Case 3:06-cv JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 1 of 14

Similar documents
EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Maharaja Hospitality Inc, d/b/a Quality Inn by Choice Hotels

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CONSENT DECREE

EEOC, et al v Lafayette College, et al.,

EEOC v. Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. doing business as Original Hot Dog Shop, Food Gallery Original, Inc. doing business as Original Hot Dog Shop

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CONSENT DECREE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO Defendant. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INTRODUCTION

EEOC v. Hannon's Food Services of Jackson Inc (d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken)

EEOC v. Consolidated Stores, Inc. d/b/a Big Lots

EEOC v. Applegate Holdings LLC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Studley Products, Inc. and Wildwood Industries, Inc., Defendants.

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

EEOC and David Marcotte and Robert Kerouac v. Federal Express Corp.

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

Case 1:11-cv NLH -AMD Document 61 Filed 01/24/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 211 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLIll~ STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DIVISION CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Jetson Midwest Mailers, Inc., Defendant.

EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al. v. Majesty Maintenance, Inc.

EEOC v. Eastern Engineered Wood Products, Inc.

EEOC v. Jolet II, Inc., d/b/a Thompson Care Center

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

U.S. EEOC v Promens USA, Inc. and Bonar Plastics, Inc.

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

EEOC v. CMC Service of Chicago, LLC d/b/a Great Clips for Hair

EEOC v. Dillard's, Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. CONSENT DECREE INTRODUCTION

EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

EEOC, Christopher, Bhend, and Chamara v. National Education Association, National Education Association - Alaska

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION

EEOC v. Hiten Hospitality L.L.C. d/b/a Family Motor Inn and Jay Kishan Hospitality, Inc. and Mike Patel

IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR TIlE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. Judge Gettleman CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission" or

EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

United States of America v. The City of Belen, New Mexico

EEOC v. Altec Industries

Case 2:03-cv BBD-sta Document 14 Filed 08/05/2004 Page 1 of 7

Case 5:07-cv VAP-JCR Document 11 Filed 06/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Plaintiff, Defendant. CONSENT DECREE

EEOC & Wolansky v. United Healthcare of Florida, Inc.

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

EEOC v. Oglethorpe University

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, CV-W-2-ECF

Case 2:01-cv DLG Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2002 Page 1 of 10

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

EEOC. v. Fox News. Cornell University ILR School. Judge William H. Pauly

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. lj'lhed States FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS E,.'/';~rn DiStrict. HOUSTON DIVISION CONSENT DECREE

Case 5:11-cv F Document 13 Filed 01/24/12 Page 1 of 9

EEOC v. RSG Forest Products Inc. dba Estacada Lumber Co.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION

Case 1:16-cv CCB Document 98 Filed 06/28/16 06/23/16 Page 1 of 14 11

EEOC v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

EEOC v. Baldwin Supply Co.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dutch Farms, Inc.

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

EEOC v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

IllY _ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) CIVIL NO. COO-16S1 Z 10 COJ\.

)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ~ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE LmGATION

EEOC v. Mcdonald's Restaurants of California, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Gehl Corporation d/b/a The Gehl Group

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CONSENT DECREE

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Revolution Studios and Smile Productions, LLC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Mint Julep Restaurant Operations, LLC d/b/a Cheddar's Casual Cafe, Defendant.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CONSENT DECREE

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Japanese Food Solutions Inc., d/b/a Minado Restaurant

EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores d/b/a Sam s Club

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

EEOC v. PVNF, L.L.C., d/b/a Chuck Daggett Motors and Big Valley Auto

Cornell University ILR School. Judge Karen E. Schreier

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CONSENT DECREE. Tbe Litigation

EEOC & Suzanne Whitty v. Mount Carmel, LLC, and Benedictine Health System, et al.

EEOC v. Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Grimmway Farms; Esparza Enterprises, Inc.

