# Appendix — EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods Corp. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_2184%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1981 - **Citation:** 449 U.S. 590 ## Text ES lupreme Court, U. i“ FILED JUN 10 1980 JOINT APPEND In the Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1979 No. 79-1068 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner —VV.— ASSOCIATED DRY Goops CORPORATION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED JANUARY 7, 1980 CERTIORARI GRANTED MARCH 17, 1980 TABLE OF CONTENTS Relevant Docket Entries ..20......0......0cc.cccccccecccceeeeee es sie cadena Amended Complaint and Attached Exhibits A-L........ Motion to Dismiss .........0.00000000000.0.2-2-. tisacidlad wacaubaiahabedeeemeedaasions Letter from Roger S. Kaplan to the Honorable Robert H. Merhige, Jr. ......... PII ICS EFS EET OO OREN el IO A Agreement of Non-disclosure executed by Samuel A. Vitaro.. Ceecgen Gf Tiseriination .......................................... Order denying in part, and sustaining in part, the motion to ER GEN SER wae ae, Se re re cr ae te Order granting motion to transfer Equal Employment Oppor- tunity Commission V. Joseph Horne Co., Civil Action No. ie RD Th EUR Sad ee Oe SLPS SE RT Ra Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Ura conaciesting cape ........................................__........... Order entering judgment in faver of plaintiff Order granting the petition for a writ of certiorari Page 100 108 109 110 111 113 1 RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES 06-27-75 (1) Complaint filed; summonses issued. 07-08-75 (2) Marshals return on summons as to all de- fendants listed executed and filed. 08-26-75 (3) Deft’s Motion to Dismiss with Supporting Memorandum filed. 09-02-75 (4) ORDERED that Plitf. may have up to & in- cluding 09/29/75 in which to file response to Deft’s Mo- tion to Dismiss); ENTERED by RRM on 09/02/75 & filed. Copies mailed. 09-25-75 (5) ORDER that Pltf may have up to & including 10/31/75 within which to file its response to Deft’s Mo- tion to Dismiss, ent. 9/25/75, RRM, filed. Copies mailed. 10-10-75 (6) ORDERED that Deft. may file Answer with- in 10 days after Court finally rules on Deft’s Motion to Dismiss, ENTERED on 10/10/75 & filed. Copies mailed. 10-31-75 (7) Pltf’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint, filed. 12-01-75 (8) Memorandum of Points ane Authorities in Reply to Pltf’s Memorandum in Opposition to Deft’s Mo- tion to Dismiss, filed. 06-25-76 (9) Court’s Memorandum and ORDER denying deft’s motion to dismiss in part and sustaining Deft’s motion to dismiss in part, ent. 6-25-76, RRMjr, filed. Copies mailed. 07-08-76 (10) ORDERED parties to action brief within 15 days from entry of this Order issue of whether Civil Rights Act of 1964, ENTERED by RRMjr on 07/08/76 & filed. Copies mailed to all counsel of record. 07-14-76 (11) ORDER that the parties may have until 8/8/76 in which to file their briefs, ent. 7/14/76, RRM, filed. Copies mailed. 07-28-76 (12) Pltf’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Join Parties Deft and Amend Complaint, filed. 2 07-28-76 (13) Pltf’s Motion to Join Parties and Amend Complaint, filed. 08-09-76 (14) Deft’s Memorandum of Points and Authori- ties in Support of Deft’s Position on the Merits, filed. 08-09-76 (15) Pltf’s Supplemental Memorandum Following Decision on Motion to Dismiss, filed. 08-24-76 (16) ORDERED Motion to join parties Deft & amend complaint filed by Pltf on 07/28/76 is hereby GRANTED; Defts directed to respond to amended com- plaint within 20 days from entry of this Order, EN- TERED by RRMjr on 08/24/76 & filed. Copies mailed to all counsel of record. 08-25-76 (17) PIltf’s Amended Complaint for declaratory judgment & injunction, filed. 08-26-76 (18) Summons issued on Amended Complaint. 08-27-76 (19) ORDER allowing Defts 20 days from serv- ice to respond to amegiled complaint ent. 8-27-76, RRM, JR., filed. Copies mail@i. 09-20-76 (20) Defts’ Motion for Extension of Time, filed. 09-20-76 (21) ORDERED Defts have until 09/23/76 in which to respond to amended complaint, ENTERED by RRMjr on 09/20/76 & filed. Copies mailed to all counsel of record. 09-23-76 (22) Defts’ Answer, filed. No jury demand. 11-16-76 (23) Pitf’s Motion for Relief from Order, filed. 11-16-76 (24) Pitf’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Relief from Order, filed. 11-22-76 (25) Defts’ Memorandum in Support of Defts’ Position on Merits, filed. 11-23-76 (26) ORDERED Defts may respond within 10 days to Pitf’s motion for relief, ENTERED by RRMjr on 11/23/76 & filed. Copies mailed to all counsel of rec- ord. 3 12-07-76 (27) ORDER allowing Pltf until 1-22-77 to file response to Dft’s memorandum ent. 12-7-76, RRM,JR., filed. Copies mailed. 12-14-76 (28) Pltf’s Interrogatories to Defendants, filed. 01-05-77 (29) ORDER that time for Pltf’s response to Defts Memorandum in Support of Defts’ Position on Merits extended to 1-31-77, ent. 1-6-77, RRMjr, filed. Copies mailed. 02-01-77 (30) ORDERED time for Defts to answer inter- rogatories extended to 01/31/77 & time for Pltf. to file memorandum on merits extended to 02/14/77, nunc pro tune 01/31/77, ENTERED by RRMjr on 02/01/77 & filed. Copies mailed to all counsel of record. 02-04-77 (31) Deft’s Answers to Pltf’s Interrogatories, filed. 03-01-77 (32) ORDER, consolidating CA-76-0510 with this case. Entered by RRM, jr., on 03/01/77 & filed. Copies mailed to all counsel of record. 04-01-77 (33) EEOC’s Supplemental Response in Support of Deft’s Position on the Merits, filed. 02-11-78 (34) Pltfs’ reply memorandum, received (no cer- tificate) . 07-18-78 (35) Memorandum of the Court filed. 07-18-78 (36) ORDER granting in CA 76-0510-R, EEOC’s application for enforcement of adm. subpoena duces tecum; judgment on merits in CA 75-0297-R hereby en- tered in favor of the Pltf, Assoc. Dry Goods Corp; void- ing EEOC procedural regulations of charging parties any information in EEOC investigative files; enjoining Com- mission from making such disclosures; denying request of Plitf, Assoc. Dry Goods, for atty’s fees & costs in de- fending against EEOC’s action to enforce subpoena duces tecum ent. 7-18-78, RRM,JR., filed. Copies mailed. 08-01-78 (37) Joseph Horne Co.’s Notice of Appeal in CA 76-0510-R, filed. _ 4 08-01-78 (38) Joseph Horne Co.’s Motion for Stay of Or- der Pending Appeal and for Interim Relief, filed. 08-04-78 (39) ORDER that Respondent-Appellant’s appli- cation for stay pending appeal GRANTED, ent. 8-3-78, RRMjr., filed. Copies mailed. 08-10-78 (40) Defts’ Notice of Appeal, filed. (No fees re- ceived). 08-10-78 (41) Defts’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, filed. 08-10-78 (42) Defts’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Stay, filed. 08-14-78 (43) Pltf-Appellee’s Answer to Defts-Appellants’ Motion For Stay Pending Appeal, filed. 08-16-78 (44) ORDER, that Defts-Appellants’ motion for stay pending appeal of Order of Court dated 07/18/78 is GRANTED, but only to the extent it pertains to proceed- ings and records involving parties other than Associated Dry Goods Corp. or its divisions, including the Joseph Horne Co. Entered by RRM,JR., on 08/16/78 & filed. Copies mailed. