -

Pitfs Motion to Determine Class Action; Motion of

Chamber of Commerce of U. S. for Leave to Par-

ticipate as Amicus Curiae before Weber, J. and

taken Cav. (Memo filed) (Rep: M. Cutright).... 111

Nov. 1—Affidavit of Sandra Wetzel filed ............ 112

Nov. 16—Order entered fixing Conference of Counsel for

12/3/73 at 1:30 P.M. (Weber, J.)

Nov. 20—Letter dated 11/19/73 from Howard A. Specter

Esqr to Kalvin Grove, Esar filed

Dec. 3—Notice, motion for reconsiderati

’ on and proposed

order filed by pltfs. oe,

- ne te new elite el

Dec. 3—Notice, motion for an order compelling discovery

(production of documents) and proposed order filed

by pltfs, ..... cece cece cece ee ereceeeeneecnes

Dec. 3—Conference of Counsel held before Weber, J. and

taken Cav. (Memo filed) (Rep: M. Cutright) ....

Dec. 4—Pift’s Request for Production of Documents

(Second Set) filed .......eeeececeereneeceeces

Dec. 5—Notice, and Motion for Leave to Withdraw Re-

quest for Jury Trial with proposed order thereon

filed by Pltfs .......seeeee cece cece ecerceeces

Dec. 5—Order entered Granting Motion to Withdraw Re-

quest for Jury Trial. (Weber, J.) ......+++++++-

Dec. 6—Memorandum Order entered on Pending Matters

directing that Order of 8/16/72 be amended; deft

to respond to Pitfs motion showing cause by

12/17/73; deft shall produce for inspection any copy-

ing by Pitf’s counsel all statements taken by the deft.

(Walbet, 3.) .cccccccccccccccccvcscccsccccess 1

Dec. 14—Notice of taking depositions of Frank L. Farwell

1/7/74 at 10 A.M.; John F. Robinson 1/10/74 at

10 A.M..; Raymond O. Hollis 2/11/74 at 10 A.M.;

John P. Larrabee 2/13/74 at 10:00 A.M.; William

A. Herrick 2/19/74 10 A.M. filed by pltf. .......

Dec. 17—Response of deft. to motion for an order com-

pelling discovery filed ......+-++seeeeeeeeeeeees

Dec. 17—Motion for reconsideration of that portion of the

memorandum order of 12-6-73 pertaining to the pro-

duction of statements from deft’s employees filed by

ee. oononebbces cueusesesédocesesccnszeswes

Dec. 19—Notice of service of interrogs to deft (Sixth Set)

filed by pltf. 2.02... cee cece e cree renee ee eeeee

Dec. 26—Motion for order that deposition not be taken

filed by deft. (deposition of Frank L. Farwell) ......

116

117

118

119

19A

120

121

Dec. 27—Stipulation for extension of time for deft. to

respond to pltfs’ request for production of documents

—second set and proposed order filed ............ 125

Dec. 28—Order entered granting Stip. for Extension of

time until 2/4/74 for deft. to respond to pltf’s request

for production of documents. (Weber, J.) .......

1974

Jan. 2—Letter dated 12/28/73 from Atty Specter to

Judge Weber filed. ......... 2. cee ee cece eeeees 126

Jan. 8—Notice of Deposition of John F. Robinson on

1/24/74 at 9:30 A.M. filed by Pltf. ............. 127

Jan. 9—Opinion filed and Order entered; deft found to

have violated Civil Rights Act: violations of Title

VII found in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Order have

ceased as a matter of Company practice and no in-

junctive relief with respect to these issues is appropri-

ate; the question of liability and appropriate relief for

the issues of equal pay for equal work between male

and female employees is reserved for further proceed-

ings. (Weber, J.) ..ccccccccccccccccccccwccees 128

Jan. 9—Order entered fixing meeting of counsel for

1/24/74 at 3:30 P.M. (Weber, J.) ......eceeee08. 129

*Jan. 10—Supplement To the Brief of the Chamber of

Commerce of the United States of America as Ami-

cus Curiae. In support of the Deft. filed ........... 129

*Jan. 10—Pltfs Brief in Support of Motion for Summary

Judgment filed. (Transcript form) .............

*Jan. 10—Brief of the Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America. As Amicus Curiae in Sup-

port Gf Gis Thee Gee on ccccccccceseccccocvese 129D

*Jan. 10—Pitf's Reply Brief in Support of Motion of Sum-

I FI GD 6 b'6:5 6 hk ccectncacecesendi 129E

~~. Sli cay tctia s Par A ania, A lo

*Jan. 10—Supplemental Brief of the United States Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission as Amicus

SE SEE peSeeeb ones eeebeeseesé tm eccescons 129E

*Jan. 10—Brief On Behalf of the United States Equal Em-

ployment Opportunity Commission in Support of Pitf’s

Motion for Summary Judgment filed ............. 129F

NOTE: THE ABOVE BRIEFS MARKED WITH *

WERE STAMPED FILED BY JUDGE WEBER’S

SE Abe 1a055s 6b 6KU6065 0055000000000 129G

Jan. 15—Notice, application for injunctive relief and pro-

i ee Cr Oe re cc acccnscuscesecceses 130

Jan. 17—Stipulation for extension of time for deft. to

respond to interrogatories and proposed order filed .. 131

Jan. 17—Order entered extending time for deft to respond

to interrogs until 2/20/74. (Weber, M) .........

Jan. 24—Deft’s Answers to Pltfs interrogs (Sixth Set)

ee bs ied ene e ee peesenseees 132

*Jan. 24—Notice of Appeal from Part of Order filed by

Dh Riba eS Shep 4bEEE SKE CSc 0-0.06400 006 133

Jan. 24—Copy of Notice mailed Court of Appeals; letter

& copy to counsel and copy of notice given to Judge

WT SMSC UEGGAS ODE ESEEbESGOS EO CR S<oece Cs

Jan. 24—$250.00 costs bond posted. (Surety-Fidelity &

Deposit Company of Maryland) ................ 133A

Jan. 25—Conference of Counsel held 1/24/74 before

Weber, J. and concluded (Memo filed) (Rep: M.

EY Dau bbb eOSUGh 4 bUb 644454064 6-06.0006% 134

Jan. 29—Memorandum order entered directing deft. pro-

duce requested notes for inspection. by court by

2/15/74; discovery stayed except discovery limited to

equal pay issue; discovery on liability and damages in

equal pay issue ends 4/15/74; pltf’s pretrial narrative

Jan.

Feb.

due 4/23/74; deft’s 4/30/74; parties shall stand

ready for trial on the equal pay issue on or after

$/13/74 (Weber, 5.) occcccccccscwccssesesses

30—Copy of notice of service of interrogs. upon plts

filed by Golf. ..ccccccccccccccccssccssesesses

31—Transcript of hearing held 12/3/74 before

Weber, J. filed (Rep. M. Cutright) ..............

1—Motion for reconsideration filed by deft. .......

6—Notice. motion to compel answers to interroga-

tories and proposed order filed by pltfs. ...........

8—Motion for reconsideration of order allowing the

equal pay issue to proceed as a class action filed

Dy Galt. ..cccccccccesccesseeu eee e nnn

15—Deft’s Response to Pltfs Motion to Compel

Answers to Interrogs filed. .........00eeeeeeees

19—Motion filed and Order entered directing that

time to file record in Ct. of appeals be extended to

3/18/74 (Wened, 5.) «ocesceseceuesneenneenen

19—Cert. copy of Motion and Order sent to Ct. of

| Pett tsi‘

20—Memorandum filed and ORDER entered direct-

ing that final judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs,

that defs policy of requiring female employees to

return to work within 3 mos. of delivery of child or be

terminated is in violation of provisions of Title VII of

Civil Rights Act of 1964; that def’s policy of denying

disability income protection plan benefits to female

employees for disabilities related to pregnancies or

childbirth are in violation of Title VII & directed that

judgment entered for plaintiffs upon these claims of

plfs’ complaint. (Weber, J.) Motion for Reconsidera-

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

lon is Gomfed, ..cccccoccccecessen ee 143

Feb. 20—Pursuant to Memorandum filed and Order

entered and Judgment by Decision of the Court filed

by the Clerk Judgment is hereby entered accordingly

DU PPPCEEESESSeSGeCeeceoesoccccececes 144

Bernhard Schaffler, Clerk

Feb. 21—Pitfs interrog’s to Deft with answers thereon.

sixth set (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 21, 22 and 38) filed .. 145

Feb. 26—Original record mailed U. S. Court of Appeals. .

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the Western District of Pennsylvania

SANDRA WETZEL and MARI Ross, on )

behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 4

Civil Action No.

72 169

Civil Rights Action

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COM-

PANY, a Corporation,

Defendant. J

COMPLAINT

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28

U. S.C. § 1343(4); 42 U. S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U. S. C.

§§ 2201 and 2202. This suit is authorized and instituted pur-

suant to Title VII of the Act of Congress known as “The Civil

Rights Act of 1964,” 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e et seq. The juris-

diction of this Court is invoked to secure protection of and to

redress deprivation of rights secured by (a) 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e

et seq., providing for relief against discrimination in employment

and (b) 42 U. S. C. § 1981, providing for the equal rights of

all persons in every state and territory within the jurisdiction of

the United States.

2. Plaintiff, Sandra Wetzel, is an individual residing at

1071 Lindendale Drive, Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania 15243.

3. Plaintiff, Mari Ross, is an individual residing at 1308

Pennnsbury Boulevard, Crafton, Pennsylvania 15205.

4. Defendant is a corporation which does business in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the City of Pittsburgh.

Defendant is engaged in the business of operating a liability

insurance underwriting business. As such, it maintains and

operates offices throughout the United States. One of such

offices is located at 717 Liberty Avenue in the City of Pitts-

burgh, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

5. Plaintiffs are female employees of defendant. Plaintiff,

Sandra Wetzel, has been employed in the position of claim

representative since Juiy, 1967. Plaintiff, Mari Ross, has been

employed in the position of claims representative since Janu-

ary, 1970. Prior thereto, she was similarly employed from

September, 1967, to April, 1968. At all times relevant hereto,

plaintiffs and the other members of their class, have been dis-

criminated against by defendant with respect to compensation,

terms, conditions, privileges, and opportunities of employment

and have been subject to those illegal acts, practices, and con-

duct alleged in Paragraph 11 of this Complaint.

6. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of 42

U. S. C. § 2000e-(b) in that it is engaged in an industry affect-

ing commerce and, at all times relevant hereto, has employed

at least 100 persons.

7. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as

representatives of a class as defined by Rule 23, Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. The class consists of all women currently

employed or who, since July 2, 1965, have been employed by

defendant in positions classified by defendant as “claims-techni-

cal”, including, but not limited to the positions of claims repre-

sentatives and supervisors. Plaintiffs are unable to state the

exact number of the class without discovery of defendant’s books

and records, but aver on information and belief that the class

exceeds two thousand members. The members of the class are

sO numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all be-

fore the Court. There are liability and damage questions of

law and fact common to the class which predominate over any

questions affecting individual members only. Defendant has

acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the

class.

8. The claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of

the claims of the class, and plaintiffs will fairly and adequately

protect the interests of the class.

9. The prosecution of separate actions by individual mem-

bers of the class would create the risk of:

(a) inconsistent or varying adjudications in different juris-

dictions with respect to individual members of the

class which would establish incompatible standards

of conduct for defendant; and

(b) adjudications with respect to individual members of

the class which would, as a practical matter, be dis-

positive of the interests of the members not parties

to the adjudications, or substantially impair or im-

pede their ability to protect their interests.

10. The class action is superior to other available methods

for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

11. At all times relevant hereto, defendant has enacted and

effected national policies and practices of unlawful and syste-

matic exclusion of and discrimination against women as a class

by inter alia:

(a) hiring women at lower rank and at lower pay than

comparably trained and qualified men;

(b) failing to pay to women the same amount in salary

raises as is paid to comparably trained and qualified

men;

ing positions in the same manner and at the same

rate as comparably trained and qualified men;

(d) paying wages to women employees at rates less than

the rates at which it pays wages to male employees

for equal work in jobs requiring equal skill, effort

and responsibilities and which are performed under

similar working conditions;

(e) failing to equalize conditions of employment for

women as contrasted with comparably trained and

qualified men;

Te Be) ee Le ee

(f) failing to make available to women certain positions,

including, but not limited to, the positions of field

adjuster, claims manager, assistant claims manager,

and appraiser;

(g) adopting unreasonable, unwarranted and arbitrary

standards and conditions of employment and advance-

ment designed to discriminate in favor of men.

12. By letters of February 15, 1972, plaintiffs were notified,

pursuant to Section 1601.25a(c) of Title 29 of the Rules and

Regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

of their right to institute this action.

Wherefore, plaintiffs pray judgment against defendant and in

favor of plaintiffs and each member of their class:

(a) requiring that defendant establish non-discriminatory

hiring, payment, opportunity, and promotional plans and pro-

grams,

(b) enjoining the continuance by defendant of the illegal

acts and practices alleged herein;

the members of the class the damages sustained by plaintiffs

and the members of the class by reason of defendant's illegal

acts and practices, including adjusted backpay, with interest, and

an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and exem-

plary damages;

(d) requiring that defendant pay to plaintiffs and to the

members of the class the costs of this suit and a reasonable

attorneys’ fee, with interest; and

(e) such other and further relief as the Court deems ap-

propriate.

LITMAN LITMAN Harris & FINE, PERLOW, STONE &

SPECTER COHEN

By /s/ (Illegible) By /s/ Robert F. Stone

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES District CourRT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-

cedure Liberty Mutual Insurance Company answers the Com-

plaint filed against it on February 28, 1972 as follows:

1. It admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the

Complaint.

2. It admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the

Complaint.

3. It admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the

Complaint.

4. It admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the

Complaint.

5. It denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the

Complaint.

6. It admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the

Complaint.

7. It denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the

Complaint and preserves until July 14, 1972 its further Answer

pursuant to the order of the Honorable Gerald J. Weber en-

tered in this cause on April 5, 1972.

8. It denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the

Complaint and preserves until July 14, 1972 its further Answer

pursuant to the order of the Honorable Gerald J. Weber entered

in this cause on April 5, 1972.

9. It denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9(a)

and 9(b) of the Complaint and preserves until July 14, 1972

its further Answer pursuant to the order of the Honorable

Gerald J. Weber entered in this cause on April 5, 1972.

10. It denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10

of the Complaint and preserves until July 14, 1972 its further

Answer pursuant to the order of the Honorable Gerald J. Weber

entered in this cause on April 5, 1972.

11. It denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11(a),

(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Complaint.

12. It does not have sufficient knowledge of the allegations

contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint to admit or deny.

