Free Notice of Filing Proposed Pretrial Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

Mishka L. Marshall (#016641) MARSHALL LAW GROUP, P.C. 777 East Thomas Road, Suite 210 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Telephone: 602/274-7873 Facsimile: 602/274-8207 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff Mary H. Beard (TN #020619) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 3620 Hacks Crossing Road, Building B-3rd Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38125 Telephone: (901) 434-8061 Facsimile: (901) 434-9279 Email: [email protected] Lori Higuera (#017273) Celeste Helms(#021128) FENNEMORE CRAIG, PC 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 2600 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2913 Telephone: (602) 916-5000 Facsimile: (602) 916-5999 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SEAN L. HARGROW, Case No. CIV 2003-0642 PHX DGC Plaintiff, V. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation doing business in Arizona; JOHN and JANE DOES I-X; BLACK CORPORATION I-X, WHITE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES IX, JOINT PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 124

Filed 11/02/2006

Page 1 of 48

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 B. Defendant:

Defendants.

The following is the joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order to be considered at the Final Pretrial Conference set for November 21, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. A. TRIAL COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Mishka L. Marshall Marshall Law Group, P.C. 777 E. Thomas Rd., Suite 210 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Telephone: 602/274-7873 Facsimile: 602/274-8207 Email: [email protected] Mary H. Beard (TN #020619) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 3620 Hacks Crossing Road, Building B-3rd Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38125 Telephone: (901) 434-8061 Facsimile: (901) 434-9279 Email: [email protected] Lori Higuera (#017273) Alec Hillbo (#020185) FENNEMORE CRAIG, PC 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 2600 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2913 Telephone: (602) 916-5000 Facsimile: (602) 916-5999 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1337,

Plaintiff:

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 124 2 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 2 of 48

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 2.

1343, 2201 and 2202, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Jurisdiction is not disputed. C. STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS AND LAW 1. The following material facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: a. b. hired Hargrow as a handler. c. courier for Fedex. d. In April 2002 Hargrow injured his ankle while working. He In February 1997, Hargrow became a permanent part-time Sean Hargrow is African American. On October 1996, Federal Express Corporation ("Fedex")

was placed on medical leave. e. Hargrow filed suit against Defendant on April 4, 2003

alleging violations of Title VII and the ADA. f. employment. 2. The following material facts, although not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence to the contrary: None. 3. The following issues of law are uncontested and stipulated to by the parties: None. D. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW The following are the material issues of fact to be tried and decided: Issue # 1: Whether Sean Hargrow engaged in protected activity. On May 12, 2003 Defendant terminated Hargrow's

Plaintiff Contends: Plaintiff's internal complaints to Defendant as well as the three EEOC charges he filed and the lawsuit he filed against Defendant all constitute protected activity.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 124 3 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 3 of 48

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

Defendant Contends:

The only protected activity at issue is Plaintiff's filing of a

federal lawsuit on April 4, 2003. Issue # 2: Whether Sean Hargrow suffered an adverse employment action.

Plaintiff Contends: The formal and informal discipline he received, the unwarranted scrutiny of his work, the unfair assignment of overtime, Defendant's refusal to allow Sean Hargrow to work in a job that accommodated his physical limitations and the termination of his employment constitute adverse employment action. Defendant Contends: The only adverse employment action at issue is Plaintiff's

discharge from Federal Express Corporation on May 12, 2003. Issue # 3: Whether there is a causal link between the protected activity and the

adverse employment action. Plaintiff Contends: The temporal proximity between Sean Hargrow's protected activity and the adverse employment action taken against him demonstrate a causal link between his protected activity and the adverse employment action. Furthermore, the disparate treatment Hargrow received compared to other similarly situated couriers further demonstrates causation. Defendant Contends: Plaintiff cannot prove a causal connection between the

protected activity (i.e., filing the federal lawsuit on April 4, 2003) and the adverse employment action (his discharge on May 12, 2003) because Plaintiff lacks evidence that the decisionmaker had knowledge of the protected activity. Issue # 4: If Defendant retaliated against Sean Hargrow, the amount of damages

to which Hargrow is entitled. Plaintiff Contends: Sean Hargrow has been damaged in the form of past and future wage loss, the value of benefits, financial losses, mental and emotional distress and other incidental damages. Defendant Contends: It is Plaintiff's burden to prove damages. Such amounts

cannot be based on speculation, but should reflect specific detailed calculations.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 124 4 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 4 of 48

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

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not been damaged by its conduct. Issue # 5: actions? Defendant Contends: of Absence Policy. Plaintiff Contends: Defendant has not articulated non-retaliatory reasons for its actions. Defendant discharged Plaintiff pursuant to its Medical Leave Whether there are legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for Defendant's

Defendant's Issue #6:

Whether Defendant had an honest, good faith belief

regarding the reasons for Plaintiff's discharge.

Plaintiff Contends: Defendant's issue misstates the law as whether it had an "honest, good faith belief" that regarding its reasons for discharging Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that the actions Defendant took against Plaintiff violated Title VII and 42. U.S.C. § 1981 and that the actions taken were intentional. Defendant Contends: Defendant contends that it acted in good faith with respect to Plaintiff, which was shown especially by Defendant granting Plaintiff an extension of his leave of absence to assist him in finding employment, unlike other employees under the HCMP program under Ms. Montgomery's tenure.

Issue #7: Whether Plaintiff's protected activity was a determining factor in the decision to discharge Plaintiff?