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION Civil Action No. 75-0297-R ASSOCIATED DRY GOODS CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF en EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC), and ETHEL B. WALSH, individually and as “Acting Chairman,” and permanent Vice Chairman of the EEOC, DANIEL E. LEACH, individually and as Mem- ber of the EEOC, CoLston A. LEWIS, individually and as Member of the EEOC, RAYMOND L. TELLES, in- dividually and as Member of the EEOC, ALVIN L. GOLUB, individually and as Acting Executive Director of the EEOC, ABNER W. SIBAL, individually and as General Counsel of the EEOC, EDUARDO PENA, Jr., individually and as Director of Compliance of the EEOC, and EUGENE V. NELSON, individually and as District Director, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, District Office, of the EEOC, DEFENDANTS AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION Associated Dry Goods Corporation, by its attorneys, for its complaint against the Defendants allege, as follows: AS AND FOR A FIRST SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a civil action seeking declaratory, injunctive and other relief. Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that confidential business records of the Plaintiff, subpoenaed by Defendants during their administrative investigations, 6 should not be disclosed to the charging parties, their attorneys or any other person. In addition, Plaintiff seeks an injunction against such disclosure. BASES OF JURISDICTION 2. Jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon the Freedom of Information Act (F.0.I.A.), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1974); the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, et seq., 701, et seg.; Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 13831, 13837, 1651; the Declaratory Judgment Act, as amended, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2203; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seg. (1972); and, the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1905. 3. The matters in controversy exceed the sum of $10,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and arise un- der the laws of the United States. THE PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Associated Dry Goods Corporation, (ADG) is a Virginia corporation incorporated in the City of Richmond. It owns and operates numerous retail department stores throughout the United States. 5. The Joseph Horne Company (hereinafter referred to as “Horne’s’”) is a division of ADG authorized to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where it operates several retail department stores in the metro- politan Pittsburgh vicinity. 6. Defendant Equal Employment Opportunity Com- mission (hereinafter referred to as the “E.E.0.C.”) is an administrative agency of the Federal Government, created under the authority of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (a) Defendant E.E.0.C. is an “agency” within the meaning of §551(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), and § 552(e) of the F.O.LA., as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 552(e) (1974). on i 2=ESENTING : . en AGGRIZEVEO PERSON ON WHOSE AGGRIEVEO PEASONIN 57 NAMEO Paary { iterhce 2 pi Cini tre a J rr) deve le, Leh. ee am, ¥ rake; Rev, “14 Kat seKie —a iti lswear or affirm that | have read the above charge and that it is true pe = best of my knowiedge, information gad belic’. Date y Ae oe 76/720 K Latins ce A Ninise Fee AND (other parties if any) {- aie Miaalhd jr | o2D4 g2¢os4 } he — =~ Jb 1 Ay ‘AVZ ay. NN ky, Wire. Si uf is charg i ? pt A 4 Have you filed this charge with a state or local government agency Yes O Where = ae No Xx If your charge is cgainst a company or a union, how many employees or members? en oe aki : Under 25) _ Over 25 (x —— - 6 The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Month 2 Day 24 Year 22 con’ is 7 Explain wnat unfaw thing was ome to you. biga were other persons tn differently? (Use extra sheet i if necessary.) _ a Otfice _of the phaeiaonbe ed | respondent . company ure a period of five years _On February 24, — 1972, I was informed that I would be trained as E _store detective and would have to perform several difficult tasks in _several different job _catecories. A large emount of travel and SUEFTCOIE hours would be involved. I | I feel. that this. action h has _ 3 been taxen seatast” he as_a technique of harassment beczuse_ of my previous s contact with tac_ ~Equal Ernloyment Opportunity Commission and 5 on ey With others that have filed. charsed_with this Commission. _and that this_ is S$. part of a —planned_action_ cf retaliation azainst those in mv y_departmen’ have deaii withthe EEOC, I _ also feel ‘that - the company has _« di scriminacea asainst —wonen_as_aclass_in the terms and conditions of employme nt_and_tnae bi Bee See permanent indirect violation of Title VII of the Civil Rishts Act of _ 1964 iene a eens snbeieabieheimaiel 8 I swear or affirm that | have reed the above charge and that it is true to the test of my «nowledge, intbrsnation and betief. Date ttt / 72 Lin. | a Pe ea v futis ign 5 your Name) Subscribed and swcin to before me this _ 28 day of _ fz 7 196 7/7. ¢ Pa ir a , ‘ : ( ea fa f Same fees, (a, . i eal j Fo ae 7 fe eit ee eS ees 8 A PERRET IED OE TS PRPS Rs, eR ties Ir ik ts Calicut tor you te get a ine ary Fucite to sign tis, Sign your own name and mail to the Regicra! Gifice. The Coanssie: 2 wil ter gy to got the torm sv.sra to. FORM APP: BUR. OF BUDSET—Na 124-R™01 FOR ECOL-S (PLY. )-£2) br CHANGE UP DISUIMINALIUN (If you have a complaint, fill in this form anc .:ail it to the Equal This foim is to be useo _..ly to file a charpe of discrimination based Employment Opportunity Commission's Regional Office in your on RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN. area. In most cases, a charge must be filed with the EEOC within @ specified time arer the discriminatory act took place. IT IS “HEREFORE IMPORTANT TO FILE YOUR CHARGE AS SOON AS Case File No.__ TP12-0323 POSSIBLE. a oa (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE) 1 Your Name2Xr., Mrs.. M3) Helen A, Pollock Phone Number 486-6037 _ indica Street Address _ 3979 Lawrence Avenue City Allsion Parx State ___ Pennsylvania ___ Zip code 15101 2 WAS THE DISCRIMINATION SECAUSE OF: (Please check one) Race or Color OD Religious Creed 2 National Origin 2 SexXx Goa) SoU, iT Une. ; 3 Who discriminated agzinst you? Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, empf ay asenc de Jornrpprentice- ship committee. If more than ane, list all. VS aN Name___ JOseph Horne Co, DP) hee ee Street address _ 501 Penn Avenue be City __ Pittsburgh _ - State ___ Pennsylvania __{; zz Cade i970 |S: ii cnhemy AND (other parties if any) ie WN LSi iS; ey 7 S wr Yes When Nk sO : MONTH DAY YEAR «x 4 Have you filed this charge with a state or local government agency? & If your charge is agzinst 2 company or a union, how many employees or members? Under 25 O Over 25 4 6 The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Month January — Day os Year ]972. cont, 7 Explain what unfair thing was Cone to you. How were other persons treated differently? (Use extra sineet if necessary.) __The responcent emplover has in the past and continuously thereafter to | __date ciscriminet acainst women b omoting and/or hiring oniv mzn into supervisory positions even yoy the women were as eauelly qualified and aple to perform the job as the men. —__The_responcent employer has in the past and continuously thereatter D ~—_date_discrininates-ageinst_wanen_by_paying tt them lower wazes and_ pené@1E ae men_perrorm substantially the sane joo _ duties ~~, “1 I. fee) this | renresents discrimination ag agains st women as a -E18s s and is i: @ I swoarcr affirm thet | have read the above charge aiid that it is true to the ae of my knowledge, information and belief. Dste L- 3-72 Sh oe ea bee vei Pedy Sign your rame) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3 day of (EOE ken aS 195 _? 