Pleading further, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company al-

leges as its affirmative defenses:

1. That pay differentials that are authorized under the

Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U. S. C. Sec. 206(d)) are not a

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That

under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 employees who are bona

fide executive, administrative and professional employees are

exempt from the provisions of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and

non-exempt employees cannot be compared to them to deter-

mine if a violation of the Act is present. Employees with the

title of Division Claims Manager, Assistant Division Claims

Manager, Adjuster and Appraiser are exempt under the provi-

sions of 29 U. S. C. Sec. 213 (a)(1). Employees with the

title of Claims Representative are not exempt under the provi-

sions of 29 U. S. C. Sec. 213(a)(1).

2. That employees with the title of Claims Representative

are performing functions which do not require in their per-

formance the same skill, effort and responsibility as is required

by the functions performed by employees with the title of Divi-

sions Claims Manager, Assistant Division Claim Manager, Ad-

juster and Appraiser.

3. That employees with the title of Division Claims Man-

ager, Assistant Division Claim Manager, Adjuster and Ap-

praiser are performing functions in working conditions that are

not similar to those in which employees with the title of Claims

Representative are performing their functions.

4. That the amount of compensation paid to employees is

based upon factors other than sex, including but not limited

to skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.

Wherefore, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company prays that

because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted, that said Complaint be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

By /s/ KALVIN M. Grove

Kalvin M. Grove

LEDERER, Fox AND GROVE

111 West Washington Street

Chicago, Illinois 60602

312-641-0200

ROBERT A. PENNEY

175 Berkeley Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02116

CLEM R. KYLE

1305 Clark Building

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Dated: April 18, 1972.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing An-

swer to Complaint was served by first class mail upon

Howard A. Spector

Litman, Litman, Harris and Spector

1320 Grant Building

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219

on April 18, 1972.

/s/ Mlegible

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION

Room 810—4 Smithfield Street

Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222

Tel: (412) 565-5395

July 1, 1971

Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies

717 Liberty Avenue

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Re: Docket E-4256

Wetzel and Ross vs.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Gentlemen:

This is to inform you that we have had a complaint filed

with our agency by the above individuals. A copy of the com-

plaint is enclosed for your review.

To expedite matters, we would like you to complete this

interrogatory and return it to this office within fitfeen (15) days.

After we receive this form, an investigator from this office

will be assigned to meet with you to gather facts pertinent to

this case.

Your cooperation will be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ SAMUEL J. KuBRICK

Samuel J. Kubrick

Compliance Specialist

Enc.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION

SANDRA WETZEL and MARI Ross.

(Complainant)

vs.

; Docket No. E-4256

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANIES

(Respondent) a

COMPLAINT

Employment [] Housing [7] Public Accommodations [] Edu-

cation . . . Because of the [7] Race, ["] Color, [7] Religious Creed,

[_] National Origin, [7] Ancestry, [] Age, or [x] Sex, of the

complainant.

1. The Complainant here is Sandra Wetzel; One Dorchester

Drive; Apartment 208; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15241, and

Mari Ross; 1308 Pennsbury Boulevard South; Pittsburgh, Penn-

sylvania 15205.

2. The Respondent herein is Liberty Mutual Insurance

Companies; 717 Liberty Avenue; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

15222.

3. The Complainant alleges that the respondent maintains

sex segregated job classifications and by so doing, limits female

employees as a class to lower paying job classifications, and

limits their opportunities for promotions and salary increments.

The complainants further allege that female applicants, as a

condition of hire, are subjected to inquiries about anticipated

marriage and family size, while men are not similarly evaluated

as a condition of hire.

4. The Complainant alleges that the alleged unlawful dis-

criminatory practice:

[ ] took place on or about 0

is of a continuing nature which has persisted up to and

including the present time.

5. No other action based on these allegations has been in-

stituted by the Complainant in any Court or before any other

Comission within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania except

as follows:

["] None

Ra ee SRR er ete N ea ee

6. Such action complained of is a violation of:

Section 5(a) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act,

Act of October 27, 1955, P. L. 744, as amended by

the Act of February 28, 1961, P. L. 47 and as further

amended by the Act of July 9, 1969, P. L. 133.

[_]} Section —.___ of the Pennsylvania Fair Educational

Opportunities Act (Act of July 17, 1961, P. L. 776).

/8/ SANDRA WITZEL

(Signature of Complainant)

Date: 5-11-71

/s/ Mari Ross

(Signature of Complainant)

Date: 5-11-71

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11th day of May,

1971.

/s/ HELEN M. SNYDER

Notary Public

My Commission expires

IN THE UNITED STATES District Court.

* * (Caption—72-169) * *

DEPOSITION OF KENNETH SPAULDING

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1972 .

The deposition of Kenneth Spaulding, witness herein, called

by the plaintiffs for examination under the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, taken before me, the undersigned, Dorothy

Johnson, a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, pursuant to notice, at the offices of Litman, Lit-

man, Harris & Specter, 1320 Grant Building, Pittsburgh, Penn-

sylvania, commencing at 10:30 o'clock a.m., the day and date

above set forth.

[2] Appearances:

On behalf of the plaintiffs: Litman, Litman, Harris &

Specter: Howard A. Specter, Esquire, 1320 Grant Build-

ing, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219

On behalf of the defendant: Kalvin M. Grove, Esquire,

Chicago Title & Trust Building, 111 West Washington

Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602

Robert A Penney, Esquire, Corporation Counsel.

INDEX

Witness: Page

Kenneth Spaulding

Examination by Mr. Specter ............... 3, 84

Examination by Mr. Grove ................ 83

Witness directed not to answer on Pages 17, 53, 68, 73, 74

and 84. Request for production of documents on Page 37.

[3] PROCEEDINGS

KENNETH SPAULDING witness herein, called by the plain-

tiffs for examination under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

having been first duly sworn, as hereinafter certified, was ex-

amined and testified as follows:

Examination By Mr. Specter:

State your full name, please.

Kenneth D. as in David, Spaulding.

Where do you live?

20 Jeffrey Road, Wayland, Massachusetts.

Have you ever testified before?

No.

How long have you lived at that address?

Since 1960.

With whom do you live there?

My wife.

How old are you?

60.

What is your educational background?

I graduated from the University of Vermont in June

] 1934.

In what field did you receive a degree?

I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics.

Have you had any postgraduate training or studies in

the field of economics since that time?

No, sir.

Are you presently employed?

Yes, sir I am.

By whom?

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

In what capacity?

Manager, personnel services.

OPODTPOPOPOPOPOPOPO

>O>O>O>D

Who is your immediate superior?

Melvin B. Bradshaw.

What is his title?

Executive vice president,

How long have you been employed by Liberty Mutual

Insurance Company?

A. Since June 19th, 1934.

Q. Is that the first full-time employment you had after being

graduated from college?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Would you recite for me, the history of your employ-

ment [5] with Liberty Mutual, tell me what positions you held

and where you held them and during what periods of time you

held them?

You have heard this before, so you know what I want.

A. Claims training class, from June 19th until approxi-

mately the Ist of August. Then I was transferred—

Mr. Grove: What year?

The Witness: 1934, I am sorry.

A. Then I was transferred to Philadelphia and I was there

until approximately April 1, 1937 as a claims adjuster and I

was transferred back to Boston and I worked as a claims ad-

juster from that date until about September, 1937 when I

became a supervisor in the Boston Claims Department.

I remained there until 1944 when I went to the home office

as a home office claims examiner. I was there two years, ap-

proximately two years and a half.

Then I returned in the spring of 1946, I believe, to the

Boston Claims then as the chief adjuster, the same job that

is now known as assistant claims manager.

I became claims manager in the Boston Claims Office in

1949 until I was transferred to New York as administrative

assistant in the New York Division and I remained there until

April Ist, 1960 when I was transferred to the home office again

in Boston as manager of personnel services.

OrFrOPoO

[6] Q. And you have been manager of personnel services

since April of 1960?

A. Correct.

Q. Is there a written job description for your job?

A. Apparently not. I thought there was but I couldn't

find one.

Q. Why did you think there was?

A. Because I thought at the time of my transfer, there

was an organizational bulletin put out that I was moving

from New York to Boston and I thought there was something

in there about it but that is not so.

Q. Would you tell me what duties and functions you per-

formed as manager of personnel services?

A. Well, perhaps, I could start with telling you of the

people who report to me, what they do.

Q. Okay.

A. One person reporting to me is director of company

safety, safety director for the company. Another one is coordi-

nator of benefit plans and he handles all of our benefit plans

at the claim level.

Another one is director of supervisory training, responsible

for the training of all of our nontechnical supervisory personnel.

[7] In addition to that, I work with the various departments

in those areas that are common to the company, if you will,

rather than as departmental problems and affairs.

Q. Would you tell me what you do now?

A. I pursue those things I have just mentioned plus having

some involvement with matters like the one now pending.

Q. Are you involved in all litigation in which the company

is named party?

A. Yes, in this area, in the area of employee relations, not in

the court area.

Q. Who is the company safety director?

A. Charles Butters.

Q. What does he do?

A. Well, in addition to being director of safety, he is also

—oh, I forgot one person I must get back to—he also handles

the interviewing of people who come into our home office in

Boston looking for a job in the technical area who have

not been recruited but just as we call it, wander in because we

have a fair size building and we are in a relatively small city

and they have heard of Liberty Mutual and they come in and

he interviews them and he does that in connection with his job.

Also as director of safety, he is interested in such [8] things

as safety of our people and the working condition of our people

in the offices scattered throughout the country.

One person I forgot, James Brannon who is coordinator of

equal employment.

Q. Who is the coordinator of benefit plans?

A. Paul Gately.

C. What does he do?

A. Responsible for handling our comprehensive medical

and income protection claims at the claims level.

Q. By that you mean claims being made on behalf of

employees?

A. Well, yes, you know, their claims.

Q. As opposed to claims against the company from out-

side?

Yes. He has nothing to do with that.

Does Mr. Gately report directly to you?

Yes, he does.

Who is the director of supervisory training?

Norma M. Rodsater.

What does she do?

Well, she is responsible through a group of people

that we call training supervisors, there are some 38, 39 of

them located in each of our divisions, for the most part as-

signed to the division offices and their function is to {9] travel

and visit and inspect the offices within the division or within

their area of command, to determine that we are providing our

rPOPOPO>D

technical staffs with the quality and quantity of clerical sup-

port that they need in order to get their work done.

Q. You mentioned your technical staff and the necessity

of providing them with clerical support. What distinction does

there exist in Liberty Mutual between jobs classified as tech-

nical and jobs classified as clerical?

A. Like most companies, we break our pay roll out as such

into two broad classifications, clerical and technical. We chose

that as opposed to some other designation.

Q. Is it your testimony that most large companies use those

classifications?

A. Using some sort of classification rather than having

a single pay roli. At least this is my experience. We think of

the clerical people as those who have functions that they could

do their work for anybody, not necessarily just limited to an

insurance company, they would be a secretary in a law firm,

in a department store. They are concerned with those areas

that are peculiar to and are in pursuit to the insurance company,

that is technical.

Q. You have rehabilitation nurses on your pay roll, do

[10] you not?

No, I do not.

Liberty Mutual does not—

Oh, I thought you meant on my pay roll in my depart-

No, with the company.

Yes.

Are they classified as technical or clerical?

Technical.

What do they do?

You would have to ask somebody in the claims de-

partment.

Q. You don’t know what they do at all?

A. Well, in a very broad sense of the word, I know they

are concerned with mostly seriously injured Workmen’s Com-

>OPpOPOR>OD

pensation claimants but I don’t know exactly what their duties

are. I would have no occasion to know. :

Q. What does Mr. Brannon do?

A. Mr. Brannon is a black man that is engaged in the

recruiting of minority employees, devotes most of his time to

recruitment at the campus level and various black organiza-

tions across the country such as the NAACP, Urban League

and other agencies with which he is familiar and with whom

he has contact.

{11} Q. Is there some reason that you pointed out the fact

that Mr. Brannon is black?

A. Well, only because I thought you might be misled as

to his name. That is a good Irish name.

From what minority groups does he recruit employees?

Primarily black.

What others?

Oh, Spanish surname.

Any others?

I would not think so. Black men and women, Spanish

surname men and women.

Q. Pardon?

A. The black—

Q. No. The last comment you made.

A. Black male and females and male and female Spanish

surname.

How long has he had that position?

On a full-time basis, I would think about 18 months.

How about on a part-time basis?

Oh, about two or three years.

What else did he do?

He was an underwriter.

How long has he held the position of coordinator of

equal employment?

About a year and a half.

What was his title before that?

rPOPOPO

O>Borororo

A. Underwriter.

Q. Who was the coordinator of equal employment before

him?

A. We didn’t have one.

Q. Can you tell me with any precision, when that position

was created?

A. No, I can’t. The date, I would guess would be April,

1971.

Q. Are you able to tell me whether it was before or after

Mrs. Ross and Mrs. Wetzel filed their charges with the Pennsy]-

vania Human Relations Commission?

A. I can’t be certain.

Q. Are you able to tell me whether it was before or after

the New York City Commission began its investigation of

employment practices?

A. No, I can’t.

Q. Can you tell me whether it was before or after the

Massachusetts Commission began its investigation?

A. No, I can’t.

Q. Now, I have been told by numerous people including

Mr. Grove, that you would be able to tell me the company’s [13]

maternity leave policies as they presently exist and as they have

existed in the past.

Are you able to tell me the company’s present policy with

respect to maternity leave?

A. Yes.

Q. Please tell me.

A. Well, if a female employee has been employed with

us one year and makes a written request for leave for pregnancy

and her doctor verifies the fact that she is able to work and is

pregnant and so forth, she is entitled to a leave of absence.

Q. For how long?

A. Leave of absence is six months from the date of termi-

nation or three months from the date of delivery, whichever

comes first.

a ee ee

Q. And are those firm deadlines?

A. Yes,

Q. Is that without regard to whether there are any com-

plications arising which for health reasons, preclude the em-

ployee from returning within that period of time?

A. Yes.

Q. Does the employee continue to accumulate benefits or

seniority during the leave of absence?

[14] A. No.

Q. Are there any benefits or waiting periods or seniority

points as it were, that are suspended during that period of

absence?

A. When she returns from a leave, there is no three months

waiting period as being employed at the beginning.

Also, she is returned to the same job or one comparable job.

We don’t think of it in terms of seniority.

Q. Is this leave of absence available only to female em-

ployees who have been with the company for a year or more?

A. That's correct.

Q. When was the present policy adopted?

A. Well, September, 1970, with a modification in November

of 1971.

Q. What month in 1971?

A. September. I mean November of 1971. There was a

modification in November of 1971.