Plaintiff Contends: Plaintiff asserts that his protected activity was a motivating factor in Defendant's decision to discharge Plaintiff. Plaintiff lodged numerous internal and

external EEOC complaints of discrimination against Defendant prior to his discharge and believes those complaints were either the sole or a motivating factor in his discharge. Defendant Contends: Defendant contends that the filing of the federal lawsuit was not a

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 124 5 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 5 of 48

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

factor at all. Issue #8: Whether Defendant's articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons are pretext for retaliation. Plaintiff Contends: Plaintiff contends that his retaliation claims are not limited to Defendant's decision to terminate his employment a little more than a month after he filed suit against Defendant, but also includes the discipline issued for the refueling error, the package pickup, assignment of overtime, and approval of time off. Plaintiff further contends that the actions taken by management officials who issued discipline and made decisions regarding assignment of overtime and approval of time off retaliated against Plaintiff. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant has not articulated non-retaliatory

reasons for its actions in light of the adverse employment action. Even if Defendant produces sufficient evidence to support its nondiscriminatory explanation, Plaintiff may still prevail by proving that defendant's stated reason was pretext or unworthy of credence. Defendant Contends: Defendant contends that Plaintiff was discharged pursuant to a bona fide policy. Additionally, there is no evidence of any retaliatory animus on the part of Ms. Montgomery, the decision-maker with respect to the application of the policy, nor is there any evidence that Ms. Montgomery did not honestly believe that termination consistent with the policy was proper. Defendant's Issue #9: Whether Plaintiff's own conduct contributed to his damages. Plaintiff Contends: Plaintiff contends that he made diligent efforts to follow Defendant's policies and procedures while employed. Plaintiff further contends that it was his

compliance with Defendant's policies, such as the GFTP, that ultimately led Defendant to retaliate against Plaintiff and terminate his employment. Plaintiff also contends that while on medical leave, he made diligent efforts to secure a position that he could perform given his physical limitations. terminated Plaintiff's employment. Those efforts continued after Defendant

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 124 6 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 6 of 48

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

Defendant Contends: Defendant avers that Plaintiff's conduct contributed to his damages as he did not adequately avail himself of the avenues available to assist him in seeking other positions during his medical leave of absence. Issue #10: Whether Plaintiff adequately mitigated his damages. Plaintiff Contends: Plaintiff contends that he made every effort to mitigate his damages. Defendant Contends: Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not avail himself of all of the employment opportunities that he could have based on his past employment experience.

The following are the issues of law to be determined:

Issue #1:

Whether Plaintiff's retaliation claims are considered unlawful

discrimination. Plaintiff Contends: Plaintiff's claims for retaliation are indistinguishable from the

discrimination prohibited by Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because it was the discriminatory treatment about which Plaintiff complained that led to the retaliation. Defendant Contends: Plaintiff's claim of retaliation is separate and distinct from any claim for alleged discrimination. Under the applicable law, a claim of retaliation is separate and distinct from any claim of discrimination.

Issue #2: Whether Plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.§§ Plaintiff Contends: Plaintiff can establish that he engaged in a protected activity, suffered adverse employment actions, there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment actions, and Plaintiff was damaged. Defendant Contends: Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot prove the third element of a prima facie case, i.e., whether there exists a causal link between the adverse employment action and the protected activity.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 124 7 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 7 of 48

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 Issue # 5: If Defendant retaliated against Sean Hargrow, what type of damages is he entitled to? Plaintiff Contends: Plaintiff is entitled to past and future wage loss, the value of benefits, financial losses, mental and emotional distress, other incidental damages as well as punitive damages. Defendant Contends: Plaintiff is only entitled to those damages lawfully available under Title VII and/or Section §1981. E. LIST OF WITNESSES Each party understands that it is responsible for ensuring that the witnesses it wishes to call to testify are subpoenaed. Each party further understands that any witness Issue #3: Whether Plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of retaliation under

the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§ 1981. Plaintiff Contends: Plaintiff can establish that he engaged in a protected activity, suffered adverse employment actions, there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment actions, and Plaintiff was damaged. Defendant Contends: Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot prove the third element of a prima facie case, i.e., whether there exists a causal link between the adverse employment action and the protected activity.

Issue #4:

Whether Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

Plaintiff Contends: Plaintiff contends that Defendant's conduct demonstrates that it acted with reckless indifference, malice or will. Punitive damages are appropriate in this case. Defendant Contends: Defendant has not acted in reckless indifference, malice, or ill-will with respect to Plaintiff and thus, Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is barred.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 124 8 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 8 of 48

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

a party wishes to call shall be listed on that party's list of witnesses; the party cannot rely on the witness having been listed or subpoenaed by another party.

PLAINTIFF: (a) Plaintiff shall call the following witnesses at trial: 1. Sean Hargrow, c/o counsel. Mr. Hargrow is expected to testify to all issues concerning his employment and damages. 2. Cheryl Montgomery Wilson, 2146 W. Isabella Avenue, Unit 148, Mesa, AZ 85202. (Fact Witness) Ms. Wilson is expected to testify about Plaintiff's complaints of discrimination, Defendant's responses to same and other issues concerning Plaintiff's employment. 3. Roxanne Ruiz, former senior HR rep, 4546 E. Los Alamos Street, Higley, AZ 85236. (Fact Witness) Ms. Wilson is expected to testify about Plaintiff's complaints of discrimination, Defendant's responses to same and other issues concerning Plaintiff's employment. 4. Ronald Bennett, c/o Federal Express/Fennemore Craig. (Fact Witness) Mr. Bennett is expected to testify about his refueling error(s) and any action taken by Defendant in response to the incident(s). 5. Tim Kelly, retired managing director, 4373 S. Marble, Gilbert, AZ 85296. (Fact Witness) Mr. Kelly is expected to testify about Plaintiff's complaints of

discrimination and retaliation, Defendant's responses to same and other issues concerning Plaintiff's employment. Mr. Kelly may also testify about Defendant's policies and

procedures regarding refueling errors, complaints of discrimination and the GFTP and other facts related to Plaintiff's claims. 6. Kevin McHugh, Senior Manager, Station Operations/AA, Station Operations, Scottsdale, 1375 N. Hayden Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85257. (Fact Witness) Mr. McHugh is expected to testify about Plaintiff's complaints of discrimination and