4 Fite ae a Ate thn A eo we — ae ae ore. 5 ok ee” © oe whee ee ii it is is er Cut ior you to seta sic le ry Pubirc lo sign this, sign your own name end mail ‘to the Revional Ofi:ce. The Cen. TESSIOI Getet ie gh be to fet the form sworn to. FORM APP: BUR CF SUDGET—No. 124-R0001 FORM LOEOS-5 (Rev. 7-02) va ",HANGE Ur DISUNITMINA LUNN (If you have a complaint, fill in this form ands il it to the Equal This form Is ‘to be used « g to file a charge of discrimination based Emp!oyment Opportunity Commission's Regional Office in your + on RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, of NATIONAL ORICIN. area. In most ceses, a charge must be fled with the EFOC within - a specified time after the discriminatory act took place. IT IS ; THEREFCRE IMPORTANT TO FILE YOUR CHARGE AS SOON AS CaseFileNo. 7) P(2 C649 Y POSSIBLE. ; a Gan (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE) ; 1 Your Name (#¢¥., Mrs. » RiXss Mary Kritko 2 Phone Number _46]-5°64 dicate a Street Address _ 423 9th Avenue \ , Citys Munhal] State Pas \ >) zip Code _ 15120 2 WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one) Race or Color 1) Retizgious Creed 1 National Origin 0 Sex (Ff 3 Who Giscriminated against you? Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentice hip committee. If more than one, list all. ee msi Joseph Horne Co. a oar Fors. Street address _ 50] Penn. Avenue BF i en E a City Pittsburgen State ZWF “Zip Code AND (other parties if any) Bred i: CG, n ate { oo ‘io } : Be \ — f. is ae : nial Zi. % A. a, eS _ ws rer 4 Have you filed this charge with a state or local government agency? Yes 0 we ia. ‘ i No fr ~~ MONTH DAY YEAR ¢ h is 2g2i 2ny or i h 1 5 If your charge is 2g2inst a comp2ny or a union, how many employees or members? Under 25 0 Over 25 1 6 The most recent date on which this discrimination took plece: Month January Day n Be Year —\ ao 7 Explain what unfair thing was done to you. How were other persons treated differently? (Use extra sheet if necessarv.) On July 23, 1969 I sustained an on-the-job injury while ‘working for. _the above-mentioned | respondent, I was not adequately compensated _ financially and was not given fair treatment during the resulting — eet seis _ hearings end aciustment_ Period, Because of the respondents ondents_disparate— ee treatment t_of ‘myself I have lost wages and benefits. for acontinuing ___ _ period of time. _ =- _Also, the resnondent emnlover has in th inuously therenfis: __ 6 date _discriminatea against women as a Class bv Vv not promoting them _ ~ into supervisory positions and paving them lower wages than men for substantsailv the same work. ination ageinst women as a class is in direct VIT of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, - 8 I sweer or affirm thet I have reed the ebove charge and that it is true to the best of my knowledges, information and belief. Dete CL2L2 e— Fae m71/ afta t hoe? Sign your name) . ; = 329 Sudscribed and sworn to before me this /7 day of fn seen | ee ty é } - ‘ y , 4 wp Sanit 7? tL n> f3.5, : fuel En fit Z oes To G = A'S SRL AAGRDn RRR NR PSE nd. , SNE “ities ; : Lata, S120 YOUr OWN Hamme and mail te the | Regional Giiec. Whe Conia gern Re gva so itera SA oliiees FORM APP.: BUR. OF BUDGET—No. 124-ROO] FORM EEGC~§ (RIV. 7-12; CHARGE OF DISCRiIM,. ATION tL Crance NO. FORM APPROVED ome NO 124-R0001 INSTRUCTIONS ce fled with tre mes? toc olasce. 17 'S CHE SSEN AS SCSSIBLE. f It ycuhave ccerria.nt, nil wthis fo-moarnd muil it te the Equs! Cmployment Cepertuniiy Covmissicn’s District Office in your area. In most teses, ¢ charge LOC within e specifies time alter the ciscriminaiory act - 8h RE CRTANT TO Fi.E YOUR CHANGE AS Atteck exta sheets of paper if necessary.) CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION CL) RACE OR COLOR xk C) RELIGIOUS CREED C) NATICNAL ORIGIN nast (inacete Ur, or Us.y Ms. Marsue Dingley DATE OF BIRTH 8-28-47 STRIET ACLRISS | 903 Chestnut Avenue City, STATE, AND TF OC Pittsburgh, PA COUNTY 15234 |_ Allegheny __| SOCIAL SECURITY NO, __186-40-1151 TELEPHONE NO, (/aclude arra code) 343-0517 THE FOLLOWING PERSON ALWAYS KNOWS WHERE TO CONTACT ME KAWE (Indicaze Mr. or Ms.) Mrs, Dinglev TELEPHONE NO, (Include urea code) 343-0517 STARLET FESS 903 Chestnut Avemie | CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE Pittsburgh, PA 15234 LIST THE EMPLOYE R, LA®@CR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT *#HO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST YOU (If more than one, list all) NAME TELEPHONE NO. (Include arca code) Josenh Hommes Company 261-3000 x 884 STREET 2D5zESS CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE Ctanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 OTPERS tO DiscerimissTes AGAINST YOU (If any} CPtRCE FILED attH STativescay Gtv’T. AGSACY {_) ves TATE FILED AGENCY CHARGE FILED with (Name and address) APFECRIVSTE & OC. CF EVELEVIES/YCMEERS CF CCMPANY OR UNION TritS DATE MOST RECENT OR CONTINUING DISCRIMINATICN TOOK PLACE CHALGE 1S FILES AGAINST fMoath, day, and year over 25 hine_5, 1973 Eyplon whact unies thine w2s cone ito you cnd how other persons were treated differently. Undersicanding that this Sititerent is for the use of the United Stctes Egual Erployment Oppertunity Commission, I hereby certify: I have been discriminated against by the above named respondent employer because of my sex, Female, in promotion, reprisal due to prior contacc with Eoval Enpicyment Opportunity Commission, and general terms and conditions of employment which is in direct violation of Section 704 of Title VII of the Civil kights Act of 1964, as amended. S- > — a cy. —s ‘ ie om * S mw f Fre" a Pa ee mm - aide LAE RE ETS, Soe octets ak ‘ teene or.t thet st SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TD BEFCRE ME THIS CATE § Sexes? Cs Seco ~ te ave res. tne coove con3rsce Gres nee § (Dey, neath, and year) is teue to the bes? c: sy nnowiedse, sr.fesmaion ani belief. DATE rl€GING PARTY (S*gnoture) VY a a 4 ? s "4 af UC - 7’ ome , OY ie SEZ i aaa Po CIPO os 7Q [SiGiATine ly et es ayficult ter vou to gete Notary Public tes nu? > —_ = = -—— =F p> [fPES, otge peur Cun aane und mati to the Gastrict Orjice. Tae Sutser:i23 sns ewsom ic Zetcre dus EECC teziisen atiyee ~w jturentss.on will notarize the charge fer you =t a later dute./ So re ee eer eel us fe sat et = . Pi fe 6/6/73 | Equal Employment’ Officer ‘ EEOC nx 22 § GFO B€0-4+0 Previcus eZitions of this form may De used. COS Crane WO. teOrm APPROVED CHARGE CF DISCRIAINATIO: | TPI 3- 0774 1 Wr 124-5941 ro INSTFUCTIONS CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION ree fs tem ent mad ntete DreatEnelorment Hi jens ox ene fet} oe cat be Fed wt ioe EECS within cencihed tine eer te diceininatery vet |} aeusciovs cnc SOON &S POSE {Sttach extra sheets of paper ij necessary.) (] wattonat on scin Alice %. C wame (inccecie Ir, or Ms.) orvino OATE OF BIRTH ROWwSAPS 2/8 fis SIREET 450-555 435 Filler COUNTY s Lane SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 195-344-0272 Pittsbur City, STATE. Awd ZIP COLE gh TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) 793-1478 THE FOLLOWING PERSON ALWAYS KNOWS WHERE TO CONTACT ME KAME (/r.diccie Mz. oF Me.) The above is permanent TELEPUONE NO, (include area code) STALET 4URES5 CITY, STATE, ANO ZIP CODE LOCAL GOVE LiST TKE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, STATE OR PNe EMT WHO OISCRIMINATED AGAINST YOU (If more thon one, list oll) RAVE Joseph Horne Company TELEPHONE WO. (Include cree code) SiREET 405RE85 Downtorn location - Penn Avenue CITY, STATE, ANO ZIP CODE Pittsburrh, Pa. OTHERS YHO DISTRIMINATED AGAINST YOU (If cry) CHARGE FILED WITH STATESL AL Gov't. ACESCY