EEOC v. Stephens Institute d/b/a The Academy of Art College

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., v. White House Home for Adults

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~~"A"!tOl'T~'CTCOURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEX~eRQUE, New MI!XICO ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

EEOC and Darmo et al. v. Pinnacle Nissan, Inc. et al.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Sherree Salter, et al., v. The Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., Andre Jones

EEOC v. Supreme Corporation and Supreme Northwest LLC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Betsy Ross Flag Girl, Inc. d/b/a Betsy Ross Flag Girl and Barjac Company

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Seafoods Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

EEOC & Aimee Boss and Morgan Hagedon v. Bodega Bars USA, LLC d/b/a Mosaic Restaurant

EEOC v. Parker Palm Springs Hotel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E CONSENT DECREE

EEOC v. Pass and Seymour, Inc. and Kennmark Group, Ltd. (Consent Decree as to Pass and Seymour)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Airlines, Inc., and Transport Workers Union Local 501

I' " UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ~ICHIGAN SOUTHERN,,{ON J;:: Zi.. Plaintiff, Defendant ~I

Case 2:99-cv JPM Document 14 Filed 11/24/1999 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

United States of America v. City of Alma, Georgia and Bacon County, Georgia

EEOC v. JEC Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a McDonalds

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc.

EEOC v. Fleming, Inc., d/b/a J. Edward's

Case 3:05-cv HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 1 of 7

Transcription:

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET. AL., Plaintiffs, v. SCHOTT NORTH AMERICA, Defendant. Civil Action No. 06-1246 CONSENT DECREE INTRODUCTION A. This action was instituted by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC" or the "Commission" on or about June 22, 2006, against SCHOTT North America, Inc. ("Defendant" or "SCHOTT", under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII". The Commission alleged that due to a discriminatory layoff process, Defendant unfairly selected Charging Parties Arlene Anderson, Carolyn Blockus, Laura Figueroa, Deborah Gdovin, Patricia Pavolonis, Yvonne Prywara and a class of female employees for layoff based on their gender. SCHOTT has denied the allegations of the Complaint, and maintains that Charging Parties were laid for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons unrelated to their gender. B. This Consent Decree is entered into by the EEOC and Defendant. This Consent Decree shall be final and binding between the EEOC and Defendant, its directors, officers, agents, and successors or assigns. The non-monetary relief injunctive provisions of this Consent Decree apply only to Defendant's Duryea, Pennsylvania facility. C. The Commission and Defendant do hereby agree to the entry of this Consent 1

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 2 of 14 Decree, which shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 06-CV-1246. This Consent Decree shall not constitute an adjudication of or finding on the merits of the case and shall not be construed as a violation of Title VII by Defendant. CONSENT DECREE Upon consent of the parties to this action, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that: NON-DISCRIMINATION AND NON-RETALIATION I. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. 2. Defendant shall not engage in any employment practice which constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title VII. 3. Defendant shall not engage in any employment practices which retaliate in any manner against any person, including but not limited to, Arlene Anderson, Carolyn Blockus, Deborah Gdovin, Laura Figueroa, Patricia Pavalonis, Yvonne Prywara, and the remaining class of five (5 individuals identified in Exhibit I, because of that person's opposition to any practice believed to be unlawful under Title VII, or because of the filing of a charge, the giving of testimony or assistance, or the participation in any manner in any investigation, hearing or proceeding under Title VII. 4. Defendant shall not divulge, except as required by law, to any employer or potential employer of Charging Parties Arlene Anderson, Carolyn Blockus, Laura Figueroa, Deborah Gdovin, Patricia Pavolonis, Yvonne Prywara, and the remaining class of five (5 individuals as identified in Exhibit I, any of the facts or circumstances related to the charges of 2

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 3 of 14 discrimination against Defendant, or any of the events relating to their participation m the litigation of this matter. 5. Defendant represents that the personnel files of Arlene Anderson, Carolyn Blockus, Deborah Gdovin, Laura Figueroa, Patricia Pavalonis, Yvonne Prywara and the remaining class of five (5 individuals as identified in Exhibit I, do not contain any documents, pleadings, correspondence and related papers referencing the charges of discrimination filed by Arlene Anderson, Carolyn Blockus, Deborah Gdovin, Laura Figueroa, Patricia Pavalonis, and Yvonne Prywara. 6. Defendant shall comply fully with all provisions of Title VII. Nothing in this Consent Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion, shall be construed to limit the obligations of Defendant under Title VII or the EEOC's authority to process or litigate any charge of discrimination which may be filed against Defendant in the future. MONETARY RELIEF 7. Defendant agrees to pay monetary relief in the total amount of $1,450,000 (one million fonr hundred fifty thousand dollars to the class of eleven (II individuals identified at Exhibit I. The individual monetary amounts to be paid to each individual will be distributed among the claimants in accordance with the agreement between the EEOC and Defendant. Defendant agrees to pay monetary relief to Arlene Anderson ("Anderson" in full settlement of the claims against Defendant which were raised in the Commission's complaint. SCHOTT will issue checks to Ms. Anderson and her counsel within twenty-one (21 days, following filing of the Consent Decree. The checks will be mailed to Arlene Anderson, through her attorney Peter Winebrake, Esq., The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC, Twining Office Center, Suite 114, 715 Twining Road, Dresher, PA 19025, by certified mail, return receipt requested. 3