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 124 9 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 9 of 48

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

retaliation, the GFTP, assignment of overtime and other facts related to Plaintiff's claims. 7. Don Fitzgerald, Operations Manager, Station Operations/AA, Station Operations, Scottsdale, 1375 N. Hayden Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85257. (Fact Witness) Mr. Fitzgerald is expected to testify about Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff's complaints of discrimination and retaliation, the GFTP and other Plaintiff's claims. (b) Plaintiff may call the following witnesses at trial: 1. Cindy Alfonso, Manager, Human Resources, HR Services ­ DGO Western, 1640 S. Stapley, Suite 101, Mesa, AZ 85204. (Fact Witness) Ms. Alfonso may testify about facts involving Plaintiff's claims. 2. John Carroll, Senior Manager, Customer Service Center, Phoenix Call Center, 2602 S. 47th St., Suite 101, Phoenix, AZ 85034. (Fact Witness) Mr. Carroll may testify about Defendant's call center training and operations, Plaintiff's request for admission into the call center and Defendant's refusal to honor Plaintiff's request. Mr. Carroll may also testify regarding other facts related to Plaintiff's claims. 3. Tim Christensen, c/o Federal Express/Fennemore Craig. (Fact Witness) Mr. Christensen may testify about facts related to Plaintiff's claims. 4. Keith Bergen, c/o Federal Express/Fennemore Craig. (Fact Witness) Mr. Bergen may testify about Defendant granting his request for time off in violation of company policy and other information regarding Plaintiff's claims. 5. Tim Tays, PhD. 15849 N. 71st St., Scottsdale, Az 85254. (Fact Witness) Dr. Tays may testify about Plaintiff's treatment for depression and other symptoms brought on by Defendant's conduct. 6. Sherry L. Burke, 847 S. Ash St., Gilbert, Az 85233. (Fact Witness) Ms. Burke may testify about Plaintiff's treatment for depression and other symptoms brought on by Defendant's conduct. 7. Dr. Peter Mitchell, Baltimore Surgical Center, 2222 E. Highland Ave., facts related to

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12410 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 10 of 48

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

Suite 425, Phoenix, Az 85016. (Fact Witness) Dr. Mitchell may testify regarding Plaintiff's work-related injury, treatment for same and prognosis. 8. Dr. Lewis Freed, East Valley Foot & Ankle Specialists, Power Road Medical Center, 215 S. Power Rd., Suite 205, Mesa, Az 85206. (Fact Witness) Dr. Freed may testify regarding Plaintiff's work-related injury, treatment for same and prognosis. 9. Paul Nelson, PT, Physiotherapy Associates, 655 S. Dobson Blvd., Suite B111, Chandler, Az 85224. (Fact Witness) Mr. Nelson may testify regarding Plaintiff's work-related injury, treatment for same and prognosis. 10. Pam Williams, MSPT, Strength Training, Inc., 1941 W. Guadaloupe Rd., Suite 106, Mesa, Az. 85202. (Fact Witness) Ms. Williams may have information

regarding Plaintiff's work-related injury, treatment for same and prognosis. 11. Dr. Randall R. Hardison, 604 W. Warner Rd., Suite C-1, Chandler, Az 85225. (Fact Witness) Dr. Hardison may have information regarding Plaintiff's workrelated injury, treatment for same and prognosis. 12. Any witness needed to establish foundation. 13. Any witness listed by Defendant. 14. Rebuttal or impeachment witnesses. (c) Plaintiff Is Unlikely to Call the Following Witnesses 1. Kevin Feig, MD, Concentra Medical Center, 950 W. Southern Ave.,

Tempe, Arizona 85282 (Fact Witness). Dr. Feig may have information regarding Plaintiff's work-related injury, treatment for same and prognosis. 2. Maura Murphy, Address and phone number unknown. (Fact Witness).

Maura Murphy was an employee of Defendant's during the relevant time period and may have information regarding the assignment of overtime hours and other facts related to Plaintiff's claims. 3. Bill Jones, Address and phone number unknown. (Fact Witness)Bill Jones

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12411 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 11 of 48

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

was an employee of Defendant's during the relevant time period and may have information regarding Defendant's discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff. DEFENDANT: A. Defendant will call:

1. Cheryl Montgomery Wilson, (retired HCMP manager) 2146 W. Isabella Avenue, Unit 148, Mesa, AZ 85202. Ms. Wilson is expected to testify regarding Defendant's Medical Leave of Absence Policy, HCMP program, Plaintiff's medical leave of absence, and Plaintiff's discharge (Fact Witness).

B.

Defendant may call:

2. Kevin T. McHugh, Senior Manager, Station Operations/AA, Station Operations, Scottsdale, 1375 N. Hayden Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85257. Mr. McHugh may testify regarding Plaintiff's employment history and medical leave of absence (Fact Witness) 3. Roxanne Ruiz, former senior HR rep, 4546 E. Los Alamos Street, Higley, AZ 85236 Ms. Ruiz may testify regarding Plaintiff's employment history, medical leave of absence, and discharge (Fact Witness) 4. Timothy J. Kelly, retired managing director, 4373 S. Marble, Gilbert, AZ 85296. Mr. Kelly may testify regarding Plaintiff's employment history, leave of absence, and discharge (Fact Witness) John A. Carroll, Jr. ("Jack"), Senior Manager, Customer Service Center, Phoenix Call Center, 2602 S. 47th St., Suite 101, Phoenix, AZ 85034. Mr. Carroll may testify regarding the qualifications for applicants for Phoenix call center positions (Fact Witness). 6 Mary H. Beard, Senior Attorney, Federal Express Corporation, 3620 Hacks Cross Road, Memphis, TN 38125. Ms. Beard may testify regarding her initial contact with Ms. Montgomery Wilson (Fact Witness). Donald Fitzgerald, Operations Manager, Station Operations/AA, Station Operations, Scottsdale, 1375 N. Hayden Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85257 Mr. Fitzgerald may testify regarding Plaintiff's employment history and medical leave of absence (Fact Witness). 8 Denise Micale, RN, MS, CCM, Intracorp Field Case Management, Telephone number: 1-480-585-9402. Ms. Micale may testify regarding 7 5.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12412 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 12 of 48