fiz] ves [_]+.0 tte FILED AGENCY CHARGE FILED with (Nome and oddress) APFFOVIMATE % SO. CF EV-LOVEES/MEMEERS OF COMPANY OR UNICN THIS CHARS. IS FILED AGAINST OATE MOST RECENT CR CONTINUING DISCRIMINATION TOOK FLACE Month, day, ond year) j Continuous Exypica vhict uni s{ctement is ior the use of promotions and wages. air tring was Ccne to you and how other persons were treated differently. Understanding inat this the United States Equal Exploymeat Opportunity Commission, I hereby certify: The Joseph Eorne Company discrinineted against my female sex through fexales with respect to promotions and rages. Because of these conditidzns, I terminated ny employment with the Joseph Horne Comp2ny. Though I was employed with then for 10 years, I was not able to rise above the position of staff I believe the cexnpany continuously discrininates agains’ | jes Selo 1). Gp etn assistant. a Spare rae ee SUSSCRICLO AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE i 3 sees: of Cli.sm t sti nove ress tne stove cherce ans ihatat (Day, month, end ycer) ia tove t3 the bes* c: xy xz.cowtesse, iniss-ation esc tehef. DAlé cr _ G PARTY (Signcture) ° Y Ya a ts fie = Wp Vi 1S —— ms We or /; "ae Of a“ p 16, 1069 ¢,_Il_ have heen emploved_as_a Store Detective in Do=- pe ztment 229 -10 0 of the above-named respondent company. I had lone _been aware o> cis sparate treatment of Scales by the company in regards to wace — “rates __prozo tions, and other terms and conditions of employment. About _ the lat tex mart of December 197), I contacted tha Pittsburgh District Oific o. the ©,F.0.C,. tnree times _bv_ telephone and two times by personal visit an “discussed the e->lovment situation at the respondent company, My supervise ‘the Head of Security, was subsequently made aware of my activities, Or February 1 14, 1972, I was discharged by the company for allegedly making a_ false arrest, The prrest was not without probable cause and other employee “comittine the sare act were not discharged, I_stronzl believe =v discharge sas_a_retaliation_against my contact _w ith the F.E.0,C, enc thst hab this action, as well as the aa, re ees es rion against -.c-=n on es a class, int c-~ms_of emnlovme ection violation OL irle (1). O- Crt C.Vil Richce wee OF Iyoa : ; ay i 6 I saear or efism tnet! ! pave reed tine above Charge @ha that it 1s true to the best “ot my knowledge, information end t«lief. a - ls a er 4 z / . PA 4 Date ARMS de pee ty Ae 2S I, Bn ne : ft as EN ERIE eae ont ov i 7 —- 7 “——(Sign yeur name) SEPA Fa = Ki . . *” a e ¢ Ps’ - Subscribed and sworn te befcre ms this ZS day of - 1-€ 2 4-7 19$°'7 .2 “ \ @ ’ Pe © ay cen rs tee de eo. ee en aries Et iw Lilet ge DO oA a Seer en as estes ae. Rnfier: as SIRES GF aR Et OS Mk Foo gn 8S LOLS eS. a Ty © Sich 06 ges Stay gi Foul Cat Kahle end mail t to > the Regional Office. The Con. AVE LION Wai hei wes to gat the form saorntc. 4 FORM AFP: EUR CF BUOGET—No. 124-RON1 FORM CeOC-5 (KEV. 7-€8) 85 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION Civil Action No. 75-297-R ASSOCIATED DRY Goops CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF Vv. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, DEFENDANT ORDER For the reasons referred to in the Memorandum of the Court, this day filed, and deeming it proper so to do, it is ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the defend- ant’s motion to dismiss be, and the same is hereby, denied in part and sustained in part, as referred to in said Memorandum. Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. /s/ Robert A. Merhige ROBERT A. MERHIGE United States District Judge Date: JUNE 25, 1976 86 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION Civil Action No. 76-0297-R ASSOCIATED DRY GOODS CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF Vv. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (E.E.0.C.), and ETHEL B. WALSH, individually and as “Acting Chairman,” and permanent Vice Chairman of the E.E.0.C., DANIEL E. LEACH, individually and as Member of the E.E.O.C., CoLsTON A. LEwIs, indi- vidually and as Member of the E.E.0.C., RAYMOND L. TELLES, individually and as Member of the E.E.O.C., ALVIN L. GOLUB, individually and as Acting Executive Director of the E.E.0.C., ABNER W. SIBAL, individually and as General Counsel of the E.E.0.C., EDUARDO PENA, JR., individually and as Director of Compliance of the E.E.0.C., and EUGENE V. NELSON, individually and as District Director, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, District Office, of the E.E.0.C., DEFENDANTS ANSWER Ethel Bent Walsh, Acting Chairman of the defendant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and _ per- manent Vice Chairman, on behalf of the Commission and herself in her official capacity, and individually, and each of the other defendants, each in their official capacity and individually, for their answer to the complaint, re- spectfully allege: 1. Defendants admit each and every allegation of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2. Defendants deny each and every allegation of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3. Defendants deny each and every allegation of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. The Complaint does not set forth any facts to warrant the conclusion that there 87 is such an amount ($10,000) involved, and Defendant denies the jurisdiction of the Court in this case. 4. and 5. Defendants are without knowledge or infor- mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Com- plaint. 6. Defendants deny each and every allegation of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint except that Defendants admit that the Commission is an agency of the Federal Government created under § 705 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4. 6(a) Defendants admit each and every allegation of Paragraph 6(a) of the Complaint. 6(b) Defendants admit that the Commission has its principal offices in the City of Washington, District of Columbia. Defendants deny that the Commission’s prin- cipal place of business is in the City of Washington, District of Columbia. The defendant Commission has offices in 32 cities spread throughout the continental limits of the United States. For a listing see 29 C.F.R. § 1610.4(c). 6-1(a) (b) and (ce) Defendants admit each and every allegation of paragraph 6-1(a), (b), and (ec) of the Com- plaint except that Alvin L. Golub is not the Acting Ex- ecutive Director but the Deputy Executive Director. 6-1(d). Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 6-1(d) of the Complaint. 7. Defendants deny that Alice M. Corvino filed a sex discrimination charge against Horne’s on July 25, 1973. Defendants otherwise admit each and every allegation of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 8. Defendants admit each and every allegation of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint except that Defendants deny that Alice M. Corvino filed her charge on July 25, 1973. 9. Defendants admit each and every allegation of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 10. Defendants admit each and every allegation of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 11. Defendants deny each and every allegation of the first sentence of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. The 88 attorney, Louis B. Kushner, represented, on February 25, 1974, the seven charging parties whose cases were being investigated by the Defendant Commission. T': Feb- ruary 25, 1974, letter described in the Compia:nt was inadvertently sent to Mr. Kushner. With regard to the second and third sentences of Paragraph 11 of the Com- plaint, the Defendants are without knowledge or infor- mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein. 12. The Defendants deny each and every allegation of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint except that the De- fendant Commission admits that it attempted to conduct an investigation of Joseph Horne Company during the week of March 4, 1974, and that the agents for Joseph Horne Company refused to allow the investigation to pro- ceed and refused to allow witnesses to be interviewed. 