Q. Tell me what the November, 1971 modification was.

A. Permitted to work through the ninth month or as long

as the doctor said health-wise, she could.

Q. Prior to 1971, how long were your female employees

permitted to work?

A. Through the eighth month.

[15] Q. How long had that been the policy?

A. Since 1967.

Q. September?

A. March.

Q. What was the policy prior to March of 1967?

A. Through the sixth month.

Q. How long was that the policy?

A. I can only go back to 1948. I could find no records

earlier than that.

Q. Is it your testimony that the policy was the same from

1948 through March of 1967 or up until March of 1967?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, was it always the policy that the employee re-

ceived leave of absence during her absence from employment

due to pregnancy?

A. No.

Q. When did that become a policy?

A. March, 1967.

Q. What was the policy prior to that?

A. Termination with re-employment if they returned to

work with a waiving of the waiting period as far as benefit plans

are concerned. They had to return for that privilege with-

in six months.

[16] Q. Were they guaranteed re-employment?

A. No.

Q. Under what circumstances were they re-employed?

A. Well, if we had an opening when they applied for re-

employment, we would take them back.

Q. At what point in time were they required to terminate

their employment?

A. At that time, prior to 1967?

Q. Yes.

A. Six months or earlier if the doctor indicated.

Q. Were there any company-approved exceptions to that

rule?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Is the policy with respect to leaves of absence, has that

been the same since March of 1967?

A. Im sorry.

Q. Since March of 1967, has it been the policy of the com-

pany to give leaves of absence to pregnant employees?

A. Yes.

Q. And has the time period for returning been the same

since that time?

A. Yes.

Q. So the only variable since March of 1967 is the period

[17] during which the employee was permitted to work?

Yes.

Tell me why the policy was changed in March of 1967.

On the advice of counsel.

What counsel?

Home office.

Who?

Mr. Penney.

. (Can you tell me what advice you were given?

Mr. Grove: Don’t answer the question.

Mr. Specter: State your reason.

Mr. Grove: Attorney-client privilege between Mr. Penney

and Mr. Spaulding and between Mr. Penney and his client, the

company.

Why was the policy changed in September of 1970?

On advice of counsel.

Same counsel?

Yes.

Why was it modified in November of 1971?

On advice of counsel.

Same counsel?

. Yes.

Mr. Specter: Same objection if I pursue [18] it?

Mr. Grove: Same objection if you ask the same question.

Q. Are you familiar with the company’s group life insur-

ance program?

A. Yes.

Q. You were present at the deposition of Mr. Carr which

was taken in this case, were you not?

OPFOPOPOP

r>OPrPOPOPO

a aaa | Ae ae Ce eee Senne

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, you have been present at all of the depositions

that have been taken so far?

A. Yes.

Q. You should have been a lawyer or you will by the time

we finish.

I would like to show you what was marked at Mr. Carr’s

deposition as Carr Deposition 8A through G. On the first page,

the one marked Carr Deposition Exhibit A, there is a statement

that a change in the company’s group life insurance program of

the extension of the technical men’s schedule to all technical

personnel.

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me what that refers to?

A. Well, prior to January 1, 1967, our group life [19] in-

surance program contained three schedules. The basic schedule,

technical men’s schedule and a senior schedule.

The basic schedule is paid for entirely by the company. At

the end of three months of employment, each and every em-

ployee received $1,000 worth of life insurance under the basic

schedule.

At the same time, technical men which subscribed to the

technical men’s schedule received $2,000 of insurance on each

of the succeeding ten anniversaries which they paid for entirely,

so at the end of ten years and three months of employment,

they would have a total of $25,000 in coverage, $22,000 under

the technical men’s schedule and $3,000 under the basic be-

cause the basic was increased to $3,000 in increments of $1,000

on each of the succeeding anniversaries after three months of

employment.

Now, the senior schedule which is available to all employees

requires ten years and three months of employment and every-

one is eligible for it and this provides another $25,000 of in-

surance based upon salary ranges. Again, paid for entirely by

the participants.

Q. So the there schedules are the basic schedule, technical

men’s schedule and the senior schedule?

A. Right.

[20] Q. And the latter two were paid for entirely by the

participants?

A. Correct.

Q. Prior to January 1, 1967, was the technical men’s sche-

dule available to female employees?

No.

Why?

Because it was a technical men’s schedule.

Can you tell me why it was limited to men?

Yes.

Please tell me.

In Mass., in order to have a group life insurance plan,

it is eceuaey that 75 per cent of the eligible people subscribe

to the plan. At the time this plan was introduced in 1953, it

was determined that we could not get 75 per cent participation

if the schedule was made available to females, technical females.

How was that determined?

I don’t know.

Who made the determination?

I don’t know.

Do you know whether any studies were done?

I don’t.

[21] Q. Do you know whether anyone was asked?

A. I don’t.

Q. Do you know if any technical female personnel were

asked whether they would participate if invited?

A. I don’t.

Q. Can you tell me why the policy was changed in January

of 1967?

A. Advice of counsel.

Q. Same counsel?

A. Yes.

‘POPOPO>

rPOPOPO

Mr. Specter: Same instruction?

Mr. Grove: Same instruction.

Q. In January of 1967, was there still a requirement that

to have a group life insurance plan in Massachusetts, you had to

have a 75 per cent enrollment?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you meet that requirement?

A. Yes.

Q Have you met it ever since January ist, 1967?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Are you aware of any period during which you did not

A. No.

[22] Q. Is the requirement that there be an initial enroll-

ment of 75 per cent or that a 75 per cent figure be maintained

throughout the existence of the group?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Are you able to tell me what percentage of your tech-

nical female employees participate in what we have been refer-

ring to as the technical men’s schedule?

A. I cannot.

Q. Can you tell me who would be able to?

A. I don’t know of anybody that would be able to tell you

without—no, I don’t, I don’t know anybody.

Q. Are you aware of any way we could ascertain that in-

formation through a review of your records or otherwise?

A. I think so.

Q. Can you tell me how we could do it?

A. I honestly don’t know. I know a couple of things I

might check and that would be to see if the computer would

spew it out.

Q. What else might you check?

A. I don’t know. I would start there.

Q. Tell me, how do the employees make their payments, is

it by pay-roll deduction?

A. Yes.

[23] Q. Whois the carrier for that group life program?

A. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston.

(Thereupon discussion held off the record. )

So payments are made by pay-roll deduction?

Right.

I take it you pay your employees by check?

Yes.

Are they prepared by computer?

Yes, that is why I would start there.

. Is the pay-roll check accompanied by a check stub or

a voucher of any kind?

Yes.

What is it accompanied by?

I beg your pardon?

What is it accompanied by, is it a stub?

No, it is the same size as the check, it lists all deductions.

. Does it list either by title or some code reference, the

position held by the employee?

A. No.

Q. How about the department in which the employee works?

A. It must but I don’t know. I think it must.

Q. It would certainly—

[24] A. I think it does.

Q. Okay. Is that schedule still called the technical men’s

schedule?

A. No. Technical employees’ schedule.

Q. When was that changed?

A. 1-1-67.

Q. What annual salary must an employee be paid at the

present time to be eligible for the senior schedule?

A. The same as before, the—oh, at the moment, right now?

Q. Yes.

A. We have abolished those two schedules, technical em-

ployees’ schedule and senior schedule. They are no longer in

existence.

OFOPOPO

OrOoror

Because we changed our plan to a multiple of salary.

. Is that the same reason that the senior schedule was

abolished?

A. Yes.

[25] Q. What salary range did one have to reach to be eli-

gible for the senior schedule just prior to the time it was

abolished in September of 1971?

A. I believe the minimum was $4,000. It went up in

different steps to a maximum of 20.

Q. Is it your testimony then that the amount of coverage

available under the senior schedule depended upon the salary

of the particular employee?

A. That’s correct. After ten years and three months of

employment.

Q. How long prior to September, 1971, did you have that

basic life insurance program in effect?

Do you mean with the basic schedule?

With the three schedules.

The technical employees’ schedule—

All of them.

Since July 3rd, 1953 or July 1. I think it is the 3rd.

. How was your group life program changed in September

of 1971?

A. Changed to a multiple of salary.

Q. Explain how that works.

A. Two-and-a-half times salary, rounded to the nearest

thousand dollars, maximum of $150,000 in coverage, not salary.

[26] Q. Who pays for that coverage?

A. The company and the employee.

Q. Who pays how much?

Q. Technical employees’ is no longer in existence?

A. Right.

Q. When was that abolished?

A. September, 1971.

Q. Why?

OPOPOr

A. Company pays 60 per cent and the employee pays 40

per cent. The company still pays for the first $3,000 of coverage

in full.

Does Liberty Mutual have a mandatory retirement age?

Yes.

What is it?

65.

Does that apply to all employees?

Yes.

Has that always been the case?

Since 1934. I don’t know what it was prior to that.

Does Liberty Mutual have an income protection plan?

Yes.

Would you describe it for me?

Those people who have been with us less than five

years 5 ond more than three months for disability extending be-

yond the eighth day, calendar day, disabled employee will re-

ceive income protection benefits under an insured plan for 103

weeks. The first week of that disability is paid for in full by

the company.

[27] The insured benefit is two-thirds of salary to a maximum

of $150 a week.

Salary supplement that pays half the difference for as many

weeks as years of completed service.

But people who have been with over five years, they receive

two-thirds of their salary to a maximum of $275 a week.

To age 65, same salary supplement paying one-half of the

difference between the insured amount and full salary for as

many weeks as years of completed service.

There are offsets on the both of these plans, Social Security

benefits or Workmen’s Comp. benefits.

Q. Does the income protection plan cover disability related

to pregnancy?

A. No.

Q. Are there any other disabilities that it doesn’t cover?

PFOPOPOPOPOPO

A. Any disability that is not established by medical evi-

dence.

Q. Any other?

A. I can’t think of any.

Q. Can you tell me why it doesn’t apply to pregnancy?

A. On advice of counsel.

Q. Same counsel?

[28] A. Same counsel.

Mr. Grove: Same objection.

Q. In computing the waiting period of five years and three

months that you referred to earlier, do you include periods of

leaves of absence due to pregnancy?

A. May I ask you a question?

Q. Yes.

A. Are you talking about—income protection plan, is this

what you are referring to?

Q. That is a five-year waiting period, is it?

A. No. We have three year income protection plan if you

have been with us more than three months and less than five

years.

And the long-term disability which can run from maybe

age 30 to 65, would begin after five years of employment.

Q. In computing the five years of employment, do you

include periods during which a female employee is absent due

to pregnancy?

A. If she is on a pregnancy leave of absence, yes.

Q. How long has that been your policy?

A. Since we established the pregnancy leave.

Q. I take it that when your policy was to require a preg-

nant female to terminate her employment, you did not [29] in-

clude in your computation of waiting periods, any time between

the date of termination and the date of re-employment if the

employee was—

A. They start that when they are re-employed except we

waive the three-month waiting period.

Q. If I understand you correctly, if you had a female em-

ployee who was in your employ for ten years, she became preg-

nant, she would have been required to terminate her employ-

ment?

A. Correct.

Q. Then if she reapplied for employment and there was a

position available and she was rehired, she would have lost

whatever time had accrued under your income protection plan?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Are you aware of any areas of employee benefits of-

fered by Liberty Mutual where the benefits afforded to male

employees are not the same as those afforded to female em-

ployees?

A. lam not.

(Thereupon discussion held off the record. )

Q. Are you aware of the policy of Liberty Mutual Insur-

ance Company not to hire as claims adjusters or claims repre-

sentatives, persons who had similar experience with other [30]

insurance companies?

A. [heard it, I have heard of that.

Q. Where did you hear that?

A. Well, I don’t know. Maybe it was one of these depo-

sitions.

Q. If I were to tell you that Mr. Grove made the statement

at Mr. Raymond's deposition, would that ring a bell?

A. It wouldn't surprise me if that is where I heard it but

I am sure I heard it before that. I don’t know when or where.

Q. With the exception of claims representative and claims

adjuster, are you aware of any other positions for which Liberty

Mutual Insurance Company does not hire persons who have

had similar experience with other insurance companies?

A. No.

Q. Does Liberty Mutual Insurance Company have a form

of employment application which it uses throughout the country?

A. No.

Q. Did it ever?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Do you know whether Liberty Mutual Insurance Com-

pany maintains records of the time worked by its

for which it pays overtime? ; oO

[31] A. Yes.

Q. Where are those records maintained?

A. They eventually find their way to the division office

athe “a yon by the administrative manager of

ivision. on’t know how lon are kept i

local office. a - Sores

Q. Are there also records maintained at the home office?

A. For home office employees, yes, by the administrative

manager in the home office.

Q. Tell me what form the records of overtime take

A. It is a time slip, we call it a record of time sli

lieve we call it that. aia

Q. Under what circumstances is that slip completed?

A. By or for all nonexempt people.

Q. But when is it completed? Is it only completed when

they work overtime? Is one completed every pay period?

Every pay period.

Without regard to whether overtime is worked?

Correct.

That is for all employees who are not exempt?

Yes.

Everywhere in the country?

. That is my understanding.

(32] Q. So then if a nonexempt employee works no over-

time, a time record slip is prepared reficcting that fact?

A. No. I think in that instance, I could be wrong, but

I believe in that instance it is prepared by the supervisor who

records no overtime for the unit, lists the names and signs them.

I believe this is done in some offices or some jurisdictions be-

cause there are some State laws superimposed upon the Federal

OFrOrorp

Wage and Hour Law that requires us to keep the forms in

a little different fashion.

Q. Do you know how it is done here in Pittsburgh?

A. No.

Q. Can you tell me for which positions in the technical

area of the claims department these time record slips are

prepared?

A. Well, for nonexempt people.

Q. Tell me which ones they are.

A. All the clerical people—

Q. I am talking about the technical people only.

A. Oh. CR’s.

Q. Which others?

A. Adjusters during the training period up until such time

as they become exempt.

Q. Any others?

[33] A. Not to my knowledge. There could be but I don't

know of any.

Q. Then to the best of your knowledge, Liberty Mutual

treats only claims representatives and adjuster trainees as non-

exempt technical personnel?

A. That's correct.

Q. When does a claim adjuster become exempt?

A. Whenever the department exempts them. I don’t know

when that is.

Q. Who would know?

A. Mr. Carr would know.

Q. Okay.

A. He prepares the exemption card or someone on his staff.

Q. Do you know what criteria are applied in determining

when an adjuster becomes exempt?

A. I assume when he is finished his training, sometime

beyond that.

Q. At least there is some period of time during which

adjusters are not considered as exempt employees by Liberty

Mutual Insurance Company?

A. That's correct.

Q. That is at least during the training period?

A. That's correct.

[34] Q. Which is a minimum of a six-week program?