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

Plaintiff's medical leave of absence (Fact Witness). Michelle Bruno, Claims Examiner II, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., 1225 17th Street, Suite 2100, Denver, Colorado 80202. Ms. Bruno may testify regarding Plaintiff's medical leave of absence (Fact Witness). 10. Carmen Cooley, Claims Administrator, FedEx Express, 3620 Hacks Cross Road, Building B, 2nd Floor, Memphis, TN 38125. Ms. Cooley may testify regarding Plaintiff's medical leave of absence (Fact Witness). 11. Jennifer Ramos, HCMP advisor, FedEx Express, 3660 Hacks Cross Road, Bldg F, 3rd Floor, Memphis, TN 38125, Telephone number: 1-901-434-6090. Ms. Ramos may testify regarding Plaintiff's medical leave of absence and extension of leave (Fact Witness). 12. 13. 14. C. Sean Hargrow, Plaintiff Any witness listed by Plaintiff. Any witness for impeachment or rebuttal purposes. 9.

Defendant will unlikely call:

15. Deborah Reed-Garcia, Manager Human Resources, FedEx Express, 2100 Main St. Suite # 330, Huntington Beach, CA 926487 (Fact Witness). 16. Eddie Arredondo, (Not-Defined) Managing Director, 200 Regent Blvd., Bldg. C, 2nd Floor, Irving, TX 75063-0000 (Fact Witness). 17. Suzann Ray, Former Sr. HR Support Control Assistant V, FedEx Express, 3660 Hack Cross Road, Bldg F, 3rd Floor, Memphis, TN 38125 (Fact Witness). 18. Bobbie Temple, Former Human Resources Representative, FedEx Express, 3660 Hacks Cross Road, Building F, 3rd Floor, Memphis, TN 38125 (Fact Witness). 19. Dawn Melillo, Sr. Human Resources Representative, FedEx Express, HR Services - DGO Western, 10500 NE 8th St, 20th Floor Suite 2000, Bellevue, WA 98004 (Fact Witness) 20. Dave Crutchfield, Sr. Human Resources Representative, FedEx Express, HR Services - DGO Western, 7090 S Union Park Ave, Suite 600, Midvale, UT 84047 (Fact Witness). 21. Renee Mannon, Former Sr. Manager Station Operations, FedEx Express,

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12413 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 13 of 48

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

200 Regent Blvd., Bldg. C, 2nd Floor, Irving, TX 75063-0000 (Fact Witness). 22. Mary (Ann) Richerson, Retired, Sr. HR Corporate Representative, FedEx Express, 3660 Hacks Cross Road, Bldg F, 3rd Floor, Memphis, TN 38125 (Fact Witness). 23. Curt Johnson, Sr. Human Resources Representative, FedEx Express, 2121 N 85th E Ave, Tulsa, OK 74115, Telephone number: 1-918-831-8047 (Fact Witness). 24. Charles E. (Chuck) Smith, Manager Station Operations, FedEx Express, 1375 N. Hayden Road, Scottsdale, AZ 85257-0000 (Fact Witness). 25.Paola High, Former Sr. Human Resources Corporate Representative, FedEx Express, Hacks Cross Road, Bldg F, 3rd Floor, Memphis, TN 38125 (Fact Witness) 26. Carolyn Roney, Retired HR Manager, FedEx Express, 200 Regent Blvd., Bldg. C, 2nd Floor, Irving, TX 75063-0000 (Fact Witness) 27. Beverly Koslow, Retired Sr. Safety Spec/Field, FedEx Express, 1640 S. Stapley, Suite 101, Mesa, AZ 85204 (Fact Witness). 28. Peter Corriveau, Retired Human Resources Representative, FedEx Express, 3660 Hacks Cross Road, Bldg. F, 3rd Floor, Memphis, TN 38125 (Fact Witness). 29. Robert (Bobby) Saiz, Sr. Ops Manager, FedEx Express, 1881 Main Street, Dunedin, FL 3469 (Fact Witness). 30. Cindy L. Alfonso, Manager, Human Resources, HR Services ­ DGO Western, 1640 S. Stapley, Suite 101, Mesa, AZ 85204 (Fact Witness).

F.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Each party hereby acknowledges by signing this joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order that any objections not specifically raised herein are waived. The parties stipulate to the following exhibits: 1. Job offer Letter from Fedex to Hargrow dated 10/28/1996. 3-33

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12414 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 14 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

2. Statement of Policy dated 6/1/2002. Hargrow 000057 3. Letter from Cheryl Montgomery to Sean Hargrow dated 1/13/2003 regarding terminating his employment. 4-206 - 207 4. Email from Cheryl Montgomery to Kevin McHugh dated 8/6/2002 regarding Sean Hargrow's FML. 78-21 5. Email from Kevin McHugh to Cheryl Montgomery dated 8/7/2002 regarding replacing Sean Hargrow. 78-22 6. Email from Kevin McHugh to Cheryl Montgomery dated 8/8/2002 regarding replacing Sean Hargrow. 78-23 7. Email from Carmen Cooley to Cheryl Montgomery dated 1/27/2003. 4-194 8. Employee Communication Record. 4-192- 193 9. Courier/DOT job description. 9-93-94 10. Employer's first Report of Injury dated 4/11/2002. 3-246 - 248

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. Bravo Zulu Award dated 4/5/2000 issued to Sean Hargrow 3-433. 2. 1. Bravo Zulu Award dated 8/17/1998 issued to Sean Hargrow 3-155. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. Bravo Zulu Award dated 11/18/1998 issued to Sean Hargrow 3-153 ­ 54. 11. Management Practices and the Law. 35-1 - 46 Plaintiff's Exhibits:

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12415 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 15 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6. 5. 4.

Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury. Bravo Zulu Award dated 1/10/2001 issued to Sean Hargrow 3-376. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial. Warning Letter dated 7/6/2001 regarding package pick ­ up. Hargrow 000028 Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. Letter from Peter Corriveau to Sean Hargrow dated 8/8/2001 regarding receipt of GFTP packet and attached documents 50-38 ­ 51. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. 9. Letter from Tim Kelly to Sean Hargrow dated 9/17/2001 regarding complaint of discrimination Hargrow 000030. 8. 7. Documents submitted as part of GFTP regarding package pickup. Hargrow 000033 - 43 Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. GFT Complaint regarding package pickup and discrimination 8-1 - 8-23.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12416 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 16 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

10.

Letter from Tim Kelly to Sean Hargrow dated 9/25/2001 upholding Warning Letter 8-87. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury.

11.

Performance Reminder dated 1/2/2002 regarding refueling error Hargrow 000045. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury.

12.

GFTP Complaint regarding refueling error 8-121 ­ 8-124. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury.

13.

Email from Jay Walker to Don Fitzgerald dated 1/23/2002 regarding refueling error. Hargrow 000044

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 16. Email from Tim Kelly to Dave Crutchfield dated 2/11/2002 upholding discipline. 4-23 15. misleading the jury. Email from Dave Crutchfield dated 2/11/2002 regarding refueling error. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. 14. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. Step 1 of GFT Complaint regarding refueling error Hargrow 000046-47. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues,

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12417 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 17 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19. 18. 17.

Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. Letter from Tim Kelly to Sean Hargrow dated 2/12/2002 upholding discipline Hargrow 000050. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. Management Summary prepared by Tim Kelly dated 2/13/2002 8-166 ­ 167. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. GFTP Follow - up Sheet dated 2/14/2002 4-29. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues,

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22. Letter from Adam Psarianos to Sean Hargrow dated 2/28/2002 upholding discipline Hargrow 000052. 21. Letter from Adam Psarianos to Sean Hargrow dated 2/26/2002 regarding receipt of Step II of the GFT process Hargrow 000051. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. 20. misleading the jury. GFTP Complaint Status 4-30. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12418 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 18 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 25. 24. 23.

Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. Step 3 GFTP Tracking Form dated 3/6/202 4-28. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. Email from Don Fitzgerald to Bobbie Temple dated 3/8/2002 requesting information about cost of refueling error 78-6. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. Letter from Carol Mitchell to Sean Hargrow dated 3/12/2002 regarding Appeals Board decision. Hargrow 000053

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27. misleading the jury. GFTP Packet 4-33 ­ 4-57. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. 26. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury. GFTP Complaint Executive Summary 4-4 ­ 5. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues,

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12419 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 19 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

28.

Letter from Diane LaMonica dated 12/23/1997 regarding refueling error 21-94. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, duplicative authentication and hearsay.

29.

Inter - Office Memorandum dated 12/29/1997 regarding Diane LaMonica's GFTP on the refueling error 21-98. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, duplicative authentication and hearsay.

30.

Letter from Cesar Valenzuela to Diane LaMonica dated 12/31/1997 reversing her discipline 21-99. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, duplicative, authentication and hearsay.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay. 33. 32. Warning Letter regarding refueling to Patrick Kenney dated 2/1/2001 60-9 - 10. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, duplicative, authentication and hearsay. Warning Letter regarding refueling to Mona Bevan dated 2/1/2001 60-9 - 12. 31. Inter - Office Memorandum dated 1/6/1997 regarding removal of warning letter to D. Lamonica 21-97. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, duplicative, authentication and hearsay.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12420 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 20 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

34.

Letter of Warning issued to Scott Williams dated 11/15/2001 regarding refueling error 60-13­14. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, duplicative, authentication and hearsay.

35.

Performance Reminder issued to Trish Forester dated 3/13/2002 regarding refueling error 60-15­16. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay.

36.

Warning Letter issued to Kathy Hunt dated 2/21/2002 regarding refueling error

60-17­ 18. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues,

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 39. Warning Letter regarding refueling to Michelle Forbis dated 7/10/2002 60-24. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, 38. misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay. Warning Letter regarding refueling to Pete Michalenko dated 6/6/2002 60-21. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay. 37. misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay. Warning Letter issued to Robert Sawyer dated 3/12/2002 regarding refueling error 60-19 ­ 20. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues,

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12421 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 21 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 43. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 45. 44. 42. 41. 40.

misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay. Warning Letter regarding refueling to Forrest Fuller dated 8/8/2002 60-25. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay. Warning Letter regarding refueling to Spencer Rosas dated 10/9/2002 60-28. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay. Warning Letter regarding refueling to James Camuso dated 3/25/2003 60-33. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay. Warning Letter regarding refueling to James McClellan dated 9/19/2003 60-34 ­ 35. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay. Warning Letter regarding refueling to Matt Young dated 11/4/2003 60-36 ­ 37. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay. Warning Letter regarding refueling to Kristine McMackin dated 3/27/2004 6038. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12422 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 22 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

46.