18. and 14. Defendants admit each and every allega- tion of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Complaint. 15. Defendants deny each and every allegation of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint except that Defendant Commission admits that its Pittsburgh District Director sent a letter to Robert Lewis, Esquire dated May 3, 1974. 16. Defendants admit each and every allegation of the first sentence of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. De- fendants deny each and every allegation of the second sentence of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 17. Defendants admit each and every allegation of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 18. Defendant Commission admits that its Associate General Counsel sent a letter to Robert Lewis, Esquire, dated July 12, 1974, and that such letter appears at Exhibit H of the Complaint. Defendants deny each and every other allegation of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 19. and 20. Defendants admit each and every allega- tion of Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Complaint. 21. Defendants admit each and every allegation of the first and third sentences of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. Defendants are without knowledge or infor- mation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 89 22. and 23. Defendants deny each and every allega- tion of Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Complaint. 24. See previous answers 1-23. 25. Defendants admit that the Commission has a regu- lation numbered 1601.20, found at 29 C.F.R. § 1601.20. Defendants deny that Plaintiff has accurately set forth such regulation at Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 26(a). Defendant Commission admits that it promul- gated its regulation § 1610.17(d) in the Federal Register. It is codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1610.17(d). Defendants deny each and every other allegation of Paragraph 26(a) of the Complaint. 26(b). Defendants admit each and every allegation of Paragraph 26 (b) of the Complaint. 27. Defendants deny each and every allegation of Para- graph 27 of the Complaint. 28. Defendants admit each and every allegation of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29. and 30. Defendants deny each and every allega- tion of Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Complaint. 31. See answers to Paragraphs 1-27. 32, 33, 34, and 35. Defendants deny each and every allegation of Paragraphs 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the Complaint. 36. See answers to Paragraphs 1-26. 37. Defendants deny each and every allegation of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint. 38. See answers to Paragraphs 1-26. 39. Defendants deny each and every allegation of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. 40. See answers to Paragraphs 1-26 of the Complaint. 41. and 42. Defendants deny each and every allega- tion of Paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Complaint. 43. See answers to Paragraphs 1-26 of the Complaint. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49. Defendants deny each and every allegation of Paragraphs 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49 of the Complaint. 90 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that this Court deny the relief requested by Plaintiff. /s/ Respectfully submitted, ABNER W. SIBAL General Counsel CONSTANCE L. DUPRE Associate General Counsel Legal Counsel Division Anthony J. De Marco ANTHONY J. DE MARCO Attorney for Defendants EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 2401 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20506 (202) 634-6460 Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Post Office Bldg. P.O. Box 1257 Richmond, Virginia 23210 91 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer has been forwarded to plaintiff’s Counsel by first class mail, postage prepaid at the following addresses: Roger S. Kaplan, Esq. Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman 251 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Hill B. Wellford, Esq. Hunton and Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23210 /s/ Anthony J. De Marco ANTHONY J. DE MARco Attorney for the Defendants EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 2401 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20506 (202) 634-6460 Date: September 22, 1976 92 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, APPLICANT vs. JOSEPH HORNE COMPANY, a division of Associated Dry Goods Corporation, RESPONDENT ORDER AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 1976, for the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED that the respondent’s motion to trans- fer the above-captioned action to the United States Dis- trict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Rich- mond Division, be and the same is hereby granted, and that the respondent’s motion to grant costs and attorney’s fees be and the same is hereby denied, each party to bear its own costs of the proceedings in this court. /s/ [{Illegible] C.D J. ee Counsel of Record 93 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION Civil Action No. 75-029-R ASSOCIATED DRY Goops CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF a) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS TO: Anthony J. DeMarco, Esq. Counsel’s Office Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 2401 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20506 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to F.R. CIV. P. Rule 33 Defendants are hereby requested to serve upon Plaintiff’s attorneys, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman, by Roger S. Kaplan, and Hunton & Williams, by Hill B. Wellford, Jr., at their offices located at 261 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, and 707 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23212, respec- tively, answers in writing, separately and under oath, to the following interrogatories, on or before January 12, 1977. In answering these interrogatories, furnish all infor- mation available to you, including information in the possession of your attorneys, or their investigators, and all persons acting in your behalf and not merely such information known of your own personal knowledge. If you cannot answer the interrogatories in full after exercising due diligence to secure the information, so state and answer to the extent possible, specifying your inability to answer the remainder and stating whatever 94 information or knowledge you have concerning the un- answered portions. The interrogatories which follow are to be considered as continuing, and you are requested to provide, by way of supplementary answers thereto, such additional in- formation as you or any other persons acting on your be- half may hereafter obtain which will augment or other- wise modify your answers now given to the interroga- tories below. Such supplementary responses are to be filed and served upon Defendant within thirty (30) days after receipt of such information. As used