A. I believe a minimum of six.

Q. Have you been told whether salary is one of the

criteria that is applied in determining whether an adjuster is

treated as exempt by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company?

A. No more than any other job where salary would be a

criteria, under the Wage and Hour Law.

Q. I am asking you whether you have been told whether

it is considered at all.

No, I don’t think so. You mean as the definite criteria?

No, one of the criteria.

Oh, sure.

You have been told that?

Yes.

Are you aware that it is one of the criteria?

Yes.

Q. Is it your understanding that until a claim adjuster

reaches a certain salary level, he is not treated as an exempt

employee by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company?

A. He would have to qualify salary-wise.

Q. So adjusters who do not qualify are not, salary-wise

that is, they are not considered exempt employees by Liberty

[35] Mutual?

I would assume so.

Is that your understanding?

Yes, if they don’t meet the salary qualification.

Have you been told that by anyone?

Pardon?

Have you been told that by anyone?

Not in that context.

Okay. Are any of the clerical employees considered

or treated 28 exempt employees by Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company?

rPOPOPO>

OFOPO?POP

A. No.

©. Are you familiar with the form which has been used

by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company which is numbered

PERS, for personnel, I assume, 195-R5.

A. Not by number.

Q. Are you familiar with the exemption form, a copy of

which was marked at Mr. Penney’s deposition?

A. The green card?

Q. Right.

A. Yes.

Q. Just so the record is clear, I'll show you what was

marked as Penney Deposition Exhibit No. 1 and ask you to

tell [36] me if that is a copy of the green card you have re-

ferred to.

A. Yes.

Q. How long has that card been used by Liberty Mutual

Insurance Company?

A. Ihave no idea.

Q. How long, to your knowledge, has it been in use, when

is the first time you became aware of its use?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Is it still in use?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the Personnel Policies and Pro-

cedures Manual referred to on the green exemption card?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me the names of those persons who have a

copy of them?

A. No.

Q. Would Mr. Raymond have one?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Can you tell me whether that would be a manual that

Mr. Raymond referred to at his deposition?

A. I don’t remember, unless you can read me what he said.

Q. Page 40, the question was asked, Ill show this to Mr.

Grove—to your knowledge, Mr. Raymond, does Liberty [37]

Mutual have any manual describing Liberty Mutual's personnel

policies and then there is an objection and some conversation

between Messrs. Brown and Grove and the response is, yes,

there is a manual, personnel manual applying to all departments.

A. That is what he was referring to.

Mr. Specter: Mr. Grove, do you have any objection to pro-

ducing that when you produce Mr. Raymond?

Mr. Grove: Not if he has it.

Mr. Specter: As of April 5, 1972, he had it.

Mr. Grove: He said there was one in the office, he didn’t

say he had it.

Mr. Specter: Will you produce it if it is in the Pittsburgh

office?

Mr. Grove: If he is available.

(Thereupon discussion held off the record.)

You don’t have a copy with you?

I do not, no.

You do have a copy of the manual, however, I take it?

Oh, yes.

Are those manuals supplemented from time to time?

Yes.

[38] Q. Are they loose-leaf?

A. Well, it is in a Acco base binder.

Q. I would like you to look at what was marked at Mr.

Phillips’ deposition as Phillips’ Deposition Exhibit No. 1, please

take your time and read that.

A. Yes.

Q. Can you identify it for me?

A. Yes, I wrote it.

Q. That doesn’t identify it.

A. Memorandum addressed to the administrative managers

and the subject is Federal Wage and Hour Law-Payment of

Overtime, dated March 30th, 1970.

Q. Do you remember writing it?

A. No. I remember I wrote it, though.

POPOPO

Q. Do you remember the circumstances under which you

wrote it?

A. No.

Q. Are you familiar with the policy described in the memo-

randum?

A. Yes.

Q. Incidentally, are supervising claims representatives treated

as exempt employees by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company?

[39] Your memo indicates as of March 30th, 1970, super-

vising claims representatives and claims representatives super-

visor were treated as exempt employees.

Yes.

That is two-and-a-half years ago?

Yes. Oh, you mean presently, currently?

Yes.

Yes, as far as I know.

Now, were you aware as of the date of your memo-

randum, that—strike.

Tell me what efforts were made by Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company to advise claims representatives who had been treated

as exempt employees prior to March 15th, 1970, that after that

date, they would be entitled to overtime pay for any overtime

worked.

I don’t know.

Do you know whether there were any?

I do not.

Who would know?

Mr. Carr, some member of his staff.

Do you know why the position was changed to an

onenet position in March of 1970?

A. Yes.

[40] Q. Tell me why.

A. Advice of counsel.

Q. Did you discuss that matter with counsel?

A. I think I probably did. I have no recollection of such

a conversation but I think I probably did.

OFOPrO>Y

OFPOProOo?r

Q. How do you know it was on advice of counsel?

A. Responsibility of counsel to determine which jobs are

classified as exempt and nonexempt.

Do you have personal knowledge of that?

Yes.

Who advised you that the position should be declassified?

Counsel.

To what department, if any, is counsel attached?

Home office legal department.

Q. In March of 1970, was counsel attached to the home

office claims department?

A. No.

Q. Now, your memorandum states that the home office

claims department has informed us, et cetera. Can you tell

me who in the home office claims department, if anyone, you

were referring to?

A. Either Mr. Carr or Mr. Phillips, I don’t remember

[41] which.

Q. Can you tell me what either or both of those geutlemen

told you about the declassification?

A. Not beyond what is in the memorandum.

Q. Were you present at that part of Mr. Carr’s deposition

when he testified that around Augusi of 1971, there was a de-

cision inade to actively recruit claims representatives as claims

adjusters?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, were you familiar with that decision prior to the

time that you heard Mr. Carr testify about it?

I knew of it.

Pardon.

I knew of it, yes.

When did you first learn of it?

I would guess about the time the decision was made.

Do you recall learning of it?

Not as a specific event.

POPOPO

rPOPOPOP

What was the first thing you heard about it?

I don’t remember.

Who was the first person to tell you about it?

I don’t remember.

. What is the first recollection that you do have [42] con-

cerning that subject?

A. I guess a discussion involving Mr. Carr and Mr. Phillips.

I don’t remember when or where, whether in Mr. Carr’s office

or my Office.

Q. But you do recall it was in Boston at the company’s

office?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me whether it was prior to September of

1971?

A. I think so.

Q. Okay. Can you tell me whether it was before the final

decision to actively recruit claims representatives was made?

A. No.

Q. No, you can’t tell me or no, it wasn’t it?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Were you consulted in any way concerning that de-

cision, was your advice solicited?

OFOPO

A. No.

Q. No one asked your opinion about it?

A. No.

Q. Do you know whether it was before or after Mrs.

Wetzel and Mrs. Ross were offered the position of claims

adjuster?

[43] A. My memory is that it was before but I can’t be sure.

Q. Would you tell me everything you recall about that

discussion?

A. The recollection that I have at the moment is that it

would be determined we would offer qualified CR’s to become

reclassified as claims adjusters.

(Thereupon the record was read.)

Q. Have you heard your answer read back?

A. Yes.

Q. Now I take it from that that the decision to offer the

reclassification as you put it to qualified CR’s had already

been made by the time of this conversation and I ask that

because you say that the only recollection you have is that it

had been determined.

A. I am trying to remember. I might very well have been

in on some of the preliminary discussions leading up to this

decision but I have no recollection of it.

Q. If you were in on any of those preliminary discussions,

if there were any, would you have a record of them?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any record of this discussion that you

have just mentioned?

A. No.

[44] Q. You have no recollection of this meeting?

A. Meeting or meetings, I don’t know.

Q. What is the next recollection you have concerning the

decision to recruit CR’s as claims adjusters?

A. I don’t have any.

Q. Were you involved at all in implementing or carrying

out that decision?

A. No.

Q. Can you tell me what steps Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company took to communicate to its claims representatives

throughout the country the fact that that decision had been

made?

No.

Do you know whether there were any such steps?

No.

Do you know that there were not?

No.

. Are you familiar with the duties performed by claims

representatives?

OPOor

A. No. |

Q. Are you familiar with the duties performed by claims

adjusters?

A. No.

[45] Q. So if I were to ask you to compare or contrast

those two positions, you wouldn't be able to do it, is that right?

A. Based upon what I have heard in these depositions, but

if you are asking my personal knowledge today, what an ad-

juster does and what a CR does—

Q. You don’t know?

A. Idon’t know. I know what they did 18 or 20 years ago,

an adjuster, but—

Q. You have also been present at depositions where there

has been testimony concerning interviews of claims representa-

tives for the purpose of considering them for the position of

claims adjuster, is that right?

A. There has been testimony about this.

Q. Yes. You heard that testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, what I want to know is prior to hearing the

testimony, were you aware that those interviews had been con-

ducted or that they were being conducted?

A. Yes.

Q. You are aware then that at some point, the decision was

made to determine which of Liberty Mutual’s claims represen-

tatives were qualified to perform as claims adjusters?

A. Yes.

[46] ©. When did you learn of that decision?

A. I don’t know.

Q. What is the first recollection you have of that decision?

A. At the time that I became aware of the fact that they

had decided to offer qualified claims representatives reclassifica-

tion as claims adjusters.

Q. Was it at that time that you also learned they were

going to review the various claims representatives for that

purpose?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that at the same meeting that you had referred to

earlier?

A. I can’t say it was at the same meeting but I believe

it was about the same time.

Q. Then that is something that you forget to tell me earlier

when I asked you your recollection of the decision to recruit

claims representatives.

A. I thought you were talking about the decision that they

would do it, not about that part of it, but I am sorry if I over-

looked it. No intention to.

Q. Can you tell me what steps were taken to determine

which of the claims representatives would became claims [47]

adjusters?

A. No.

Q. You have no personal knowledge of that other than

what you have heard at depositions?

A. That's correct. .

Q. Other than what you have heard at depositions, are you

able to tell me how many claims representatives were offered

the position of claims adjuster?

A. I can’t.

Q. Are you able to tell me from what—strike.

Are you able to tell me from your personal knowledge or

from what you have been told by anyone at Liberty Mutual,

how the salaries of claims representatives were affected when

they became claims adjusters?

A. No.

Q. You have never been told?

A. No.

Q. Do you know whether they started as claims adjusters

at the prevailing salary for claims adjusters?

A. No, I don’t from my own knowledge.

Q. Have you been told?

A. I don’t know whether I was or whether I assumed that

they did. I don’t know.

[48] Q. You are the person who has custody of the personnel

files of the various Liberty Mutual personnel, is that right?

A. Technical only.

Q. Technical only?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me what materials are in those files, by

subject matter?

A. It varies by department but generally we have in those

jackets—

Q. Let’s limit ourselves now to the claims representatives.

A. We would have a copy of the application, a copy of the

reference material or the original of the references, original

of the application, what we call a notice of personnel change

which is created whenever the position is changed or the office

is changed or the name is changed of an employee, we would

have the employment copy as well as a termination copy for

terminating employees.

That is about what we would have on an active file. I can

think of no other information that would be in all of the jackets.

Q. How about the periodic reports—

A. We don’t get those.

[49] Q. Where are those kept?

Home office.

You are in the home office?

Home office claims department.

Do you know what is in those files?

I do not.

You are aware that certain claims representatives were

offered the position of claims adjuster, is that right?

A. Not by name.

Q. But you know that certain—

A. There was a group of them.

Q. You know that certain various claims representatives

were offered the position?

A. Yes.

OPFrOPrOor

Q. And you know that certain of them accepted the posi-

tion and some did not accept the position?

A. I have been told that.

Q. Do you know whether the fact that the position had

been offered, would be contained in the personnel file that

you have or that the claims department has for the various

claims representatives?

A. No, wouldn't have a record of those that were offered

the opportunity to become—

[50] Q. Do you know whether there is such a record?

A. I do not.

Q. Have you been told?

A. I have not.

Q. You are aware also that—strike.

You are aware statements have been taken from various

claims adjusters and claims representatives?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know whether copies of those statements are in

the files of the employees?

A. Not in mine. Not in the personnel jackets in my custody.

Q. Do you know whether they are in the others?

A. Idon't.

Q. Have you been told?

A. Ihave not.

When did you first learn that those statements were

going to be taken or that they had been taken?

A. I have no idea.

Q. You don’t know whether you knew in advance that

they were going to be taken?

A. I don’t.

Q. Have you seen those statements?

[S51] A. Yes.

Q. Have you read them?

A. Yes, some of them.

Q. How many?

I don’t know. I would guess five, ten.

Can you tell me why you read them?

1 guess because they were given to me and I read them.

By whom were they given to you?

I don’t know. Dan Phillips, I guess.

Do you know why they were given to you?

Well, in connection with this.

Did you read all of those that were given to you?

No. ’

Were they all given to you?

No.

Approximately how many were given to you?

15, maybe.

Can you tell me who took the statements that you read?

Larrabee, Jack Larrabee and Bill Herrick.

Did the statements of Mr. Larrabee follow the same

format?

A. Well, they were written statements without a form or

anything, just a written statement.

[52] Q. I understand that.

A. I don’t think there is any particular format. I don’t

understand really what you mean.

Q. Were you able to tell that the statement consisted of

responses to various questions?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. And was it generally true that the same questions were

being answered in each of the statements?

A. In general.

Q. Was it generally true that the same questions were being

answered in the same order in each of the statements?

I can’t recall that.

In whose handwriting were the various statements?

I don’t know.

Were they in the same handwriting?

No.

OPOPOPOPOPOPOPOP

rOPrPOP

Q. That is all of Mr. Larrabee’s statements?

A. I think so. I am not acutely aware of the handwriting.

Q. Is it also true that the same questions were being

answered in the statements taken by Mr. Herrick?

A. As in Mr. Larrabee’s?

Q. Well, let’s restrict ourselves to Mr. Herrick’s.

A. Yes, I think so, followed the same general thing.

[53] Q. Did the statements taken by Mr. Herrick follow the

same general theme as the statements taken by Mr. Larrabee?

A. I would think so.

Q. That is your recollection?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, were the statements that you read, taken from

claims adjusters only?

A. I don’t know. I don’t remember.

Q. What subject matters were covered in these statements?

Mr. Grove: Don’t answer the question. Same reason as I

stated in Boston. It was prepared at my request and Mr. Pen-

ney’s request and we claim they are attorney work products.

You have a motion pending for their production right now

plus the fact that obviously what Mr. Spaulding could tell you

would be secondary evidence.

The statements themselves are the best evidence and since

you have a motion to produce, I suggest we restrict it to that.

We'll respond to that.

Q. Mr. Spaulding, you are familiar with the Want A Job

Fit For A Queen brochure, are you not?