Warning Letter regarding refueling to Michael Decaires dated 5/5/2004 60-39. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay.

47.

Warning Letter regarding refueling to Tom Bianco dated 7/8/2004 60-42 ­ 43. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay.

48.

Reminder Letter regarding refueling to Andi Cunningham dated 1/16/2004 6050. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication and hearsay.

49. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 51. 50.

Email from Dave Crutchfield to Kevin McHugh dated 7/9/2002 regarding EEO investigation 78-20. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Emails exchanged between Kevin McHugh and Dave Crutchfield dated 7/12/2002 regarding day off request records 78-15 ­ 17. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Email from Kevin McHugh to Dave Crutchfield dated 7/12/2002 regarding Keith Bergen 78-13 ­ 14. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues,

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12423 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 23 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 54. 53. 52.

misleading the jury. Letter from Keith Bergen to Kevin McHugh dated 3/26/2002 requesting time off 78-4. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Inter - Office Memorandum dated 4/4/2002 from Kevin McHugh to Keith Bergen regarding time off request 78-3. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Letter from Sean Hargrow to EEOC dated 5/16/2002 regarding discrimination 50-56 ­ 58.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 57. EEOC Intake Interview Notes of meeting with Sean Hargrow dated 5/24/2002 50-54­55. hearsay. 56. EEOC Charge of Discrimination, 350A202158, dated 5/24/2002 50-21. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay. 55. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay. Tim Kelly One on One Meeting dated 5/21/2002 52-706 ­ 708. Objection: Relevance, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12424 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 24 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 60. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 63. 62. 61. 59. 58.

Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay. Letter written by Sean Hargrow dated 5/28/2002 and provided to EEOC with charge No. 350A202158 50-23 ­ 25. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay. Notice of Charge of Discrimination dated 6/2/2002 for charge no. 350A202158 50-19. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay. Right to Sue Letter for charge no. 350A202158 dated 6/19/2002 50-17. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay. EEOC Charge of Discrimination, 350A203126, dated 9/16/2002 50-71. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay. EEOC Intake Questionnaire dated 9/16/2002 Hargrow 000115-118. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay. EEOC Intake Notes dated 9/16/2002 50-104. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues,

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12425 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 25 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 66. 65. 64.

misleading the jury, and hearsay. Letter from Ann Richerson to EEOC dated 10/22/2002 regarding charge no 350A203126 Hargrow 000123. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Emails exchanged between Roxanne Ruiz and Kevin McHugh dated 10/30/2002 and 10/31/2002 regarding Hargrow's complaints of discrimination 78-48. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial. Letter from Ann Richerson to EEOC regarding Defendant's position dated 12/6/2002 50-94­99. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues,

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 his employment 4-124 ­ 125. Objection: Based on the Bates numbers indicated, Defendant cannot 69. 68. misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Request for Extension of Duration Date 4-188 - 191. Objection: Incomplete. Letter from Cheryl Montgomery to Sean Hargrow dated 5/12/2003 terminating 67. misleading the jury, and hearsay. Cover letter and Right to Sue from EEOC to Sean Hargrow for Charge No. 350a203126 dated 1/8/2003. Hargrow 00129-130 Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues,

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12426 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 26 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

identify the document named. The Bates numbers indicated here reflect documents that are included in Defendant's privilege log. 70. EEOC Charge of Discrimination, 350 - 2003 - 84312, dated 8/11/2003 50-162. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay. 71. EEOC Intake Questionnaire dated 8/11/2003 Hargrow 000101-109. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay. 72. ADA Questionnaire 50-181­186. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 dated 5/5/2004 50-150. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, 75. 74. EEOC dismissal letter and Notice of Right to Sue dated 9/23/2003 50-158­159. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay. Letter from EEOC to Sean Hargrow regarding charge no. 350 - 2003 - 84312 73. Notice of charge of discrimination, charge no. 350 - 2003 - 84312, dated 8/13/2003 50-160. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12427 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 27 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 78. 77. 76.

misleading the jury, and hearsay. Robert Hollenbeck Employee LOA History Screen 53-4. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Robert Hollenbeck TRW Assignment dated 2/15/2005 53-5. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Email stream between Kevin McHugh , Pam Paroubek and Gail Davis dated 10/19/2004 and 10/20/2004 53-9. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 81. Letter from Gail Davis to Robert Hollenbeck and attachments regarding medical leave of absence policy dated 10/4/2004 53-18 ­ 25. 80. Letter from Gail Davis to Robert Hollenbeck regarding HCMP form dated 9/28/2004 53-16 ­ 17. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. 79. HCMP Reasonable Accommodation Request Form for Robert Hollenbeck dated 10/1/2004 53-14. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12428 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 28 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 84. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 86. 85. 83. 82.

Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Inter - Office Memorandum dated 5/21/2002 from Tim Christensen to Jacob Weinlein regarding suspension with pay for DUI 61-29. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Letter from Tim Christensen to Jacob Weinlein dated 5/22/2001 regarding investigation into DUI charges 61-30. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Offer letter from Tim Christensen to Jacob Weinlein dated 5/22/2001 regarding DUI 61 - 31. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Change of Employment Status for Carl Henderson dated 8/30/2002 regarding DUI 61-26. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Inter - Office Memorandum dated 9/6/2002 from Kevin McHugh to Tim Kelly regarding suspension of Carl Henderson regarding DUI 61-27. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues,

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12429 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 29 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 89. 88. 87.

misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Arizona Traffic Ticket and Complaint issued to Rick Halquist dated 5/31/03 for DUI. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Investigative suspension of Rick Halquist dated 6/2/2002 regarding DUI 61-35. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Employment Status Change of Ronald Gaona regarding DUI dated 3/19/2004 61-38. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues,

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 92. Email dated 7/1/2004 from Gail Davis to Roxanne Ruiz regarding sending JCATS and Career Ops to Maria Bux 61-19. 91. misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Change of Employment Status for Maria Bux dated 7/1/2004 27-439. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. 90. misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Change of Employment Status for Danny Musick regarding DUI dated 6/21/2004 61-39. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues,

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12430 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 30 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 95. 94. 93.

Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Offer Letter to Maria Bux dated 7/13/2004 27-438. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Letter of Suspension issued to Maria Bux dated 6/29/2004 27-442. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Change of employment status for James Smith regarding DUI dated 10/27/2004 61-33. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues,

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. 98. 97. Tim Kelly Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Evaluation 52-179­189. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Offer letter to Tim Kelly for MD position 52-678. 96. misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay. Letter from Noreen Wesolek to Maria Bux dated 8/2/2004 27-435­436. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, authentication, and hearsay.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12431 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 31 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

99.

Tim Kelly Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Evaluation 52-367 ­ 378. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

100.

Tim Kelly Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Evaluation 52-354 ­ 361. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

101.

Tim Kelly Letter of Expectation dated 4/3/2002 52-703 ­ 705. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

102.

Tim Kelly Performance Review dated 6/10/2003 (CONFIDENTIAL). 52-655 ­ 663.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 about Ron Bennett dated 1/4/2005. 24-133 Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, 104. separation agreement of Tim Kelly (CONFIDENTIAL) 52-617. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Email from Kevin McHugh to Don Fitzgerald regarding customer complaint 103. Inter - Office Memorandum from Kelly Romito to Thomas O'Hearn regarding Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12432 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 32 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 108. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 110. 109. 107. 106. 105.

misleading the jury. Statement of Ron Bennett dated 1/4/2005 regarding customer complaint 24-134. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and hearsay. Letter of Warning dated 2/11/2003 issued to Ron Bennett 24-136 ­ 137. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Warning Letter dated 12/14/2000 issued to Ron Bennett 24-151 ­ 152. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Overtime Sign Up Sheets 39-1 ­ 73. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Individual Performance and Contribution Discussion Form Management for Kevin McHugh dated 7/18/2003 31­1 ­ 15. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Individual Performance and Contribution Discussion Form Management for Kevin McHugh dated 6/14/2002 31-16 ­ 22. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12433 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 33 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

111.

Individual Performance and Contribution Discussion Form Management for Kevin McHugh dated 6/22/2001 31-26 ­ 31. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

112.

Employee History Information Screen 1-5 ­ 12. Objection: Relevance.

113.

Employee Safety Award History 1-30. Objection: Relevance.

114.

GFTP Prism document for Kevin McHugh 30-71 ­ 72. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 118. 2 - 5 Acceptable Conduct policy dated 5/25/2003 35-57 ­ 66. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial. 117. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. 2 - 5 Acceptable Conduct policy dated 2/1//2003 24-139 ­ 149. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial. 116. 115. GFTP Procedure/EEOC Complaint Process Hargrow 000013-19. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. GFTP Procedure/EEOC Complaint Process dated 6/20/2003 35-67 ­ 74.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12434 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 34 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

119.

4 - 3.3 Fueling Operations Maintenance 38-1 ­ 2. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

120.

8 - 3 Fueling 38-3 ­ 4. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

121.

5 - 15 External EEO Complaint Investigation dated 6/20/202 35-78 ­81. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

122.

5 - 55 Anti - Harassment policy dated 6/15/2003 35- 75 ­ 77. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues,

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 misleading the jury. 125. 124. Excerpts from The People Manual dated 11/11/2001 Hargrow 000003-7. Objection: Incomplete, relevance, unfairly prejudicial. People Manual dated 5/2002 PM0503C001 ­ 18. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, 123. misleading the jury. Organization Chart dated 3/28/2005 40-1. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12435 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 35 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

126.

Federal Express (USA) Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual dated 5/2003 PM0503C006-PM0503P403. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

127.

Medical records Strength Training 43-1 - 25. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

128.

Medical records from R. Hardison 44-1­ 11. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

129. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 132. 131. 130.

Medical records from Physiotherapy Associates 46-1 ­ 97. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Medical records from Tree of Life Counseling Center (Sherry Burk) 47-5 - 15. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Medical records from Dr. Peter Mitchell 48-1 ­ 83. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues, misleading the jury. Medical records from Dr. Lewis Freed 49-1 ­ 46. Objection: Relevance, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of issues,

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12436 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 36 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 135. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 137. 136. 134. 133.

misleading the jury. Sean Hargrow's damages documents, including W-2's, out of pocket medical expenses, job search expenses and other relevant damages documents. Objection: Relevance, cumulative, lack of specificity, unfairly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, authentication, hearsay. Defendant's Interrogatory Responses (Including Supplemental Responses). Objection: Relevance, duplicative, cumulative, unduly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, hearsay, authentication, lack of specificity. Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents (including supplemental responses). Objection: Relevance, duplicative, cumulative, unduly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, hearsay, authentication, lack of specificity. Call Center File. 80-1 ­ 22 Objection: Relevance, cumulative, unduly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, hearsay, lack of specificity. McHugh GFT file. 79-1 ­ 122 Objection: Relevance, duplicative, cumulative, unduly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, hearsay, authentication, lack of specificity.

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12437 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 37 of 48

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

138.

Overtime sign-up sheets. 39-1 - 50 Objection: Relevance, duplicative, cumulative, unduly prejudicial, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, hearsay, authentication, lack of specificity. Defendant's Exhibits:

1.

Application for Employment dated May 29, 1996 Bates No. 3-75 to 3-84 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay)

2. 3.

