Eastman Kodak Race Discrimination Class Action Litigation.: Settled and/or Concluded Case

• PLAINTIFFS AND EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY ANNOUNCE SETTLEMENT OF RACE DISCRIMINATION CLASS ACTION (15 KB)
  PLAINTIFFSANDEASTMANKODAKCOMPANYANNOUNCESETTLEMENTOF RACEDISCRIMINATIONCLASSACTION Eastman Kodak Company and Employees Committed for Justice, an organization of African American current and former employees of Kodak, jointly announce that they have reached an agreement to settle their pending litigation. The case, Davis, et al. v. Eastman Kodak Company, Civil Action No. 6:04-cv-06098, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on July 30, 2004, and originates from complaints of racial discrimination filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC) in the late 1990’s. The settlement also resolves claims made in a related case, Alston, et al. v. Eastman Kodak Company, Civil Action No. 07-cv-6512, which is also pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. In achieving this settlement, all parties have agreed to completely resolve the issues between them and to dismiss all pending legal actions. All part
  
  
• MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (176 KB)
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STEPHEN A. WHINSTON WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, III SHANON J. CARSON REBECCA M. HAMBURG BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-3053 Email: scarson@bm.net CLAYBORNE E. CHAVERS THE CHAVERS LAW FIRM, P.C. 1776 Eye Street, N.W. 9th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 756-4820 Fax: (202) 756-1301 Email: chavlaw@comcast.net BRUCE E. GERSTEIN JAN BARTELLI EPHRAIM GERSTEIN DANIEL LITVIN GARWIN, GERSTEIN & FISHER, LLP 1501 Broadway New York, New York 10036 Tel: (212) 398-0055 Fax: (212) 764-6620 Email: jbartelli@garwingerstein.com JULES L. SMITH BLITMAN & KING, LLP Suite 207 16 West Main Street Rochester, New York 14614 Tel: (585) 232-5600 Fax: (585) 232-7738 Email: jlsmith@bklawyers.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EMPLOYEES COMMITTED FOR JUSTICE, et al., Plaintif
  
  
• DECISION AND ORDER: PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT (1.46 MB)
  Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 76 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 1 of 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EMPLOYEES COMMITTED FOR JUSTICE, COURTNEY DAVIS, GLADYS ALSTON, CYNTHIA GAYDEN, ROBERT GIBSON, JANNIE NESMITH, NORALEAN PRINGLE, CARRIE RICE, MARIA SCOTT, OLIN SINGLETARY, and EDNA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant. Preliminary Statement Currently before the Court is defendant Eastman Kodak Company's (hereinafter Kodak or defendant) motion to dismiss portions of the complaint filed by plaintiffs. (Docket #33) . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of this Court for all further proceedings. Procedural Background On November 12, 2003, plaintiff Courtney Davis filed a pro se complaint against Kodak in the Northern District of California alleging race discrimination. On March 10, 2004, the district court in California transferred the case to the West
  
  
• DETERMINATION (182 KB)
  U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Buffalo Local Office 6 Fountain Plaza. Suite 350 Buffalo. NY 14202 (756)551-4441 TTy (716) 551-5923 FAX (716) 551-4387 Charge No.: 165-2002-00789 Olin Singletary Charging Party Eastman Kodak Company 343 State Street Rochester, New York 14650 Respondent DETERMINATION Under the authority vested in me by the Commission's Procedural Regulations, I issue the following determination on the merits of this charge. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, and timeliness, deferral and all other requirements for coverage have been met. Charging Paily alleged that throughout his employment, he and other black employees have received less pay for the some work as white counterparts, have repeatedly been denied promotions, have been given lesser job classifications and less desirable work assignments and have been subjected
  
  
• SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (1.67 MB)
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVIS et ah, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - vs - EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant. ALSTON et ah, individually and on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, - vs - EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant. This Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Agreement") is entered into between Plaintiff Employees Committed for Justice ("ECJ"), an organization of African American current and former employees of Defendant Eastman Kodak Company ("Defendant" or "Kodak"), individual Plaintiffs Courtney Davis, Cynthia Gayden, Robert Gibson, Jannie Nesmith, Noralean Pringle, Maria Scott, Victor Smith, Edna Williams, Gladys Alston, Thomas Gainey, Carrie Rice, as representatives of the class described herein, and Olin Singletary (estate of Olin Singletary), all of whom are represented by their attorneys, Berger & Montague, P.C., Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP and The Chavers Law Firm, P.C. (collective
  
  
• ORDER AND JUDGMENT CLARIFYING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT (117 KB)
  Case 6:07-cv-06512-DGL-JWF Document 28 Filed 10/01/10 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant. DAVIS, et al, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs Civil Action No. 6:04-CV-06098-CJS(F) ORDER AND JUDGMENT CLARIFYING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT ALSTON, et al, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - vs EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant. Civil Action No. 07-CV-6512 I ORDER AND JUDGMENT CLARIFYING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2010, following a conference with counsel for the parties concerning the finality of the Court's September 3, 2010 Decision and Order approving the settlement in the above-captioned matters and the effective date for implementing the settlement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Court's Decision and Order dated September 3, 2010 was intended to be a final judgment and final decision on the m
  
  
• DECISION AND ORDER (234 KB)
  Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 351 Filed 09/03/2010 Page 1 of 59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COURTNEY DAVIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant(s). GLADYS ALSTON, et al. , on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant(s). DECISION AND ORDER 04-CV-6098Fe DECISION AND ORDER 07-CV-6512L Preliminary Statement On November 12, 2003, plaintiff Courtney Davis filed a handwritten pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging thap she was j discriminated against by her employer, defendant Eastjman Kodak Company ("Kodak"). Now, almost seven years later, what Courtney Davis commenced as a single plaintiff pro se lawsuit is before this Court as a nationwide class action in which a putative class of over three thousand current and former African Amer
  
  
• ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE PARTIES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (118 KB)
  WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVIS, et ai,3 individually and on behalf of all others similarly vs ALSTON, et aL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, EASTMAN KODAK COMPAOT, Case 6:04-cv-06098-JWF Document 315 Filed 06/04/20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT of 3 HPc:$5k,L AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2009, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court's review of the proposed Settlement Agreement and exhibits thereto, and the Court having held a preliminary fairness hearing on May 19, 2009 and considered the arguments of counsel and the merits of the settlement; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Court preliminarily approves fair, reasonable and adequate, subject to the ] reasonableness or adequacy of the Settlemen final judgment dismissing this case and all expenses to Class Counsel, should not be entered the Settlement Agreement a
  
  
• PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (19 KB)
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - vs - EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant. ALSTON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - vs - EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, through their undersigned counsel, respectfully move this Court to preliminarily approve the Parties’ Settlement Agreement, certify a settlement class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); appoint Class Counsel and a Claims Administrator; approve and direct distribution to the Class of the Notice of Class Action Settlement; and approve a schedule for the final approval process. The support for this Motion is set forth in Plaintiffs’ accompanying Memorandum of Law, and accompanying proposed Order. Defendant Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) has reviewed and does not oppose this Motion.
  
  
• MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (73 KB)
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - vs - EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant. Civil Action No. 6:04-CV-06098-CJS(F) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ALSTON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - vs - EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant. Civil Action No. 07-CV-6512 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Page TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ ii I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND THE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ................... 3 III. THE SETTLEMENT TERMS ............