A. I have seen it.

Q. You were present at the deposition when I asked who

[54] prepared it, weren’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know who prepared it?

A. Ido not.

Mr. Specter: Mr. Grove, you undertook to find out who

prepared it and when it was in use and whether it is in use now?

Mr. Grove: Mr. Specter, I know it is not in use. When it

was in use, I have not yet determined and I have not even come

anywhere close to finding out who the author of it was. No

one seems to know.

Q. Do you know how the form was used, Mr. Spaulding?

A. No, I do not. I had nothing to do with it.

Q. Other than what you have heard at the depositions, do

you have any knowledge about this form?

A. No.

Q. You were present during the testimony to the effect

that at some point in 1970 or 1971, the home office began to

receive feedback to the effect that claims representatives were

interested in the position of claims adjuster?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, other than what you have heard at depositions,

[55] do you have any information about that feedback?

A. No, I don't

Q. Were you aware of that prior to the deposition?

A. No.

Q. You know, you have also heard testimony that women

didn’t appear to be interested in the position of claims adjuster

and men didn’t appear to be interested in the position of claims

representative. Do you have any knowledge or information

concerning those statements?

A. None whatsoever.

Q. So you wouldn't be able to tell me whether those were

accurate observations or not?

A. I would not.

Q. Now, I understand from earlier testimony that you are

the individual who answers or at least receives inquiries con-

cerning former technical employees of Liberty Mutual Insur-

ance Company, is that correct?

A. Former employees?

Q. Yes.

A. They come to my department, not me personally.

Q. Who receives the questions for former clerical employ-

ees?

A. They go to the office in which the person worked,

[56] generally, but they are forwarded to the administrative

manager in the division.

Q. Who answers them?

A. The administrative manager.

Q. What level are reference requests concerning former

technical employees answered?

A. At the home office level, my department.

Q. But not by you personally?

A. That's correct.

Q. Do you approve the responses or do you see them before

they go out?

A. Ido not.

Q. How long has it been the practice for the reference

requests concerning former technical employees to come to

your department?

A. Well, they came to the home office to be answered by a

department that existed prior to the establishing of the per-

sonnel services which was established in 1960.

Prior to that time, we had a department known as personnel

policy and research which went out of existence and as near

as I can tell, that goes back into the '40’s and I don’t know

how much sooner than that.

Q. Do you know why it is the practice to direct reference

[57] requests for former technical employes to the home office

rather than to the various divisions?

A. Yes, because the divisions don’t have the technical

personnel jackets. They are maintained in the home office.

Q. Have you ever met Sandra Wetzel?

A. Yes.

Q. When was the first time?

A. I think it was August of 1971. Yes, August of 1971,

I believe.

Where did you meet?

Pittsburgh, our office.

Who else was present?

Mr. Penney.

Anyone else?

Mrs. Ross.

Was that also when you first met Mrs. Ross?

Yes.

I take it you met them together, then?

Yes.

When was the next time you met them?

Either of them?

Yes.

Yesterday.

[S58] Q. Since the summer of 1971, you have not personally

seen either Mrs. Wetzel or Mrs. Ross, is that right?

A. Last Friday, I was on the elevator at the 12th floor

and I stopped at the 10th and I think I saw Mrs. Wetzel stand-

ing in the lobby. I am not sure.

Q. That would be the only time?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you have some record of the date on which you

first met Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross?

A. The only one I could think of would be my expense

account or my last year’s diary.

Q. Who introduced you to Mrs. Wetzel and to Mrs. Ross?

A. Mr. Penney.

Q. Do you know whether he had met them prior to that

time?

A. I believe he had.

Q. Did he tell you that he had?

A. Yes.

Q. Under what circumstances did he tell you he had met

Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross?

A. I don’t know that I understand what you mean.

POPOPOPOPOPOPO

Q. Did Mr. Penney tell you the circumstances under which

he met Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross?

[59] A. In connection with the complaint to the Pennsyl-

vania Commission.

Q. Do you know when Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross were

told they were going to meet you?

A. No.

Q. What was the purpose, if there was one, of your meeting

Mrs. Wetzel or Mrs. Ross?

A. The purpose was, Mr. Penney was going to discuss

their complaint with them.

Q. What was the purpose of Mr. Penney’s first meeting with

them?

A. I assume it was in connection with their complaint.

Q. You were not there? 7

A. Right.

Q. Can you tell me why you were there at this other

meeting?

A. I guess because—I was there because I was there, I

guess.

Q. What were you supposed to do there?

A. I didn’t do anything.

Q. I didn’t ask you what you did. I asked you what you

were supposed to do.

A. Accompany Mr. Penney.

[60] Q. And listen to what was said?

A. Yes.

Q. For some particular purpose?

A. No, except this is in my general area of interest and

responsibility, complaints against the company.

Q. Did you say anything to either Mrs. Ross or Mrs. Wetzel

during the course of the meeting?

A. Other than to acknowledge the introduction, I have no

memory of saying anything to either one of them except to say

good-bye.

Is it your recollection ihat you did not say anything?

Yes.

How long did that meeting last?

It was brief. I would think not over 15 minutes.

Was there any time during the meeting that Mrs. Wetzel

and Mrs. Ross were not both present?

A. No.

Q. Was there any time during the meeting that the four

of you were not all present, that is you, Mr. Penney and Mrs.

Ross and Mrs. Wetzel?

OrOro

A. No.

Q. Where at your Pittsburgh office did the meeting take

place?

[61] A. My recollection is on the 16th floor, claims training

classroom.

Tell me everything you remember about that meeting.

I recall Mr. Penney telling them that the company

would not do certain things that they are asking. One was to

pay them the same amount of money as was being paid to

claims adjusters.

I recall that he offered them the opportunity to be reclassified

as claims adjusters.

Q. What else do you remember?

A. That is it, as far as I know, as far as I can recall.

Q. You say that Mr. Penney told Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs.

Ross that the company would not do certain things, is that

right?

A. Yes.

Q. One of those things was pay claims representatives the

same as Claims adjusters?

A. Right.

Q. Did you make any notes concerning that meeting?

A. I did not.

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Penney did?

A. Ido not.

Q. Were there any other things he said the company would

not do?

[62] A. I don’t know. I don’t remember anything else.

Q. Did Mr. Penney offer to pay Mrs. Wetzel back pay?

A. No.

Q. Did he offer Mrs. Ross back pay?

A. No.

Q. Tell me to the best of your recollection, just what Mr.

Penney said when he offered the position of claims adjuster

to Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross.

A. I think I have.

Q. Well, tell me again.

A. He said that he would offer them the opportunity to be

reclassified as claims adjusters.

Q. Well, did he say anything about their qualifications for

the position?

Not to my recollection.

Did he say that their work had been reviewed?

I don’t remember.

Did he say that the company felt they could do the

job

>SO>O>

I think he must have but I have no definite recollection of

the wends he used or written notes of the conversation itself

but I think he probably did.

Q. You are positive that he used the word reclassified?

[63] A. That is my memory.

Q. Do you have a specific recollection of his saying that?

A. Yes, I think I do.

Q. Did he extend the offer to Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross

simultaneously?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there any discussion of the complaints that Mrs.

Wetzel and Mrs. Ross had?

A. No, not by Mr. Penney.

Q. By anyone?

A. My recollection is, it was testified yesterday that Mrs.

Ross and Mrs. Wetzel, they referred to the fact that the oppor-

tunity to become claims adjusters was not the whole basis of

their complaint.

Q. It is your recollection that they did say that?

A. Yes.

Q. When you came to Pittsburgh to meet with Mrs. Wetzel

and Mrs. Ross, did you know that Mr. Penney was going

to offer them the position of claims adjuster?

A. Yes.

Q. So when you told me that the purpose of the meeting

was for Mr. Penney to discuss their complaints, that was not

[64] the whole purpose of the meeting?

That was their complaint.

That was one of their complaints, was it not?

Yes.

You knew that was not their only complaint, didn’t you?

Well, I knew that their complaint, as far as I was con-

corned at that time, I understood their complaint to be they

wanted to be outside claims adjusters and they felt the CR’s

should be paid the same amount of money as outside claims

adjusters. That was my understanding of their complaint at the

time we visited them in Pittsburgh.

Q. Prior to your meeting in Pittsburgh, had you read the

complaint that was filled with the Pennsylvania Human Relations

Commission?

A. I am sure I did. I have no recollection when but I

am sure I did.

Q. Did Mr. Penney tell Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross at that

meeting that—strike.

At that meeting, did Mr. Penney tell Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs.

Ross anything about the company’s attitude toward women gen-

erally as claims adjusters?

A. I think he may have said something to the effect that

the company felt that the job of claims adjuster was not

[65] ideally suited to women.

rPOPrOP

Q. Is it your recollection that he said that?

A. Something to that effect, yes.

Q. Did he go into any detail, did he say why it wasn’t

suited to women?

A. Well, I don’t believe so, perhaps other than beyond a

very brief reference to the type of work that an adjuster does

and the places he goes, there was a brief reference to this.

Q. You are sure there was some reference?

A. Yes, Iam.

Q. Did he indicate that that had been a long-standing

attitude?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he indicate whether it might be changed in the

future but that it would take a long time to change?

A. I don’t remember that.

Q. How did Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross respond? I would

like you to tell me separately for each of them.

A. My memory is they both said no. Then one of them, I

don’t remember which one, but I think it was Mrs. Wetzel

expanded on their reason for saying no.

Q. And what did she say?

A. Words to the effect that accepting the job of adjuster

[66] would not solve the basis for their complaint, words to

that effect. I would not resolve the basis for their complaint,

something of that nature.

Q. Did they go into any more detail?

A. Not thatI recall.

Q. Did they tell you what the basis of their complaint

was or what the bases were?

A. They may have referred to the fact that they felt that

would not—the other issue involved was the equal pay for

the claims representative and the outside adjuster.

Q. You were aware by the time of this meeting, were you

not, that Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross were claiming that Liberty

Mutual treated female employees differently than it treated

its male employees?

I was aware of the complaint of the Commission.

And you were aware that was the basis of the complaint?

Yes.

Now, you were present, yesterday, weren’t you when

Mrs. Ross testified that when Mr. Penney extended the offer,

he asked that the fact of the meeting be kept confidential?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I want to be fair with you. When that testimony

[67] was given, I observed Mr. Penney ask you whether you

remembered that and I observed your reply that you didn’t know.

Do you have any recollection of Mr. Penney’s making that

statement at that meeting?

A. Ihave none.

Q. Are you able to testify today under oath that he did

not make it?

A. I can’t believe that he made it but I can’t tell you that

I can positively say he did.

Q. So you are not in a position to say that he did or did

not make it of your own knowledge?

A. Idon’t think he made it.

Q. Let’s have the question again.

(Thereupon the record was read.)

A. How can I answer it other than to say I don’t think he

made it.

Q. Let me tell you I am not interested at this point whether

you believe he did or did not make the statement but whether

you can testify under oath whether he did or did not.

A. I can't.

Q. You cannot?

A. That’s right.

Q. Have you discussed with Mr. Penney whether he made

[68] that statement?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did he say?

OPor

Mr. Grove: Don’t answer it. Attorney-client relationship.

Q. When did you discuss that with Mr. Penney?

A. Last evening.

Q. Where?

A. I don’t remember. Whether at dinner or in the room

or walking up to the office or walking to the hotel or where.

Q. Under what circumstances did you discuss it?

A. Well, I guess you would have to say I was telling him

that I had no recollection of such a statement and I honestly

don’t believe that he made it.

Q. Was it during preparation for your testimony today

that you discussed it with Mr. Penney?

A. No.

Q. Was it in connection with some particular thing that he

was doing or you were doing in connection with this case?

A. Well, the testimony, I guess it was just in reviewing the

testimony from yesterday.

Q. Was anyone else present when you discussed it with Mr.

Penney?

[69] A. Mr. Grove.

Q. Anyone else?

A. No.

Q. At that meeting, did Mr. Penney discuss with Mrs. Ross

and Mrs. Wetzel, why the company would not pay claims

representatives on the same scale as claims adjusters?

A. Other than the fact I believe he said they were two

different jobs.

Q. Is it your recollection?

A. That is what he said.

Q. Did he explain what was different about the jobs?

A. No, not to my recollection.

Q. Did he offer any explanation concerning what made the

jobs different?

A. No.

Q. Did he tell them what their salary would be if they

accepted the positions?

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Now, you have testified that prior to the time when

you met with Mr. Penney and Mrs. Ross and Mrs. Wetzel,

Mr. Penney met with them. Now, did Mr. Penney report to

you the results of his first meeting?

A. No.

[70] Q. Were you present in Boston on September 26, 1972

when Mr. Penney testified under oath that he reported his

findings to both you and Mr. Carr?

A. Yes. I was present when he reported to Mr. Carr but

he didn’t report to me. He reported to Mr. Carr.

Q. So his testimony that he reported to you was inaccurate?

A. No, not in a sense that I was there and I heard the

report. I was present when he reported the conversation to

Mr. Carr. I thought you meant did he come to me and

report it.

Q. Was anyone else present when Mr. Penney reported to

you or Mr. Carr or both?

A. Not to my memory.

Q. If I were to suggest to you that the meeting that you

attended with Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross and Mr. Penney took

place in July of 1971, would that refresh your recollection?

A. No. I know it was sometime in July or August or

September, it was in that period of time. I don’t remember when.

I don’t remember which month.

(Thereupon a short recess was taken.)

Q. Was the meeting that you had with Mrs. Ross and Mrs.

Wetzel, recorded?

A. No.

[71] Q. Do you know what steps, if any, were taken by

anyone acting on behalf of Liberty Mutual to determine whether

Mrs. Ross and Mrs. Wetzel were qualified to be reclassified, as

you put it, prior to the time the job was offered?

A. No.

Q. Have you been told any steps were taken?

A. I was told that they were going to appraise their work.

How they went about it, who did it, I don’t know.

That was before the time the offer was made?

Yes.

How long before?

I don’t recall.

Who told you their work was going to be appraised?

Who told me?

Yes.

I would guess Ed Carr.

Was it your recollection that he told you that?

Either Ed Carr or Dan Phillips.

Is it your understanding that someone did appraise

Mrs. Wetzel’s work and Mrs. Ross’ work prior to the time it

was decided to offer them the position?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you been told the results of that appraisal?

[72] A. No.

Q. Have you been told whether their work was found to

be satisfactory.

A. I assumed that it was when the offer was made for

them to be reclassified. I assume their work met the standards.

Q. Are you aware Mrs. Ross requested a transfer to the

Detroit office?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you learn of that?

A. Just before or just after she terminated. I don’t remember

which.

Q. Did you at some point, learn that her request was

denied?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you learn that?

