lead counsel for the class in this action. I have been licensed to Prior to entering private practice, I worked for the United States

Transcription

1 I, John Mosby, declare: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado and overall lead counsel for the class in this action. I have been licensed to practice law since I have devoted my practice almost exclusively to cases involving employment discrimination. I entered private practice in Prior to entering private practice, I worked for the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1972 until December I worked as a trial attorney for the Commission from 1974 until I left the Agency. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and, if called as a witness, am competent to testify to those facts. This declaration will focus on the history of the case prior to mediation. The Declaration of Brad Seligman, who acted as lead counsel during the mediation and settlement phases of the case, focuses on those phases of the litigation and an overall assessment of the settlement. HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. On October 6, 1992, I was retained by Chandler Glover to represent him before the EEOC on an individual complaint of discrimination. On October 10, 1993, Mr. Glover filed his formal complaint of discrimination with the USPS. Mr. Glover s EEO complaint alleged that he had been denied a promotional opportunity because of his race and disability. The Postal Service alleged that Mr. Leigh Hettick was the individual responsible for not promoting Mr. Glover. During discovery of Mr. Glover s individual complaint, I took the deposition of Mr. Hettick. When asked, in his deposition, why Mr. Glover had been denied a promotion to a higher level position to which he was the successful bidder, Mr. Hettick stated that he did not have to promote Glover. Mr. Hettick produced a copy of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Postal Service and

2 Mr. Glover s union and suggested that it provide him with the authority to deny promotions to permanent rehabilitation employees even if they were the successful bidders on a position. At this point, it became evident that this case had class implications for all permanent rehabilitation employees. 3. On October 1, 1998, a motion to amend Mr. Glover s individual complaint was filed with the EEOC to allege a class complaint. Mr. Glover withdrew his request for a hearing and filed an informal complaint of discrimination. Mr. Glover abandoned his race claim and alleged only disability discrimination in his class complaint. On February 20, 1999, Mr. Glover filed a formal class complaint alleging that permanent rehabilitation employees were denied promotional and advancement opportunities because of disability discrimination. 4. In August, 1999, the United States Postal Service USPS forwarded Mr. Glover s class complaint to the EEOC for review and recommendation of acceptance or dismissal pursuant to the EEOC s class action regulations. CLASS CERTIFICATION 5. On March 6, 2000, the Administrative Judge issued an order to the USPS directing them to identify the total number of employees within the USPS that held permanent rehabilitation duty positions during the relevant period of the complaint, January 1992 to the present. The agency failed to respond to the Administrative Judge s order. 6. On March 30, 2000, the EEOC drew an adverse inference against the Agency for its failure to respond and certified Mr. Glover s complaint a class action. The USPS issued its Notice of Final Action/Appeal on May 5, The USPS appealed EEOC s decision certifying this matter as a class action to EEOC s Office of Federal Operations (OFO). The USPS

3 maintained that Glover failed to meet the prerequisites for class certification; that there was no commonality or typicality among individuals placed in permanent rehabilitation positions. 8. On April 23, 2001, OFO issued its decision reversing the Agency s final decision and upheld the decision of the Administrative Judge to certify Glover s class composed of individuals in permanent rehabilitation duty positions. The Agency filed a Request for Reconsideration/Petition for Clarification of OFO s decision to the full Commission on May 22, On August 16, 2001, the Commission denied the Agency s Request for Reconsideration and remanded the case back to the Administrative Judge for continued processing. 9. On October 29, 2001, The Administrative Judge ordered the parties to notify all class member of the acceptance of the class complaints in accordance with 29 C.F.R (e). 10. In October 2001, Dean Albrecht, who was the class agent in a case that made claims over-lapping with the Glover claims, retained me to represent him and his class. 11. On October 31, 2001, EEOC Administrative Judge Joseph Popiden, on his own motion and in accordance with 29 C.F.R issued an Order transferring the case of Dean Albrecht et al., v, John Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Hearing Unit No X to the Denver District Office for consolidation and processing in accordance with the OFO s decision in the Glover case. 12. On November 13, 2001, this attorney entered his appearance on behalf of Mr. Albrecht and the class he represented. Class counsel then requested that the Commission consolidate the Albrecht and Glover class and to amend the Glover caption include Albrecht as a co-class agent.

4 13. On December 18, 2001, the Commission, over the Agency s objections, granted counsel s request to added Mr. Albrecht as a co-class agent. The Commission consolidated with the Glover case the part of the Albrecht class action that related to the denial of promotional and advancement opportunities for rehabilitation employees. 14. In December 2001, pursuant to the Administrative Judge s order to identify the class, the Agency provided class counsel with a list of all potential class members. The list numbered approximately 22,000 and included both current and former employees. In January 2002, the parties issued the class notice to all potential class members. DISCOVERY 15. After the AJ ordered the parties to define the class, class counsel also sought class discovery from the USPS. Class counsel requested and the USPS provided information relating to the promotions for the permanent rehabilitation employees for certain regions and thereafter for all permanent rehabilitation employees nationwide. 16. Class counsel reviewed thousands of documents for evaluation of the promotional and advancement opportunities related to permanent rehabilitation employees throughout the USPS nationwide system. 17. Beginning in January 2002, class counsel obtained through discovery, readable computer payroll data and conducted extensive statistical analyses of the data. In addition, class counsel obtained the names, addresses and relevant work history of all potential class members. Class counsel also obtained a listing of all pending similar EEO complaints filed by class members and other relevant documentary evidence.

5 18. Class counsel communicated with and interviewed hundred of class members about the issues in this case, their individual experiences, their pending charges and alleged denials of promotional and advancement opportunities. Class counsel was contacted by thousands of class members, via and U.S. mail who supplied documentary evidence relating to their alleged denial of promotional and advancement opportunities. 19. Class counsel took the deposition of a USPS Human Resources Specialist, to assist in the interpretation of USPS records and documents provided by the Agency. Class counsel served additional discovery requests upon the USPS and reviewed voluminous files and documents relating to the promotional and advancement history of class members. 20. In February 2002, the USPS contacted class counsel and inquired about the parties engaging in mediation in an attempt to settle the case. As a prerequisite for participating in negotiations, Class Counsel insisted that the USPS continue to provide information during the mediation process in order to allow class counsel to prepare for a hearing on the merits. 21. After performing various analyses of thousands of documents this counsel understood the magnitude of the class and complexity of the issues involved. I then contacted and requested the assistance of Brad Seligman, an employment class action expert, to act as lead counsel in the mediation process. 22. On June 7, 2002, the parties began formal mediation before Mediator, Linda Singer. The mediator conducted several sessions in the subsequent months, some of which were attended by the class agents, who were consulted on settlement strategy and proposals. Over the next sixteen months, through vigorous arms length negotiation, the parties reached an

6 agreement in principle which is embodied in the Settlement Agreement now presented to the Commission. ROLE OF THE CLASS AGENTS 23. The Class Agents have assisted with the preparation of their individual cases. They have also supplied data, interpretations, and other documents that assisted class counsel in the prosecution and preparation of the case for mediation and hearing. Each class agent willingly deferred their individual case and invested many years of time and resources to sustain this class action on behalf of all permanent rehabilitation employees. Each of the class agents has assumed risks associated with delaying the resolution of their individual claims to benefit a larger group of similarly situated class members. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the law of the State of Colorado, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of November, 2003 at Denver, Colorado. John Mosby