herein, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated below: a. “Person” means natural persons, corporations, part- nerships, sole proprietorships, unions, associations, fed- erations, or any other kind of entity. b. “Document” means any printed, typewritten, hand- written, or otherwise recorded matter of whatever char- acter, including, but without limitation, letters, purchase orders, memoranda, telegrams, notes, catalogues, bro- chures, diaries, reports, calendars, inter-office communi- cations, statements, announcements, photographs, tape re- cordings, motion pictures and any carbon or photographic copies of any such material if Plaintiff does not have custody or control of the original. If any document re- quested to be produced was but is no longer in Plaintiff’s possession or control or is no longer in existence, state whether it is: (a) missing or lost, (b) destroyed, (c) transferred voluntarily or involuntarily to others and if so, to whom, or (d) otherwise disposed of; and in each instance explain the circumstances surrounding and authorization for such disposition thereof and state the approximate date thereof. In each question wherein you are asked to “identify” a person, state with respect to such persons: (a) his name, (b) his last known home address and telephone number, (c) his business address and telephone num- ber, (d) the name and address of his employer, and (e) his relationship to you. As used herein, EEOC or Commission refers to the Defendant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 95 and its members, officers, agents, representatives or em- ployees, including the individual named defendants, as indicated from the context of the interrogatory. 1. Identify all persons who have filed charges with the Pittsburgh District Office of the EEOC against the Joseph Horne Company division of Plaintiff since ; 1972. For each person so identified, state: a. The date on which that person’s charge was filed. b. The EEOC Case Number assigned to that per- son’s charge. ce. The nature of the employment discrimination al- leged in that person’s charge (e.g., sex, race, national origin, ete.). 2. For each charge identified in answer to Interroga- tory No. 1, state whether a case file was prepared by the EEOC pertaining to an investigation thereof. 3. For each file listed in response to Interrogatory No. 2, state the name, address, and official title of the EEOC member, officer, employee or agent having custody or control over such file. 4. For each file listed in response to Interrogatory No. 2, state: a. Whether the file was examined at any time by any person or persons, other than a member, officer, or employee of the EEOC. b. The identity of such person or persons, includ- ing the relationship of such person or persons to any charging party and any organizational, pro- fessional or business affiliation of person or persons. ce. The date(s) on which such examination occurred. The purpose(s) asserted by the person or per- sons for conducting the examination (s). e. The identity of the EEOC member, officer, or employee to whom this purpose or purposes was or were communicated, the date thereof, and 5. 96 whether such communication was oral or in writing. Whether the EEOC member, officer, or employee requested proof of the genuineness of the pur- pose or purposes asserted prior to permitting such examination, and of the person’s relationship to the charging party whose file was sought to be examined. Whether the person seeking to examine such file provided proof as aforesaid, and if so, a descrip- tion of its nature, and whether it was oral or in writing. The identity of each and every document con- tained in the file, and whether a table of contents exists for such file. Whether each person identified in response to paragraph “b” above executed an “agreement of non-disclosure,” on a form provided therefore, prior to examining a file. (1) If not, identify the person or persons in- volved and the file which was examined. (2) State the reason why an examination of the file was permitted without prior execution of the agreement. Identify each file, or portion thereof (naming in- dividual documents), listed in response to Interrogatory 4, which has been reproduced by holography, or xero- graphy or similar means, at the request of any person other than an EEOC member, officer or employee. a. b. State the date on which such reproduction was made. Identify the person at whose request the repro- duction was made. State whether the copies made were provided to person requesting them. 97 6. State whether any of the files listed in response to Interrogatory No. 4 has ever been removed from the Pittsburgh District Office of the EEOC by, or at the request of a person other than a Commission member, officer or employee. If so: a. Identify each file thus removed, and the date the removal occurred. b. Identify the person (1) who removed the file, and, (2) requested such removal c. State whether any documents were taken out of the file prior to such removal, and if so, identify them. 7. State whether the Pittsburgh District Office main- tains or has maintained “EEO-1” reports, or copies thereof, filed by the Joseph Horne Company division of Plaintiff. If so: a. State the years for which such reports are or have been maintained. b. State whether any person has examined such reports. ec. If so: (1) Identify the year of the report examined, and (2) Identify the person who examined it. 8. State whether the EEOC has ever offered to trans- mit case file information to any person outside the agency, rather than solely in response to an express re- quest therefor by such persons. If so: a. Identify the persons to whom the offer was made. b. Identify the person making the offer. c. State the date on which the offer was made. d . Identify the case and information so transmitted. 98 9. State whether the Pittsburgh District Office of the EEOC maintains a log or register for persons who ex- amine offered files. If so: a. b. Cc. Identify the District Office officer or employee responsible for maintaining this document. State what information is recorded in this docu- ment. The exact nature of the entries which relate to the files identified in Interrogatories Nos. 1-7. 10. State whether the Pittsburgh District Office of the EEOC at any time provided assistance to any per- sons presently involved in litigation against the Joseph Horne Company alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by the division of Plaintiff. If so: a. Identify the persons to whom assistance was provided (including the person’s or persons’ at- torneys, where applicable) . Describe in detail the nature of the assistance provided. Unless covered in answer to paragraph “b” above, state specifically whether such assistance in- cluded: (1) Engaging in legal research (2) Providing copies of pleadings or papers from other litigation (83) Drafting pleadings, motions, interrogatories, or other discovery requests. (4) Drafting briefs. identify the EEOC rembers, officers or employees who provided such assistance. State, in each case the date or dates on which such assistance was provided. 99 Yours, ete., JACKSON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN 261 Madison Avenue New York, N.Y. 10016 (212) 697-8200 ROGER S. KAPLAN ROBERT LEWIS HUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 (804) 788-8200 HILu B. WELLForRD, JR. Attorneys for Plaintiff 100 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION Civil Action No. 75-029-R ASSOCIATED Dry GOODS CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF Vv. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES 1. Following is a list of all persons who have filed charges with the Pittsburgh District Office, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, against the Joseph Horne Company, November 16th, 1971 to present. The EEOC Charge No., date of receipt of charge and nature of employment discrimination al- leged is indicated. (1) Loeal 86, Amalgamated Clothing Workers— TPI4-0478—December 2, 1973—-sex. (2) John Novak—034-50563-2—December 10, 1974 —national origin—file destroyed—October 22, 1975. (3) Jean Paslowski—TPI2-0512—February 9, 1972 —file destroyed—August 5, 1975. (4) Service Employees International Union Local 29—034-60952-2—February 13, 1976—race— Black. (5) Ronald Sudduth—034-50468-6—November 7, 1974—race—Black. (6) Joyce Gray—034-50862-2—March 25, 1975— race and sex. (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) 101 Demetre Geronymo—TPI3-0137—September 1, 1972—national origin. Philip R. Williams—TPI2-0555—December 4, 1974—race—Black. Mary Kritko—034-60078-3—July 24, 1975— sex and Section 704a Retaliation. Alice Corvino—TPI3-0774—May 2, 1973—sex. Marsue Dingley—TPI3-0836—June 6, 1973— sex. Katherine Murray—TPI2-0454—November 16, 1971—race—Black. Lois Blake—TPI2-0324—February 15, 1972— sex. Mary Kritko—TPI2-0484—January 17, 1972— sex. Marlene Denk—TPI2-0562—February 28, 1972 —sex. Helen Pollock—TPI2-0323—January 3, 1972— Sex. Mary C. Smith—034-50753-7—February 18, 1975—Section 704a Retaliation. Mary C. Smith—TPI2-0984—June 29, 1972— sex. Howard E. Watts, Jr.—TPI3-0007—July 11, 1972—-sex and Section 704a Retaliation. Carol R. DiMaio—TPI2-0983—July 15, 1972— sex and Section 704a Retaliation. . Case files have been either completely or partially prepared for all charges identified in answer to in- terrogatory No. 1. Two of those files have been destroyed, as indicated, pursuant to Commission policy regarding disposal of files which have been administratively closed. 102 . Each file listed above which is in existance is in the custody of Eugene V. Nelson, District Director, 2038A Federal Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222. . The use of EEOC Form 167, “Agreement of Non- Disclosure’, was put into effect by the Pittsburgh District Office in June 1975 subsequent to receipt of that form in the Pittsburgh office from Head- quarters. Prior to June of 1975 Charging Party counsel and Respondent counsel were given access to their client’s files without signing such agree- ments. The following consists of answers to in- terrogatories 4(a) through 4(g) : (1) TPI4-0478—File has not been examined. (2) 034-50563—File has not been examined. (3) TPI2-0512—File has not been examined. (4) 034-60952-2—File has not been examined. (5) 034-50468-6—File has not been examined. (6) 034-50862-2—File has not been examined. (7) TPI3-0137—File was examined on April 8th, 1975 by James R. Williams, Esq., Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman. File was also examined by Robert Lewis, Esq., Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman on March 25th, 1975. Copies from the file were reproduced and mailed to Mr. Williams on April 5th, May 22nd, and May 28th, 1975. Copies of relevant documents from file were also mailed to Charg- ing Party counsel George Retos, Jr. pursuant to written request of December 4th, 1974. This written request also requested Notice of Right to Sue which was issued on December 6th, 1974. Mr. Retos stated in his letter of Decem- ber 4th that he had been retained by Mr. De- metre Geronymo to commence action against Respondents named in the charge. (8) TPI5-0555—File has not been examined. (9) 034-60078-3—File has not been examined. 103 (10) TPI3-0774—File was examined on July 8th, (11) (13) (14) (15) (16) 1976 by Diane Kathleen Rembelshe, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman. Copies from the file were mailed to Roger S. Kaplan, Jack- son, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman on Sep- tember Ist, 1976 pursuant to written request of July 14th, 1976 under the Freedom of In- formation Act. File was examined by Samuel A. Vitaro, Esq., Charging Party attorney, on March 10th, 1976. Mr. Vitaro asserted that he was Charging Party attorney and completed EEOC Form 167, agreement of Non-Disclos- ure. Copies from the file were Xeroxed and sent to Mr. Vitaro. TPI3-0836 TPI2-0324 TPI2-0484 TPI2-0562 TPI2-0323 These files (11, 13, 14, 15, 16) were examined prior to June 1975 by Robert Lewis, Esq. and Victor Schachter, Esq., Jackson, Lewis, Schnitz- ler and Krupman. Copies from the files were mailed to Roger S. Kaplan, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman on September Ist, 1976 pursuant to written request of July 14th, 1976 under the Freedom of Information Act. Copies from the Blake file (TPI2-0324) were mailed to Victor Schachter, Esq., on April 9th, 1975. These files were also examined by Sam- uel Vitaro, Esq., approximately the date he examined the Corvino (TPI3-0774) file. Mr. Vitaro indicated that these Charging Parties (other than Corvino) were referred to him by their former counsel, Louis Kushner, Esq. Copies of charges and affidavits of Pollock, Denk, Blake and Kritko (TPI2-0484) as well as seniority list of company security depart- 104 ment from the Kritko (TPI2-0484) file were Xeroxed and sent to Mr. Vitaro. (12) TPI2-0454 (Murray)—File was examined prior to June 1975 by Robert Lewis, Esq., Jack- son, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman. (17) 034-50753-7—File has not been examined. (18) TPI2-0984 (19) TPI3-0007 (20) TPI2-0983 These files were examined by Joel Finger, Esq., Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman on August 14th, 1975. He executed an EEOC Form 167. Requested copies from these files were mailed to Mr. Finger on August 21st, 1975. These files were also examined by Ed- ward B. Friedman, Esq., Friedman and Fried- man, counsel to Charging Parties, in May 1975. Notices of Right to Sue were issued to Charg- ing Parties upon Mr. Friedman’s request on June 5th, 1975. Copies of requested documents from these files were sent to Mr. Friedman on approximately this date. Copies of the Re- quests for Notice of Right to Sue regarding these charges from Edward B. Friedman and copies of the Smith, Watts and DiMaio charges were sent to Robert Lewis, Esq., Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman on July 2nd, 1975 in response to his request for copies of these documents. h. As to those files for which Notices of Right to Sue have been issued, the files have already been ex- amined by Plaintiff’s counsel as indicated above. As to all other files Section 83 Commission Compliance Manual prohibits disclosure of these files. See also 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (b) (7), law enforcement excep- tion to Freedom of Information Act. i. See answers to 4(a) through 4(g) above. 5. See responses to No. 4 above. Additionally, it is Commission policy to disclose to the charging party, 105 under § 83 of the Compliance Manual, all informa- tion in the case file except: a) inter or intra-agency memoranda, if any; b) conciliation materials, if any; c) affirmative action plans from OFCCP, if any; d) statements of confidential witnesses (such as aggrieved persons on whose behalf third per- sons filed charges), if any; e) data involving other respondents, if any. Respondent counsel, after a Title VII suit has been filed, may see the same information disclosed to charging party. Prior to implementation of § 83, charging party was not allowed to view copies of EEO-1 reports prior to institution of litigation. Ex- cept in unusual circumstances (such as when a party requests in writing that certain file be photo copied) no records are kept as to documents photo-copied. Those files have not been removed from the Pitts- burgh District Office by or at the request of a person other than a Commission member, officer or employee. The Pittsburgh District Office maintains EEO-1 Re- ports filed by the Joseph Horne Company. a. 