On March 12, 1998, two Ford employees filed a lawsuit against Ford and Ford Stamping Plant under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 1981, and state law in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the Court for monetary and ...
read more >
On March 12, 1998, two Ford employees filed a lawsuit against Ford and Ford Stamping Plant under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 1981, and state law in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the Court for monetary and injunctive relief, alleging that race and sex discrimination claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. section 1981, as well as state common law claims (assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent retention). Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that women employees at Defendants' Chicago plants had been subject to a pervasively hostile, intimidating, and abusive work environment.
In June 1998, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that those claims were preempted by the Illinois Human Rights Act. On October 21, 1998, the Court (Judge Elaine Bucklo) held that according to the Illinois Supreme Court's decision, the Court still had jurisdiction because those claims were not dependent on causes of action created by the Illinois Human Rights Act.
In September 1999, the Defendants and the EEOC announced that they had entered into a Conciliation Agreement, providing for $7.5 million to compensate women affected at the plants since January 1, 1996. However, the EEOC and the Defendants excluded the Plaintiffs from the discussions leading to the Agreement.
On October 15, 1999, the Court (Judge Bucklo) granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and also held that the Conciliation Agreement between the Defendants and the EEOC did not moot their private lawsuit.
On August 25, 2000, the Court (Judge Bucklo) approved the parties' settlement agreement, which provided for a $12 million fund, $9 million of which was solely for the benefit of the class, and $3 million of which could be used for attorneys' fees. On November 17, the Court (Judge Bucklo) awarded Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees of $2.75 million.
On the same day, the Court (Judge Bucklo) dismissed the case.
Kunyi Zhang - 01/17/2011
compress summary