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 4 of 14 Defendant will mail a photocopy of each check to the EEOC, to the attention of Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, EEOC, Philadelphia District Office, 80 I Market St., Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107, within five (5 days of the date of mailing of the checks to Anderson. Defendant agrees to pay monetary relief to Carolyn Blockus ("Blockus" in full settlement of the claims against Defendant which were raised in the Commission's complaint. SCHOTT will issue checks to Ms. Blockus and her counsel within twenty-one (21 days, following filing of the Consent Decree. The checks will be mailed to Carolyn Blockus, through her attorney Peter Winebrake, Esq., The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC, Twining Office Center, Suite 114, 715 Twining Road, Dresher, PA 19025, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Defendant will mail a photocopy of each check to the EEOC, to the attention of Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, EEOC, Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market St., Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107, within five (5 days of the date of mailing of the checks to Blockus. Defendant agrees to pay monetary relief to Deborah Gdovin ("Gdovin" in full settlement of the claims against Defendant which were raised in the Commission's complaint. SCHOTT will issue checks to Ms. Gdovin and her counsel within twenty-one (21 days, following filing of the Consent Decree. The checks will be mailed to Deborah Gdovin, through her attorney Peter Winebrake, Esq., The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC, Twining Office Center, Suite 114, 715 Twining Road, Dresher, PA 19025, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Defendant will mail a photocopy of each check to the EEOC, to the attention of Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, EEOC, Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market St., Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107, within five (5 days of the date of mailing of the checks to Gdovin. Defendant agrees to pay monetary relief to Laura Figueroa ("Figueroa" in full settlement of the claims against Defendant which were raised in the Commission's complaint. 4

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 5 of 14 SCHOTT will issue checks to Ms. Figueroa and her counsel within twenty-one (21 days, following filing of the Consent Decree. The checks will be mailed to Laura Figueroa, through her attorney Peter Winebrake, Esq., The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC, Twining Office Center, Suite 114, 715 Twining Road, Dresher, PA 19025, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Defendant will mail a photocopy of each check to the EEOC, to the attention of Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, EEOC, Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market St., Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107, within five (5 days of the date of mailing of the checks to Figueroa. Defendant agrees to pay monetary relief to Patricia Pavalonis ("Pavalonis" m full settlement of the claims against Defendant which were raised in the Commission's complaint. SCHOTT will issue checks to Ms. Pavalonis and her counsel within twenty-one (21 days, following filing of the Consent Decree. The checks will be mailed to Patricia Pavalonis, through her attorney Peter Winebrake, Esq., The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC, Twining Office Center, Suite 114, 715 Twining Road, Dresher, PA 19025, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Defendant will mail a photocopy of each check to the EEOC, to the attention of Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, EEOC, Philadelphia District Office, 80 I Market St., Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107, within five (5 days of the date of mailing of the checks to Pavalonis. Defendant agrees to pay monetary relief to Yvonne Prywara ("Prywara" m full settlement of the claims against Defendant which were raised in the Commission's complaint. SCHOTT will issue checks to Ms. Prywara and her counsel within twenty-one (21 days, following filing of the Consent Decree. The checks will be mailed to Yvonne Prywara, through her attorney Peter Winebrake, Esq., The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC, Twining Office Center, Suite 114, 715 Twining Road, Dresher, PA 19025, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Defendant will mail a photocopy of each check to the EEOC, to the attention of Woody Anglade, 5