A. At the time, I guess I was told she requested it. I was

away, out of town. My memory is that I got back from a

trip somewhere and was told about this.

OPOPOPOPOPO

Q. Since your recollection seems to be so hazy, let me

ask you to tell me everything you know about her request and

the decision to deny it.

A. All I know is she made the request and the request was

denied.

[73] Q. Were you told why it was denied.

No.

Who told you she made the request?

Either Ed Carr or Dan Phillips.

Who told you it was denied?

Either one of them.

Whichever told you she had made it?

Yes.

Did anyone tell you why the decision was made to offer

the position of claims adjuster to Mrs. Ross and Mrs.Wetzel?

A. My memory of the discussions was that was predicated

on feeling that is what they wanted to do.

Q. When Mr. Penney reported to Mr. Carr in your presence,

did he report that Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross said they wanted

to be claims adjusters?

Mr. Grove: Don’t answer the question. Attorney-client priv-

ilege.

Mr. Specter: Let me suggest something to you in the interest

of not having to burden the court. To the extent that may be

within the privilege aad I don’t know that it is, Mr. Penney has

already testified to it and I believe waived the privilege.

Mr. Grove: Mr. Penney might have [74] waived it on his

behalf but I am going to tell Mr. Spaulding not to answer the

question.

Q. Were you told that the decision to offer the position of

claims adjuster to Mrs. Ross and Mrs. Wetzel had anything to

do with the charges they brought before the Pennsylvania Human

Relations Commission?

Mr. Grove: Don’t answer the question if Mr. Penney was the

one that had the discussion with you concerning this.

Did you have a discussion with Mr. Penney concerning th*?

OPOPOP?POP

Witness: In Mr. Carr’s office.

- Grove: Okay. Don’t answer the question.

Were there any other discussions other than with Mr.

A. Not in any great detail.

Q. Tell me what you do know about it.

[75] A. I know they recruit at colleges and I know they

employ through employment agencies. Our technical staff comes

from those two sources, primarily, in all departments.

Q. Since the spring of 1971, have you had occasion to

meet with any representatives of the Pennsylvania Human Rela-

tions Commission co ing the

po ag ern ncerning charges brought by Mrs. Ross

Yes.

On how many occasions?

I believe only once.

With whom did you meet?

Miss Holiday.

Where did you meet?

Pittsburgh.

Where in Pittsburgh?

Our office.

Who all was present?

Mr. Penney.

Anyone else?

No.

Was that meeting recorded?

No.

Did you make notes of it?

[76] A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Penney?

OPOPOPOPOPOPOPO?Y

I don’t know.

Did Miss Holliday or Mrs. Holliday—

I don’t know if it is Miss or Mrs.

Did she make notes?

I don’t know.

How long did the meeting last?

I would—my memory is less than a half-hour

Did you come to Pittsburgh from Boston for the express

purpose of attending that meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me everything you recall about the meeting.

A. I recall Mr. Penney advised Miss Holliday that he had

offered Mrs. Ross and Mrs. Wetzel the opportunity to be re-

classified as outside claims adjusters and that they had refused

Q. Anything else?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall anything that Miss Holliday said?

A. No, not in detail, I can’t recall—I know she spoke but

{ don’t remember what she said.

Q. You don’t remember the substance of anything she

said?

{77} A. No.

Did you say anything?

Gee, I probably did but I don’t remember what.

You remember none of it?

No, I don’t remember.

Prior to that meeting, the Commission had served one

or more interrogatories upon Liberty Mutual, is that right?

A. I think there were interrogatories filed and I assume it

was before the meeting. I have no date in mind as to when

they were served but I assume it was prior.

Q. Was that interrogatory discussed at the meeting?

A. Gee, it might have been. Now that you mention it, it

might have been. I have no memory of it but I think it was.

Q. Now that you have some recollection of its having been

discussed, would tell me what you recall about that dis-

cussion?

OFOPrPOPOP

OPFPO?PO

«s. We were going to answer it, I guess, I don’t remember

whether all of it or part of it or what.

Q. Let me ask you not to guess.

A. I don't—

Mr. Grove: Answer it any way you like.

A. I don’t remember definitely.

Q. It is your recollection then that the position was [78]

taken by Liberty Mutual at that meeting that at least part of

the interrogatory would not be answered?

A. That is my memory.

Q. Who said that at the meeting?

A. Mr. Penney.

Mr. Grove: Mr. Specter, if it serves any purpose, I think

Mr. Penney mentioned we would be happy to indicate to you

we did not answer the interrogatories.

Q. Was there any discussion at that meeting of Liberty

Mutual's structure as it relates to the Pittsburgh office, that is

whether that is a regional! office or an encompassing some

broad territory?

A. I don’t recall such a conversation.

Q. Was there any discussion about whether the company

considered the job of outside adjuster as a job for women?

I don’t recall that.

Is it possible that that was discussed?

It could have been.

You have no recollection?

I have no recollection.

Do you have any recollection of Mr. Penney stating at

the meeting that the job was more suitable for men?

[79] A. No.

Q. Was there any discussion of whether there was any train-

ing for the position of claims adjuster?

A. I don’t recall any.

Q. Did Mrs. or Miss Holliday request any other information

at that meeting?

OPFPOPrOo>r

A. Idon’t recall.

Q. Was there any discussion of Liberty Mutual's recruiting

practices?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Was there any discussion of newspaper advertisements

for prospective Liberty Mutual employees?

A. Idon’t recall.

Q. Do you know when that meeting took place?

A. Other than in sometime either in August or September,

in that general time.

Q. By that time, had—

A. I don’t recall the exact dates.

Q. Whenever the date was, had Liberty Mutual begun its

program of recruiting claims representatives as claims adjusters?

A. I don't know. It was about that time but I don’t know

which preceded what.

{80} Q. Was there any discussion at that meeting about

whether the job of outside adjuster had been offered to a

number of females?

A. I don’t recall that. I know Miss or Mrs. Holliday was

told Mr. Penney had offered the job to Mrs. Ross and Mrs.

Wetzel. I don’t recall anything about any other CR's being

involved.

Q. Did Mrs. Holiday ask why the job offer had been made

to Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross?

A. Idon’t recall if she did.

Q. Do you recall whether Mr. Penney told her that the

offer was made because of the complaint brought to the

Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission?

A. If he didn’t say those exact words, I am sure it was

in that context.

Q. Is that why the job offer was made?

A. To them, yes.

offer was made?

A. 1 am not sure. In so many words, I am not sure but I

am sure it was known it arose out of the complaint.

, be me rhachis ne Mrs. Holliday that the job offer

e because o i issi

caine . the complaint to the Commission—

Did he tell Mrs. Holliday that Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross

had been told that they had been offered the job because of the

complaint they had lodged?

. A. I don’t recall that part of it bui I think we all realized

it arose out of the complaint.

Q. Was there any discussion at that meeting concerning

Mrs. Ross’ and Mrs. Wetzel’s complaints about inquires into

anticipated marriage and family size—

A. I don’t recall that line of discussion at all.

Q. Are you able to testify today that there was no such

discussion at that meeting?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. Is it your recollection there was no such discussion?

A. Ihave no recollection there was or wasn’t.

| Q. Do you have any recollection of any discussion concern-

ing inquiries about birth control pills at that meeting?

A. Same.

Q. Did Mr. Penney tell Mrs. Holliday that he was willing

to discuss a settlement with Mrs. Ross and Mrs. Wetzel?

A. Ihave no recollection of that.

Q. Did he make any statements about the attitude of the

[82] company in regard to female employees?

A. Inregard to female employees, no, as I recall.

Q. Did Mrs. Holliday ask if there was a union for the

employees?

A. Idon’t remember.

Q. Did Mr. Penney indicate whether he felt the complaint

lodged by Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross was a serious one?

A. Idon'’t recall any discussion about whether it was serious

or not serious.

Q. Did he indicate or state to Mrs. Holliday his opinion

concerning what Mrs. Ross and Mrs. Wetzel were most in-

terested in?

A. No, not to my recollection.

Q. Was there any discussion concerning the company’s

employment policies generally at that meeting?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. Did you report to anyone at Liberty Mutual concerning

the meeting?

A. No.

Q. Did you know whether Mr. Penney did?

A. Ido not.

Q. You are not issued a hard hat, are you?

A. No, I am not.

[83] Q. How about a brief case?

A. Ihave a brief case.

Q. Given to you by Liberty Mutual?

A. Well, it was given to me by a friend of mine at Liberty

Mutual.

Mr. Specter: That is it.

Further Examination by Mr. Grove

Q. Mr. Spaulding, you testified that you didn’t believe that

Mr. Penney made the comment to Mrs. Wetzel and Mrs. Ross

at the meeting here in Pittsburgh that they should not discuss

with anyone the offer that he was making with them. Upon

what do you base your belief?

A. Well, my memory is that—

Mr. Specter: Just a second. Do you want him to state

everything upon which he bases that belief?

Mrs. Grove: Yes.

A. My memory is that it had been decided that other CR’s

—qualified CR’s would be offered the opportunity to be re-

classified and it wouldn’t make any sense to tell them not to

talk about it because it was going to be common knowledge and

it would be common knowledge after the offer was made to

[84] them. So I can’t believe it was said.

Mr. Grove: That is all.

Further Examination by Mr. Specter

Q. Is there any other basis for your belief?

A. No, that is it.

Q. Mr. Grove asked you to testify as to every reason you

have for not believing Mr. Penney—

A. Those are the reasons.

How about anything Mr. Penney told you?

Pardon?

How about anything Mr. Penney told you?

Mr. Penney told me?

Yes. Did he tell you that he did not make the state-

OFPOrPOoPro

ment?

Mr. Grove: Don’t answer that.

Mr. Specter: Just a second. You have asked for all of the

reasons of his belief and if something Mr. Penney said is one

of them. a complete answer requires him to state it.

Mr. Grove: Let's go back to the [85] question.

Q. The question is, did Mr. Penney tell you that he did

not make the statement?

A. I don’t think so.

Mr. Specter: Okay. That is it.

Mr. Grove: We won't waive signature. Send the original

to Mr. Spaulding.

KENNETH SPAULDING

Sworn to and subscribed to before me this ___ . day of

, 1972.

Notary Public

[86] CERTIFICATE

COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY

I, Dorothy Johnson, a Notary Public in and for the Common-

wealth of Pennsylvania, duly commissioned and qualified, do

hereby certify that the within-named Kenneth Spaulding was

by me first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and

nothing but the truth in the cause aforesaid; that the testimony

then given by him was by me reduced to stenotype in the pres-

ence of said witness, afterwards transcribed upon a typewriter,

and that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the

testimony so given by him as aforesaid.

I do further certify that this deposition was taken at the time

and place in the foregoing caption specified, and was completed

without adjournment.

I do further certify that I am not a relative, counsel or attorney

of either party, nor am I otherwise interested in the event of

this action.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed

my seal of office at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on this Ist day

of November, 1972.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA $8

/s/ DoroTHy JOHNSON

Dorothy Johnson

Notary Public

In and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

My Commission expires April 9, 1973.

IN THE UNITED STATES District COURT

* * (Caption—72-169) * *

DEPOSITION OF KENNETH SPAULDING

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1972

The deposition of Kenneth Spaulding, witness herein, called

by the defendant for examination under the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, taken before me, the undersigned, Dorothy

Johnson, a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, pursuant to notice, at the offices of Liberty Mutual

Insurance Company, Clark Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,

commencing at 11:30 o’clock a.m., the day and date above set

forth. .

[2] Appearances:

On behalf of the defendant: Kalvin M. Grove, Esquire,

Chicago Title & Trust Building, 111 West Washington

Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602

PROCEEDINGS

KENNETH SPAULDING witness herein called by the defend-

ant for examination under the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-

cedure, having been first duly sworn, as hereinafter certified,

was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. Grove: This is a correction of deposition pursuant to

Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Spaulding will start and then Mr. Raymond.

Mr. Spaulding: Page 14, Line 1, the correct answer is yes.

A leave of absence has no effect of benefits of seniority.

Mr. Grove: Why are you changing it?

Mr. Spaulding: The answer is wrong as given. It is wrong

as given.

[3] Page 15, Line 18, the correct answer is September, 1970.

I was wrong in the date of March of 1967.

Page 16, Line 19, the answer is correct on the assumption

that the question is based on September, 1970.

Page 17, Line 2, the answer is correct on the assumption that

the question is based on September, 1970.

Page 28, Line 11, change three to two. So the answer will

read no. We have a two-year income protection plan if you

have been with us more than two months and less than five

years. The reason for the change is that three is wrong.

Page 31, Line 11, the answer should be changed to read as

follows: Overtime hours for inside nonexempt personnel are

entered on a form called attendance and turnover record except

in those states that require a time slip period

Overtime hours for all outside nonexempt personnel are re-

corded on time slips. The record of overtime is prepared from

the attendance and turnover record or time slips every two

weeks for nonexempt [4] inside personnel.

If no overtime has been worked by anyone in the unit, none

is recorded by the supervisor on the form.

If overtime has been worked, the supervisor lists the names

and the hours worked of each person who has worked overtime.

The outside employee’s record of overtime worked its pre-

pared from individual time slips listing the name and hours

worked of any outside nonexempt person who worked overtime.

If no one in the unit worked overtime, the outside employee’s

record of overtime worked is not prepared.

Outside nonexempt employees complete a time slip every

pay period (two weeks) whether they work overtime or not.

We have a record-of-overtime form for nonexempt inside

employees in each department and/or office for each pay period.

We have a complete time slip for each nonexempt outside

employee for each period.

This answers all the questions asked on Pages [5] 31 and 32

on overtime in a corrected fashion.

The reason for the change is that upon reading the answers

to those questions, I discovered they were not accurate.

Page 85, Line 4, the answer should be yes, upon reflection,

I recall that Mr. Penney did tell me that he did not make the

statement.

Mr. Grove: Dorothy, would you send the original to Mr.

Spaulding, a copy to myself and a copy to Mr. Specter and we’ll

waive signature on that and Mr. Spaulding will return to you

that and the other one, the original, so that it could be filed.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

* * (Caption—72-169) * *

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Now Come the plaintiffs, by their attorneys, Litman Litman

Harris and Specter, P. A., and Fine, Perlow and Stone, and, on

behalf of themselves and the members of the class which they

represent, move this Honorable Court for Summary Judgment

on the issue of liability alone pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, as follows:

1. There is no genuine issue as to any of the following

material facts and the plaintiffs and the members of the class

which they represent are, therefore, entitled to a judgment as a

matter of law:

(a) Since July 1, 1965, defendant has discriminated in

hiring and promotion against the plaintiffs and the mem-

bers of the class represented by plaintiffs by reason of their

sex with respect to aTording or making available to them

the following positions in it Claims Department: Claims

Adjuster, Claims Supervisor, Branch Office Manager, Divi-

sion Claims Manager, Assistant Division Claims Manager,

Manager of Home Office Examiners Division, Assistant

Vice President and Vice President;

(b) Since July 1, 1965, defendant has discriminated

against the plaintiffs and the members of the class repre-

sented by plaintiffs by reason of their sex with respect to

compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employ-

ment;

Wherefore, plaintiffs move this Honorable Court to render

summary judgment in their favor and in favor of the members

of the class which they represent on the issue of liability alone on

the matters referred to herein and to enjoin the defendant from

engaging in such practices in the future.

