# Appendix — Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Wetzel > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0311%3A05 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 424 U.S. 737 ## 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 il 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 2 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 ... . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3 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 4 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 34 35 5 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 6 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 ..... 65 67 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 7 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- 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 8 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 ............ 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 *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 SO>O>O>D 28 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 29 [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? 30 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 31 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 32 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 [1 O>Borororo 33 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 34 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. 35 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. 36 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 37 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. 38 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 39 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? 40 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 41 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? A. Q OPOPOr 42 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 43 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. at 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. 45 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 > 46 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? 47 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 48 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] 49 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 50 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 51 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 52 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.) 53 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? o> OPOor 54 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? 55 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. 56 [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 57 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. Q. 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? 58 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 59 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? 60 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. 61 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. 62 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 63 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. 64 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. A. 65 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? 66 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 67 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? 68 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. 69 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? 70 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? 71 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 72 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 73 Witness: In Mr. Carr’s office. - Grove: Okay. Don’t answer the question. Were there any other discussions other than with Mr. Fe 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 74 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 75 «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 76 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. ©. Were Mrs. Ross and Mrs. Wetzel told that is why the offer was made? 77 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. 78 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 79 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 80 [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. 81 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. 82 [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. 83 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. 84 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 85 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 86 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 87 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, 89 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. 90 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 91 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: a $ 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. 93 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. 94 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 95 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- 96 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 w [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0311%3A05. Public record. Not legal advice.