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 6 of 14 Trial Attorney, EEOC, Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market St., Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107, within five (5 days of the date of mailing of the checks to Prywara. THE CLASS 8. Defendant agrees to pay monetary reliefto the remaining class of five (5 individuals as identified in Exhibit I, in full settlement of the claims against Defendant which were raised in the Commission's Complaint. SCHOTT will issue checks to the remaining class of five (5 individuals as identified in Exhibit I within twenty-one (21 days, following filing of the Consent Decree. The checks will be mailed to each class member to addresses provided by the EEOC. Defendant will mail a photocopy of each check to the EEOC, to the attention of Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market St., Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107, within five (5 days of the date of mailing of the checks to each class member. POSTING OF NOTICE 9. Within ten (10 business days after entry of this Decree, or as soon as practicable, Defendant shall post same-sized copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit 2 to this Decree on all bulletin boards located at its Duryea, P A facility, usually used by Defendant for communicating with employees. The notice shall remain posted for three (3 years from the date of entry of this Decree. Counsel for Defendant shall provide a copy of the Notice, and an indication of the date and location of its posting, to the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office, attention, Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, within ten (10 days of the posting. Defendant shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Should the posted copies become defaced, removed, marred, or otherwise illegible, Defendant agrees to as soon as practicable post a readable copy in the same manner as hereto specified. 6

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 7 of 14 NON-DISCRIMINATION AND ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICIES AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES I 0. Defendant's policy or policies against sex discrimination, and complaint procedures shall be drafted in plain and simple language. Defendant shall ensure that its policy or policies against sex discrimination, and related complaint procedures meet the following minimum criteria: (a State that Defendant: (i prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of sex; and (ii prohibits any act, policy or practice that has the effect of treating employees differently on the basis of their sex in violation of Title VII; (b Include a complaint procedure designed to encourage employees to come forward with complaints regarding violations of its policy or policies against sex discrimination, which shall meet the following minimum criteria: (i provide effective mechanism(s for reporting incidents of sex discrimination; (ii provide that the complaints of sex discrimination can be made either in writing or verbally; (iii identify employees to whom an employee can make a complaint; (iv encourage prompt reporting by employees; and (v provide assurances that complainants shall not be subjected to retaliation; (c Provide for prompt investigation of complaints of sex discrimination; (d Provide for prompt communication to the complaining party of the results of the investigation and any remedial actions taken or proposed; and (e Provide for discipline up to and including discharge of any employee or supervisor who violates Defendant's policy or policies against discrimination, and for increasingly severe discipline of repeat offenders. 7

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 8 of 14 11. Defendant shall distribute to all of its employees and newly-hired employees at its Duryea, PA facility, its policy or policies against sex discrimination within 90 days after entry of this Consent Decree. 12. Within 90 days after entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall advise Woody Anglade, Trial Attorney, EEOC's Philadelphia District Office, that its policy or policies against sex discrimination have been distributed to current employees and that new employees will receive these policies and an opportunity to acknowledge receipt. Defendant will retain copies of any acknowledgment ofreceipt form for an employee in the employee's personnel file. 13. Defendant shall once annually for the duration of the Consent Decree provide a copy of its policy or policies against sex discrimination to each employee. SUPERVISOR ACCOUNTABILITY 14. Defendant shall promote supervisor accountability by the following conduct: (a Providing anti-discrimination training to all of its supervisory and managerial personnel as set forth in Paragraph 15; (b Disciplining, up to and including discharge, any supervisor or manager who violates Defendant's policy or policies against sex discrimination; (c Imposing on all managers and supervisory personnel a duty to administer their work areas to ensure compliance with Defendant's policy or policies against sex discrimination; and (d Requiring all managers and supervisors to report any incidents and/or complaints of sex discrimination of which they become aware to the Defendant's Human Resources Department located at the Duryea, Pennsylvania facility. 8

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 9 of 14 terms: TRAINING 15. Defendant shall provide training on the requirements of Title VII on the following (a Defendant agrees to provide annual training sessions to all of its managers and supervisors who work at its Duryea, PA facility. The training will cover employee rights and employer obligations under Title VII. (b Defendant shall provide training in accordance with Paragraph 15 (a by December 31, 2009. Defendant shall then also provide such training on at least one occasion in calendar years 20 I 0 and 20 11. 16. In addition to the training described in Paragraph 15, Defendant will provide training to all employees and supervisors in its Human Resources Department at its Duryea, PA facility, regarding conducting a prompt and effective investigation into allegations, complaints, or charges of sex discrimination. 17. Defendant agrees to provide the EEOC with any and all copies of pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written materials provided to the participants of the training sessions. 18. Defendant shall certify to the EEOC in writing within five (5 business days after the training sessions have occurred that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification shall include: (i the dates, location and duration of the training session; and (ii a copy of the registry of attendance, which shall include the name and position of each person in attendance. RECORD KEEPING 19. For a period of three (3 years following entry of this Decree, Defendant shall 9