LITMAN LITMAN HARRIS AND SPECTER, P. A.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, Howard A. Specter, hereby certifies that on

the 23rd day of March, 1973, the within Motion for Summary

Judgment was served on defense counsel by mailing, postage

prepaid, true and correct copies to the offices of:

Kalvin M. Grove, Esquire

111 West Washington Street

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Robert A. Penney, Esquire

175 Berkeley Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02226

Clem R. Ky.e, Esquire

717 Liberty Avenue

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Howarpb A. SPECTER

EXHIBIT E TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DisTRICT COURT

* * (Caption—72-169) * *

AFFIDAVIT OF HOWARD A. SPECTER IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before Me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared

Howard A. Specter, who being duly sworn according to law,

deposes and says that he has personal knowledge of the follow-

ing facts and that such facts are true and correct:

1. That he is one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the

above-captioned action:

2. That Kenneth W. Raymond, the defendant’s Assistant

Division Claims Manager for the Central Division, and Kenneth

D. Spaulding, the defendant's Manager of Personnel Services,

testified at their depositions on April 5, 1972, and October 17,

1972, respectively, that the defendant has a Personnel Policies

and Procedures Manual which applies to all employees and

departments;

3. That Kalvin M. Grove, one of the attorneys for the

defendants in this action, agreed at the time of the depositions

to produce a copy of the aforesaid Manual and that it was agreed

that Mr. Spaulding would forward a copy of the Manual to

this counsel for the plaintiffs;

4. That the defendant delivered to this defendant the Per-

sonnel Polices and Procedures Manual a copy of which is an-

nexed to the Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Motion for Summary

Judgment as Exhibit H and represented it to be the Manual

referred to at the depositions;

5. That in response to plaintiffs’ Requests for Production

of Documents, the defendant agreed to produce copies of the

Claims Representative training manuals described in its answer

8.3(a) through (d) to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories to Defendant

—Second Set and that the documents annexed to the Plaintiffs’

Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit

Q are true and correct copies of the cover and first seven pages

of the first of those manuals;

6. That in response to plaintiffs’ Request for Production

of Documents the defendant agreed to produce and did produce

copies of the Claims Adjuster recruitment brochures described

in its Answers to Interrogatories 37(f) and 38.2(a) through

(d) and that the documents annexed to the Plaintiffs’ Brief

in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibits C & D

are true and correct copies of two of those brochures;

7. That in response to plaintiffs’ Request for Production

of Documents the defendants agreed to produce and did produce

copies of the employee group benefit plans applicable to techni-

cal personnel within its Claims Department and that the docu-

ments annexed to the Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Motion for

Summary Judgment as Exhibits I through M are true and cor-

rect copies of pages abstracted from the documents produced

and dated respectively March 1964, March 1967, April 1968,

January 1969 and June 1970;

8. And further deponent saith not.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th day of June,

1973.

/s/ Howarp A. SPECTER

/8/ DARLYNE RUFFALO

Notary Public

Darlyne Ruffalo, Notary Public, Pittsburgh, Allegheny

County, Pa. My commission expires April 18, 1977.

EXHIBIT H TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

203. Long Term Absence Policy

Continued absence caused by illness of eight or more calendar

days constitutes a long term illness. All such illnesses should be

reported on the Long Term Illness Report, Per. 148, whether

the employee qualifies for the Income Protection Plan or not.

See paragraph 211 for procedure in connection with the

reporting of long term illness and reinstatements from Long

Term Illnesses.

Our Income Protection Plan provides for the continuation

of Income if during the first seven days of a Long Term Illness

the employee is under the care and treatment of a doctor.

If during a long term illness, a doctor has not given treatment

uatil after eight calendar days the benefits of Income Protection

are forfeited until the day that the doctor is consulted. This

means in effect that the employee will receive Income benefits

beginning the day that the doctor is called in on the case.

If during the long term illness no doctor is consulted then

no Income Protection Benefits are payable.

If the maximum of ten days of short term absence has not

already occurred during the calendar year, a maximum of five

days for each long term absence in which a doctor has not been

consulted during the first seven days may be considered as short

term and paid for under our short term absence policy or a

lesser number of days depending on the number already used.

Not more than five days for each absence may be classified as

short term and not more than a maximum of ten days for all

reasons shall be paid for during the year.

Home Office Salary must be properly advised with a copy to

Home Office Benefit Plans if any available days of “short term”

absence are to be paid on a Long Term IIlnesss as described

above. In addition to Per. 148, Report of Long Term Illness,

covering the beginning and ending of lost time, Per. 158, Salary

Deduction Authorization, must ve forwarded with respect to any

and all days for which salary is to be deducted. Coding on

attendance records should be “1” (short term illness) for those

days payable and “12” (unexcused) for days not payable. Code

9 may be used only for the period covered by our insurance

benefits.

Persons who have been with the Company less than 3 months

and who therefore have not qualified for our Income Protection

Plan will have salary deductions made for all days absent.

The Report of Long Term Illness, Per. 148, should be marked

“no benefits applicable” for persons whose length of service does

not qualify for the Income Protection Plan. Some states have

statutory disability insurance and in those states, statutory bene-

fits are paid to employees of less than 3 months service. In such

cases, Per. 148 should be marked “Statutory Benefits”. Long

Term Illness of persons with less than 3 months service should

be coded (1) to indicate that all of the absence is being deducted.

An employee who is absent for more than ten consecutive

work days during the three-month probationary period will be

terminated. Upon return to work, this individual will be re-

employed provided he or she is able to pass a new pre-placement

examination and will begin a new three-month probationary

period.

204. Pregnancy Policy

No Income Protection Benefits are payable for absences due

to pregnancy.

However, in the case of a long term illness due to pregnancy

where the doctor is seen, the Supervisor may in his discretion

consider the first five days of such absences as payable under our

“short term” absence policy.

EXHIBIT I TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INSURANCE BENEFITS begin with the eighth day of dis-

ability. If you do not receive treatment before the eighth day of

disability, however, benefits do not begin until the first day on

which you are treated.

For 51 weeks, the benefits is two-thirds of your salary to a

maximum of $150.00 per week and is payable only if you are

unable to perform the duties of your occupation.

For 51 weeks, the benefit is two-thirds of your salary to a

maximum of $115.00 per week and is payable only if you are

unable to perform the duties of any occupation.

These benefits are payable for each period of disability.

Successive periods due to the same or related causes will be

considered one period of disability.

LIMITATIONS ON INSURANCE BENEFITS:

Benefits are not payable for disability due to occupational

injury or to sickness covered under Workmen’s Compensa-

tion Insurance; for disability due to pregnancy or any

cause related to pregnancy; for disabiiity in excess of

104 weeks; or for disability during which you were not

treated by a physician licensed to practice medicine.

SUPPLEMENTARY SALARY BENEFITS are provided by

the Company to help fill the gap between insurance benefits and

your usual earnings. In cases covered by insurance under the

Income Protection Plan. Liberty Mutual pays your full salary

for the first week of disability. Then, for as many weeks as you

have completed years of service with the Company, it pays one-

half the difference between full salary and the insurance benefits.

In cases covered under Workmen’s Compensation Insurance,

the Company will pay, for a period of not more than two years,

the difference between the amount you receive and that which

you would have received in case of non-occupational injury or

sickness, (In such event, if the disability for which supplementary

salary benefits are paid is due to injury or sickness for which a

third person is responsible. Liberty Mutual is to be reimbursed

out of any damages owed you by the responsible party. )

YOUR COST for the Income Protection Insurance benefits

is 33 cents for each $100 of salary. (This is half of the cost;

Liberty Mutual pays the other half to you.) For example:

$ 50. $100. $ .33

60. 120. .40

90. 180. 59

150. 300. .99

225. 450. 1.49 (max.)

These rates apply in all states except those where compulsory

laws necessitate slight variations. The rates are based on present

insurance costs and are subject to change if insurance costs

change.

YOU BECOME ELIGIBLE after you have completed three

months of continuous full-time employment if then actively at

work; otherwise, on the date of return to active work. Income

Protection Insurance is taken by a full-time employees as a

condition of employment.

SPECIAL STATUTORY DISABILITY BENEFITS

apply in California, New Jersey, New York and Rhode

Island. Employees in these states will be insured for state-

required benefits from the first day of employment. You

still become eligible for the Income Protection plan after

completing three months of continuous full-time employ-

ment.

If you are employed in one of these states and disability

occurs after you are insured for Income Protection, you will

receive under the Income Protection plan the difference

between the amount paid by statutory accident and sickness

insurance and the benefit you would ordinarily receive from

the Income Protection plan.

EXHIBIT J TO PL AINTIFF’S BRIEF FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INSURANCE BENEFITS begin with the eighth day of

disability. Employees with more than three months but less than

five years of continuous full time service will receive a benefit of

two-thirds of salary to a maximum of $150.00 per week, for

103 weeks.

Employees with five years or more of continuous full time

service will receive a benefit of two-thirds of salary to a

maximum of $275.00 per week to age 65.

These benefits are payable during the first year of disability if

you are unable to perform the duties of your occupation. Bene-

fits are payable beyond the first year of disability only if you are

unable to perform the duties of any occupation.

Benefits payable for any week of disability will be reduced by

amounts payable under workmen’s compensation and similar

laws, social security laws (primary and dependent benefits) and

other statutes, any retirement plan, any group insurance plan

except a group policy held by Liberty Mutual, and any remun-

eration earned during such week.

Benefits are payable for each period of disability, Successive

periods due to the same or related causes will be considered one

period of disability.

LIMITATIONS ON INSURANCE BENEFITS:

Benefits are not payable for disability due to pregnancy

or any cause related to pregnancy, any act of declared or

undeclared war, attempted suicide or intentionally self-

inflicted injury, or for any disability which does not require

throughout its continuance the regular attendance of a

physician licensed to prescribe and administer all drugs and

to perform all surgical procedures. No benefits will be paid

beyond age 65.

SUPPLEMENTARY SALARY BENEFITS are provided by

the Company to help fill the gap between insurance benefits and

your usuai earnings. In cases covered by insurance under the

Income Protection Plan. Liberty Mutual pays your full salary

for the first week of disability. Then, for as many weeks as you

have completed years of service with the Company, it pays one-

half the difference between full salary and the insurance benefits.

YOUR COST for the Income Protection Insurance benefits is

33 cents for each $100 of salary. (This is less than one-third of

the cost: Liberty Mutual pays the balance for you.) For ex-

ample:

y Pay | Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Cost

o Salary of (Payroll Deduction)

$ 50. $100. $ .33

60. 120. .40

90. 180. 59

150. 300. .99

225. 450. 1.49 (max.)

These rates apply in all states except those where compulsory

laws necessitate slight variations. The rates are based on present

insurance costs and are subject to change if insurance costs

chan,’e.

If you are absent from work for any reason, other than

vacation or paid excused absence, on the date your insurance

would otherwise become effective, the insurance will not be

effective until you return to work.

Income Protection Insurance is taken by all full time em-

ployees as a condition of employment:

SPECIAL STATUTORY DISABILITY BENEFITS

apply in California, New Jersey, New York and Rhode

Island. Employees in these states will be insured for state-

required benefits from the first day of employment. You

still become eligible for the Income Protection plan after

completing three months of continuous full-time employ-

ment.

If you are employed in one of these states and disability

occurs after you are insured for Income Protection, you

will receive under the Income Protection plan the difference

between the amount paid by statutory accident and sickness

insurance and the benefit you would ordinarily receive from

the Income Protection plan.

EXHIBIT K ATTACHED TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INSURANCE BENEFITS begin with the eighth day of dis-

ability. Employees with more than three months but less than

five years of continuous full time service will receive a benefit

of two-thirds of salary to a maximum of $150.00 per week, for

103 weeks.

Employees with five years or more of continuous full time

service will receive a benefit of two-thirds of salary to a maxi-

mum of $275.00 per week to age 65.

These benefits are payable during the first year of disability if

you are unable to perform the duties of your occupation. Bene-

fits are payable beyond the first year of disability only if you

are unable to perform the duties of any occupation.

Benefits payable for any week of disability will be reduced by

amounts payable under workmen’s compensation and similar

laws, social security laws (primary and dependent benefits) and

other statutes, any retirement plan, any group insurance plan

except a group policy held by Liberty Mutual, and any remun-

eration earned during such week.

Benefits are payable for each period of disability. Successive

periods due to the same or related causes will be considered one

period of disability.

Limitations On Insurance Benefits:

Benefits are not payable for disability due to pregnancy or any

cause related to pregnancy, any act of declared or undeclared

war, attempted suicide or intentionally self-inflicted injury, or for

any disability which does not require throughout its continuance

the regular attendance of a physician licensed to prescribe and

administer all drugs and to perform all surgical procedures.

No benefits will be paid beyond age 65.

SUPPLEMENTARY SALARY BENEFITS are provided by

the Company to help fill the gap between insurance benefits

and your usual earnings. In cases covered by insurance under

the Income Protection Plan, Liberty Mutual pays your full

salary for the first week of disability. Then, for as many weeks

as you have completed years of service with the Company, it

pays one-half the difference between full salary and the insur-

ance benefits.

YOUR COST for the Income Protection Insurance benefits

is 33 cents for each $100 of salary. (This is less than one-third

of the cost; Liberty Mutual pays the balance for you.) For

example:

At Weekl Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Cost

Salary o Salary of (Payroll Deduction)

$ 50. $100. $ .33

60. 120. .40

90. 180. 59

150. 300. .99

225. 450. 1.49 (max.)

These rates apply in all states except those where compulsory

laws necessitate slight variations. The rates are based on present

insurance costs and are subject to change if insurance costs

change. If you are absent from work for any reason, other than

vacation or paid excused absence, on the date your insurance

would otherwise become effective, the insurance will not be

effective until you return to work.

Income Protection Insurance is taken by all full time em-

ployees as a condition of employment.

SPECIAL STATUTORY DISABILITY BENEFITS apply

in California, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. Em-

ployees in these states will be insured for state-required benefits

the Income Protection plan after completing three months of

continuous full-time employment.