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974. b. Yes e. (1 and 2)—It is known that the 1974 EEO-1 Report was examined by Samuel Vitaro, Esq., and it is known that the 1970 and 1971 EEO-1 Re- ports were examined by Edward B. Friedman, Ksq. Furthermore it is possible that those coun- sel have also examined EEO-1 Reports of other years. 8. No. 10. None is maintained. (a, b & c)—Assistance was provided Friedman and Friedman, counsel to Watts, Smith and DiMaio in response to requests for copies of model pleadings, 106 complaints and interrogatories, which were provided to them. Furthermore source material was recom- mended to Friedman and Friedman regarding Title VII litigation. On a number of occasions this office has responded to requests for information from Friedman and Friedman concerning recent Title VII decisions. In response to questions on two or three occasions a very small amount of legal research may have been done consisting of finding and making copies of relevant decisions. Model complaint was sent to George Retos, counsel to Demetre Geronymo, TPI3-0137. On a few oc- casions certain questions regarding Title VII case law have been answered in response to requests from Mr. Retos and Mr. Vitaro. At no time were pleadings or briefs drafted by a member of the Pittsburgh District Office staff. d. James S. Bukes, District Counsel. e. It is impossible to ascertain the dates on which such assistance was provided. Respectfully submitted, ABNER W. SIBAL General Counsel IssIE L. JENKINS Deputy General Counsel CONSTANCE L. DUPRE Associate General Counsel Legal Counsel Division /s/ Anthony J. De Marco ANTHONY J. DE Marco Attorney for the Defendant EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 2401 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20506 DATED: February 1, 1977 107 AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY Before me, the undersigned authority, personally ap- peared Eugene V. Nelson, who being duly sworn ac- cording to law deposes and says that he is Pittsburgh District Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Com- mission, Defendant, and that the within answers to Plain- tiff’s Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. /s/ Eugene V. Nelson EUGENE V. NELSON SWORN TO and subscribed before me this 18th day of January, 1977. [SEAL] /3/ Richard D. Cercone RICHARD D. CERCONE Notary Public 108 -IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION Civil Action No. 76-0510-R EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. JOSEPH HORNE COMPANY ORDER It appearing that this case was transferred from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on the courts own motion; and It further appearing that the questions of law and fact are similar to the case styled Associated Dry Goods V. E.E.0.C., et al., CA 75-0297-R; and It further appearing that the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania trans- ferred this case for the purpose of consolidating it with CA 75-0297-R; and deeming it proper to do so It is hereby ORDERED that this case be and the same hereby is consolidated with CA 75-0297-R. Let the Clerk send copies of this order to all counsel of record in CA 76-0510-R and CA 75-0297-R. /s/ Robert R. Merhige, Jr. United States District Judge Date: Mar. 1, 1977 109 AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for said Commonwealth and County, per- sonally appeared SAMUEL A. VITARO, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that: 1, On March 1, 1976 Affiant was authorized by Louis B. Kushner, Esquire, to review the Equal Employ- ment Opportunity files related to charges of sex discrimi- nation filed by Marlene Denk, Mary Kritko, Lois J. Blake and Helen A. Pollock, against Joseph Horne Company. Louis B. Kushner at the time of authorization was the attorney for the above listed charging parties. 2. On March 10, 1976, April 14, 1976, April 27, 1976, and June 17, 1976, the Affiant reviewed the files of Marlene Denk, Mary Kritko, Lois J. Blake and Helen A. Pollock pursuant to the authorization granted by Louis B. Kushner. The review was conducted at the offices of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Pittsburgh District Office, Room 2038, Federal Build- ing, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222. 3. At the times of the above described reviews, Affiant also reviewed the Equal Employment Opportunity files of his client, Alice M. Corvino, who had filed a charge of sex discrimination against Joseph Horne Company. /s/ Samuel A. Vitaro SAMUEL A. VITARO Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 28d day of March, 1977. /s/ [Illegible] Notary Public 110 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Memorandum TO : File 034-30774 DATE: June 22, 1976 Corvino v. Joseph Horne Co. FROM’ : Eugene V. Nelson—/s/ E.V.N. District Director SUBJECT: Continuation of Processing It is my determination that it is in the public interest that the above charge continue to be investigated, although Notice of Right to Sue was issued this date, pursuant to Commission Regulations, Section 1601.25b(d). [EMBLEM | Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION Civil Action No. 75-0297-R ASSOCIATED DRY Goops CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF Vv. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS —and— Civil Action No. 76-0510-R EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF Vv. JOSEPH HORNE COMPANY, DEFENDANT ORDER For the reasons stated in the memorandum of the Court this day filed, and deeming it proper so to do, it is ADJUDGED and ORDERED that: 1. The EEOC’s application filed in Civil Action No. 76-0510-R for enforcement of its administrative subpoena duces tecum be, and the same is hereby, granted; 2. Judgment on the merits in Civil Action No. 75- 0297-R be, and the same is hereby, entered in favor of the plaintiff Associated Dry Goods Corporation; 8. The EEOC procedural regulations found at 29 C.F.R. §§$ 1601.20 and 1610.17(d), and the special dis- closure rules found at § 83 of the EEOC Compliance Manual, are hereby declared to be void, invalid and un- enforceable to the extent that they authorize the EEOC 112 to disclose to charging parties any information contained in EEOC investigative files; and that the Commission, its agents, employees and all others acting in its behalf be, and they are hereby, enjoined from making any such disclosures; and 4. The request of Associated Dry Goods Corporation for attorney’s fees and other litigation costs incurred in defending against the EEOC’s action to enforce the sub- poena duces tecum be, and the same is hereby, denied. Let the Clerk send copies of this order and the memo- randum to all counsel of record. /s/ Robert R. Merhige, Jr. United States District Judge 113 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES | No. 79-1068 | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, PETITIONERS v. ASSOCIATED DRY GOODS CORPORATION ORDER ALLOWING CERTIORARI Filed March 17, 1980 The petition herein for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is granted. Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Ww U. S&S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1980 320962 329 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_2184%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.