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 10 of 14 maintain records of each complaint of any incident of sex discrimination occurring at its Duryea, PA facility. Each such report shall indicate the date the complaint was made, who made it, what was alleged, and what actions the Defendant took to resolve the matter. The Defendant shall also make records of all actions it takes to prevent sex discrimination at its Duryea, PA facility during the duration of this Decree. 20. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed to limit any obligation Defendant may otherwise have under Title VII or any other law or regulation. REPORTING 21. Defendant shall furnish to the EEOC the following written reports annually for a period of three (3 years following entry of this Decree. The first report shall be due twelve (12 months after entry of the Decree. The final report shall be due thirty-six (36 months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain: A certification by Defendant that the Notice required to be posted in Paragraph 9, above, remained posted during the entire twelve (12 month period preceding the report. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 22. ln the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance within ten (10 days of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10 business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance within ten (I 0 business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief. 10

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 11 of 14 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 23. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 24. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future agents, directors, ot1icers, assigns, and successors of Defendant in their capacities as agents, directors and officers of Defendant, and not in their individual capacities. This Paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit on remedies available to the Court in the event that any individual is found to be in contempt for a violation of this Decree. 25. This Consent Decree shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 06-CV-1246. 26. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and shall continue to be in effect for a period of three (3 years. Any application by any party to modify or vacate this Consent Decree during such period shall be made by motion to the Court on no less than thirty (30 days notice to the other party. 27. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case in order to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree. 28. The Clerk of the District Court is hereby directed to send a file-stamped copy of this Consent Decree to counsel of record. II

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 12 of 14 For Plaintiff EEOC: Schott North America: James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel ers, Esquire Ecke Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 600 Grant Street, 44th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Washington, D.C. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION fiblh.~{~ Debra Lawrence Acting Regional Attorney ' ~f1 V/~,( udith A. O'Boyle Supervisory Trial Attorney Allison L. F stein, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 600 Grant Street, 44th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 IT IS ORDERED: I BY THE COURT: /_. J~~~~~~~r=~~ DGE DATE:~f I2

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 13 of 14 EXHIBIT 1 CLAIMANT 1 Arlene Anderson 2 Carolyn Blockus 3 Deborah Gdovin 4 Laura Figueroa 5 Patricia Pavalonis 6 Yvonne Prywara 7 Jean Donovan 8 Sally Guzik 9 Margaret Moran 10 Linda Stoss 11 Lori Zielinski 13

Case 3:06-cv-01246-JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 14 of 14 EXHIBIT2 NOTICE TO ALL SCHOTT EMPLOYEES This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the Federal Court in EEOC, et al., v. SCHOTT North America, Civil Action Number 06-1246 (M.D. PA., resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission" against SCHOTT North America ("Defendant" or "SCHOTT". Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, ~ ~, as amended, ("Title VII", prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment based upon race, color, sex, religion or national origin. Title VII further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves of their rights under Title VII by engaging in protected activities, such as opposing employment practices believed to be discriminatory, filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifying or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is a federal agency which investigates charges of employment discrimination. The EEOC has authority to bring lawsuits in Federal Court to enforce Title VII. In its lawsuit, the Commission alleged that SCHOTT violated Title VII. consistently denied these allegations. Schott has To resolve the case, EEOC and the Defendant have entered into a Consent Decree which provided, among other things, that: (I SCHOTT will not discriminate on the basis of sex; and (2 SCHOTT will train all employees at its Duryea, PA facility, regarding sex discrimination and Defendant's policy prohibiting sex discrimination. If you have questions, or if you would like to report discrimination in the workplace, contact SCHOTT's Duryea, Pennsylvania Human Resources Department. THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE This Notice must remain posted for three (3 years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to the: Regional Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107, By: 1J1i2_r0.-~ ~~ By: For: Equal Employment Opportunity For: SCHOTT North America Commission 14