If you are employed in one of these states and disability oc-

curs after you are insured for Income Protection, you will re-

ceive under the Income Protection plan the difference between

the amount paid by statutory accident and sickness insurance

and the benefit you would ordinarily receive from the Income

Protection plan.

EXHIBIT L TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INSURANCE BENEFITS begin with the eighth day of

disability. Employees with more than three months but less

than five years of continuous full time service will receive a

benefit of two-thirds of salary to a maximum of $150.00 per

week, for 103 weeks.

Employees with five years or more of continuous full time

service will receive a benefit of two-thirds of salary to a maxi-

mum of $270.00 per week to age 65.

These benefits are payable during the first year of disability

if you are unable to perform the duties of your occupation.

Benefits are payable beyond the first year of disability only if

you are unable to perform the duties of any occupation.

Benefits payable for any week of disability will be reduced by

amounts payable under workmen’s compensation and similar

laws, social security laws (primary and dependent benefits) and

other statutes, any retirement plan, any group insurance plan

except a group policy held by Liberty Mutual, and any remu-

neration earned during such week.

Benefits are payable for each period of disability. Successive

periods due to the same or related causes will be considered one

period of disability.

Limitations On Insurance Benefits:

Benefits are not payable for disability due to pregnancy or any

cause relaicd to pregnancy, any act of declared or undeclared

war, attempted suicide or intentionally Self-inflicted injury, or

for any disability which does not require throughout its continu-

ance the regular attendance of a physician licensed to prescribe

and administer all drugs and to perform all surgical procedures.

No benefits will be paid beyond age 65.

SUPPLEMENTARY SALARY BENEFITS are provided

by the Company to help fill the gap between insurances benefits

and your usual earnings. In cases covered by insurance under

the Income Protection Plan, Liberty Mutual pays your full

salary for the first week of disability. Then, for as many weeks as

you have completed years of service with the Company, it pays -

one-half the difference between full salary and the insurance

benefits.

YOUR COST for the Income Protection Insurance benefits is

33 cents for each $100 of salary. (This is less than one-third of

the cost; Liberty Mutual pays the balance for you.) For example:

At Weeki Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Cost

Salary o Salary of Payroll Deduction)

$ 50. $100. $. 33

60. 120. .40

90. 180. 59

150. 300. .99

225. 450. 1.49 (max.)

These rates apply in all states except those where compulsory

laws necessitate slight variations. The rates are based on present

insurance costs and are subject to change if insurance costs

change. If you are absent from work for any reason, other than

vacation or paid excused absence, on the date your insurance

would otherwise become effective, the insurance will not be

effective until you return to work.

Income Protection Insurance is taken by all full time em-

ployees as a condition of employment.

SPECIAL STATUTORY DISABILITY BENEFITS apply

in California, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. Em-

ployees in these states will be insured for state-required benefits

from the first day of employment. You still become eligible for

the Income Protection plan after completing three months of

continuous full-time employment.

If you are employed in one of these states and disability oc-

curs after you are insured for Income Protection, you will

receive under the Income Protection plan the difference between

the amount paid by statutory accident and sickness insurance

and the benefit you would ordinarily receive from the Income

Protection plan.

EXHIBIT M TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INSURANCE BENEFITS begin with the eighth day of dis-

ability. Employees with more than three months but less than

five years of continuous full time service will receive a benefit

of two-thirds of salary to a maximum of $150.00 per week,

for 103 weeks.

Employees with five years or more of continuous full time

service will receive a benefit of two-thirds of salary to a maxi-

mum of $270.00 per week to age 65.

These benefits are payable during the first year of disability

if you are unable to perform the duties of your occupation.

Benefits are payable beyond the first year of disability only if

you are unable to perform the duties of any occupation.

Benefits payable for any week of disability will be reduced

by amounts payable under workmen’s compensation and simi-

lar laws, social security laws (primary and dependent benefits)

and other statutes, any retirement plan, any group insurance

plan except a group policy held by Liberty Mutual, and any

remuneration earned during such week.

Benefits are payable for each period of disability. Succes-

sive periods due to the same or related causes will be consid-

ered one period of disability.

Limitations On Insurance Benefits:

Benefits are not payable for disability due to pregnancy or

any cause related to pregnancy, any act of declared or unde-

clared war, attempted suicide or intentionally self inflicted injury,

or for any disability which does not require throughout its con-

tinuance the regular attendance of a physician licensed to pre-

scribe and adminisier all drugs and to perform all surgical

procedures. No benefits will be paid beyond age 65.

SUPPLEMENTARY SALARY BENEFITS are provided

by the Company to help fill the gap between insurance benefits

and your usual earnings. In cases covered by insurance under

the Income Protection Plan, Liberty Mutual pays your full

salary for the first week of disability. Then, for as many weeks

as you have completed years of service with the Company, it

pays one-half the difference between full salary and the insur-

ance benefits.

YOUR COST for the Income Protection Insurance benefits

is 33 cents for each $100 of salary. (This is less than one-third

of the cost; Liberty Mutual pays the balance for you.) For

example:

At Weekl | eat Bi-Weekly Cost

Salary of. Salary o Payroll Deduction)

$ 50. $100. $ .33

60. 120. .40

90. 180. 59

150. 300. .99

225. 450. 1.49 (max.

These rates apply in all states except those where compulsory

laws necessitate slight variations. The rates are based on pres-

100

ent insurance costs and are subject to change if insurance costs

change. If you are absent from work for any reason, other than

vacation or paid excused absence, on the date your insurance

would otherwise become effective, the insurance will not be

effective until you return to work.

Income Protection Insurance is taken by all full time em-

ployees as a condition of employment.

SPECIAL STATUTORY DISABILITY BENEFITS apply

in California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.

Employees in most of these states will be insured for state-

required benefits from the first day of employment. You still

become eligible for the Income Protection plan after com-

pleting three months of continuous full-time employment.

If you are employed in one of these states and disability occurs

after you are insured for Income Protection, you will receive

under the Income Protection plan the difference between the

amount paid by statutory accident and sickness insurance and the

benefit you would ordinarily receive from the Income Protection

plan.

101

IN THE UNITED STATES‘DISTRICT COURT

* * (Caption—72-169) * *

AFFIDAVIT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY

Before Me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared

Sandra Wetzel, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes

and says that she is one of the plaintiffs in the above-captioned

action and that she knows that the documents annexed kereto

as Exhibits “A” and “B” are copies of the charges filed by her

and Mari Ross with the Equal Employment Opportunity Com-

mission against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. ~~

/8/ SANDRA WETZEL

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 31st day of October,

1973.

/s/ Joyce E. SMITH

Notary Public

Joyce E. Smith, Notary Public, Pittsburgh, Allegheny

Conuty, Pa. My commission expires April 18, 1977.

102

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

(If you have a complaint, fill in this form and mail it to the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Regional Office

in your area. In most cases, a charge must be filed with the

EEOC within a specified time after the discriminatory act took

place. IT IS THEREFORE IMPORTANT TO FILE YOUR

CHARGE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

This form is to be used only to file a charge of discrimination

based on RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL

ORIGIN.

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)

Case File No. TCLI 2133

Your Name (Mr., Mrs., Miss) Mrs. Sandra Wetzel

indicate Phone Number 412-833-5305

Street Address Dorchester Dr. Apt. 208

City Pittsburgh State Pa. Zip Code 15241

Was the Discrimination Because of: (Please check one)

Race or Color (_} Religious Creed ()

National Origin () Sex J

Who discriminated against you? Give the name and address

of the employer, labor organization, employment agency

and/or apprenticeship committee. If more than one, list all.

Name Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Street address 717 Liberty Ave.

City Pittsburgh State Pa. Zip Code 15222

AND (other parties if any) Home Office 378 Stuart St.

Boston, Mass. 02117

(Stamp) [Received E. E. O. C. Cl. Reg. Office]

May 17, 1971

9 AM

103

. Have you filed this charge with a state or local government

agency?

Yes &) When 5 11 71 No [)

month day year

. If your charge is against a company or a union, how many

employees or members? Under 25 [} Over 25

. The most recent date on which this discrimination took place:

Continuous since date of employment

Month Day Year

. Explain what unfair thing was done to you. How were other

persons treated differently? (Use extra sheet if necessary. )

I am a claims representative investigating industrial acci-

dents. At Liberty Mutual only women may be claims repre-

sentatives and only men may be adjusters. Both investigate

accidents. The men travel outside the office and the women

conduct their investigations by telephone in the office. Both

have the same educational backgrounds.

The men participate in a 6 week training program while

the women are trained only when a supervisor has time.

The work and responsibilities of the men and women are

essentially the same but the pay scale differs by several

thousand dollars. The men are given company cars and

expense accounts to cover travel expenses in addition to the

difference in base salary.

The adjusters have the opportunity of being promoted to

supervisor after several years with the company but there is

little opportunity for women as the company has traditionally

made only men supervisors.

. I swear or affirm that I have read the above charges and

that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and

belief.

Date 5-14-71 SANDRA WETZEL

(Sign your name)

104

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14 day of May, 1971

BERNADETTE M. WILLIAMS Notary Public

(name) (Title)

If it is difficult for you to get a Notary Public to sign this,

sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The

Commission will help you to get the form sworn to.

(Stamp) Bernadette M. Williams, Notary Public, Pittsburgh,

Allegheny County. My commission expires Mar. 11, 1972.

Form App.: Bur. of Budget—No. 124-R0001

Form EEOC-5(Rev.7-68 )

105

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

(If you have a complaint, fill in this form and mail it to the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Regional Office

in your area. In most cases, a charge must be filed with the

EEOC within a specified time after the discriminatory act took

place. IT IS THEREFORE IMPORTANT TO FILE YOUR

CHARGE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

This form is to be used only to file a charge of discrimination

based on RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL

ORIGIN.

Case File No. TCLI 2132

(Please Print or Type)

1. Your Name (Mr., |Mrs.|, Miss) Mari B. Ross

Phone Number 412 276-1649

Street Address 1308 Pennsbury Blvd. S.

City Pittsburgh State Penna. Zip Code 15205

2. Was the Discrimination Because of: (Please check one)

Race or Color [} Religious Creed ()

National Origin () Sex

3. Who discriminated against you? Give the name and address

of the employer, labor organization, employment agency

and/or apprenticeship committee. If more than one, list all.

Name Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Street address 378 Stuart St.

City Boston State Mass. Zip Code 02177

And (other parties if any) Local address 717 Liberty

Ave. Pitt., Pa. 15222

(Stamp) [Received E. E. O. C. Cl. Reg. Office]

May 17, 1971

9 AM

106

4. Have you filed this charge with a state or local government

agency?

Yes When 5 11 71 No ()

month day year

5. If your charge is against a company or a union, how many

employees or members? Under 25 [| Over 25 &)

6. The most recent date on which this discrimination took place:

Month Day Year

Continuing since date of employment

7. Explain what unfair thing was done to you. How were other

persons treated differently? (Use extra sheet if necessary. )

1. During interview for position as claims representative

vas subjected to questions regarding marital situation

and birth control.

2. Once hired was left out of training program, and

required to learn job on the desk.

3. As a claims representative, I do comparable work

to an adjuster, for a minimum of $2,600.00 less, than

an adjuster receives.

4. Because Liberty Mutual does not hire women adjusters

there is no chance for promotion to supervisor.

8. I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and

that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and

belief.

Date 5-14-71 Mari B. Ross

(Sign your name)

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14 day of May 1971

BERNADETTE M. WILLIAMS Notary Public

(Name) (Title)

If it is difficult for you to get a Notary Public to sign this,

sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The

Commission will help you to get the form sworn to.

Form App.: Bur. of Budget—No. 124-RO001

Form EEOC-5(Rev.7-68 )

107

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

* * (Caption—72-169) * *

RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs in seeking partial summary judgment in this

case’ claim that no genuine issue of fact exists as to whether

the defendant discriminated against females in filling the posi-

tion of claims adjuster and positions above it; that no genuine

issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant discriminated

against females in filling the position of claims adjuster and no

genuine issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant dis-

criminated against female employees with respect to its em-

ployment policies relating to pregnancy and income protection.

In this response defendant will show that there are genuine

issues of fact or that there is disagreement concerning the in-

ference to be taken from the facts as to whether it discriminated

against females in filling the position of claims adjuster and

positions above it and thus the motion for summary judgment

must be denied; that there are genuine issues of fact as to

whether or not the defendant discriminated against females in

filling the position of claims adjuster and thus the motion for

summary judgment must be denied, and that this Honorable

Court must dismiss that portion of the complaint relating to

alleged discrimination in employment policies relating to preg-

nancy and salary continuation because it is prematurely before

1. Numerous allegations in the complaint are not discussed in

plaintiffs’ motion presumably because the plaintiffs concede that they

involve factual disputes and thus are prevented from consideration in

a motion for summary judgment. For example, one such issue is the

allegation that the position of claims representative requires for its

performance equal skill, effort and responsibility as that required for

the position of claims adjuster and is performed under similar work-

ing conditions. See Brennan v. Corning Glass Works, ........ F. 2d

cosnsen (C. A. 3, June 28, 1973).

108

the court; but assuming arguendo that the court entertains this

portion of the complaint, a motion for summary judgment is

proper because the defendant’s employment policies relating to

pregnancy and salary continuation are not in factual dispute

but the issue of liability must be decided in favor of the de-

fendant because its policies are in compliance with Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

Before responding to the issues raised in the plaintiffs’ motion,

a comment is warranted on thre plaintiffs’ tact in this case which

is, of course, abundantly evident in this motion. From the day

that the complaint was filed and continuing, counsel for the

plaintiffs has unceasingly referred to this case as “a class action”

or “the class that the plaintiffs represent” or words to this effect.

The record is overwhelmingly clear that no motion to allow this

case to proceed as a class action has ever been granted nor

has any class ever been certified. The only comments from

the court concerning the class aspect of the case is the court's

observation that if the case were to proceed as a class action

the class could not include persons who had terminated their

employment with the defendant prior to the filing of the com-

plaint.* That observation, while not a ruling, was a clear recog-

nition of the discretion placed in the District Court to determine

whether the class action shall be permitted to proceed at all.

Furthermore, neither of the named plaintiffs is in the employ of

the defendant at this time and the court must, at some point,

determine if there are proper representatives of a class and

whether or not those representatives will adequately represent

the interests of a class.* Furthermore, litigation of even any

purported general policy of defendant would inevitably focus

in detail on the separate work histories of each plaintiff and

each member of the class.

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving

party must clearly demonstrate:

2. Order of September 14, 1972.

3. See Affidavit of Edmund A. Carr, marked as Exhibit A.

109

1. The absence of a genuine issue of mate

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.