Job Offer Letter to Sean Hargrow dated October 28, 1996 Bates No. 3-33 Federal Express Employee Handbook acknowledgement dated March 10, 1997 Bates No. 2-29 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay)

4.

Ground Operations Planning and Support dated February 6, 2002 Bates No. 3-324 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay)

5.

Federal Express Employee Handbook acknowledgment dated February 14, 2002 Bates No. 2-7 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay)

6.

Email between Donald Fitzgerald and Cheryl Montgomery dated April 9, 2002 Re: Sean Hargrow Bates No. 12-93 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity)

7.

Medical Leave of Absence Information and Requirements Letter dated April 10, 2002, to Sean Hargrow from Cheryl Montgomery Bates Nos. 4-199 to 4-201 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity)

8.

Inter-office Memorandum Re: FMLA Notification dated April 10, 2002, to Sean Hargrow from Cheryl Montgomery Bates No. 9-98 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity)

9.

Federal Express FMLA Eligibility and Notice Form dated April 10, 2002

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12438 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 38 of 48

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 18. 17. 16. 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10.

Bates No. 9-165 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity) Statement of Policy dated June 1, 2002 Bates No. Hargrow 00057 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity) E-mail between Mr. Kevin McHugh, Ms. Roxanne Ruiz, and Mr. Tim Christensen regarding schedule of Mr. Hargrow dated June 5, 2002 Bates No. 12-89 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Email between Cheryl Montgomery, Charles Smith, and Kevin McHugh dated June 26, 2002 Re: Hargrow Bates No. 12-88 Emails between Cheryl Montgomery and Michelle Bruno dated July 11, 2002 Bates No. 13-18 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Status of Your Open Job Letter dated August 6, 2002, to Sean Hargrow from Cheryl Montgomery Bates No. 4-204 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity) Email between Cheryl Montgomery and Kevin McHugh dated August 23, 2002 Bates No. 12-95 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Email Between Kevin McHugh, Cheryl Montgomery, Bev Koslow and named others dated October 28, 2002 Re: Hargrow MVR Bates No. 12-78 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) E-mail dated November 4, 2002, to Roxanne Ruiz from Kevin McHugh; Subject, Hargrove #267558 Bates No. 4-149 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Email Between Kevin McHugh and Roxanne Ruiz Re: Hargrow dated November 4, 2002 Bates No. 9-44

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12439 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 39 of 48

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 26. 25. 24. 23. 22. 21. 20. 19.

Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Email Between Kevin McHugh and Roxanne Ruiz Re: Sean Hargrow dated November 4, 2002 Bates No. 9-45 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Email Between Kevin McHugh and Roxanne Ruiz Re: Sean Hargrow dated November 4, 2002 Bates No. 9-43 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) FedEx Express Career Opportunities, JCATS Positions Only, Posting date February 14, 2003 Bates No. 4-254 to 4-255 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) E-mail dated March 18, 2003, to Cheryl Montgomery from Sylvia Black; Subject, Sean Hargrow, with handwritten notes Bates No. 12-76 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Email between Cheryl Montgomery and Sue Wira Re: New Hire Class dated March 24, 2003 Bates No. 12-74 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Series of e-mails among Cheryl Montgomery, Denise Micale, and Carmen Cooley Re: Request for Extension of Duration Date dated March 21 & 27, 2003 Bates No. 4-217-2-218. Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance), Multiple documents Email between Carmen Cooley and Cheryl Montgomery Re: Sean Hargrow dated April 7, 2003 Bates No. 12-41 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Email between Michelle Bruno and Cheryl Montgomery Re. Hargrow dated April 10, 2003 Bates No. 12-40

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12440 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 40 of 48

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 36. 35. 33. 34. 32. 30. 29. 28. 27.

Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) CHCMC Case-Sean Hargrow Inter-Office Memorandum from A. Lu Crowder to Cheryl Montgomery dated April 18, 2003 Bates No. 12-43 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Email between Eric Plunkett and Cheryl Montgomery Re: I Need Your Help Please dated May 9, 2003 Bates No. 12-34 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) E-mail dated May 9, 2003, to Cheryl L. Montgomery from Eric Plunkett; Subject, I Need Your Help Please Bates No. 12-35 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Email between Kevin McHugh and Cheryl Montgomery Re: Handler Positions dated May 9, 2003 Bates No. 12-39 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Email between Cheryl Montgomery and Michelle Bruno Re: Sean Hargrow dated May 10, 2003 Bates No. 12-27 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Letter dated May 12, 2003, to Sean Hargrow from Cheryl Montgomery Bates No. 4-214 to 4-215 Customer Representative Non-Exempt Job Description Bates Nos. 37-1 to 37-2 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Employee Weekly Trend Report Bates No. 12-86 to 12-87 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Undated Document Entitled Sean Hargrow by Cheryl Montgomery Bates No. 12-80 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12441 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 41 of 48

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 47. 45. 44. 43. 42. 41. 40. 39. 38. 37.

(Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Dangerous Goods Agent Job Description Bates No. 12-36 to 12-37 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Package Tracking Inquiry Bates No. 4-205 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Package Tracking Inquiry Bates No. 4-208 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Tracking Document Bates No. 4-209 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) General Testing Inquiry Screen Bates No. 9-108 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Tracking Document Bates No. 4-216 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Prism General Testing Inquiry Screen Bates No. 4-219 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Prism General Testing Inquiry Screen Bates No. 4-220 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Termination ­ Involuntary Prism Authorization Form Bates No. 4-213 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Employee Communication Record Bates No. 12-28-12-30 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12442 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 42 of 48

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 58. 55. 56. 57. 54. 52. 51. 50. 49. 48.

(Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Employee Communication Record Bates No. 12-75 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Handwritten Notes Bates No. 12-31 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Federal Express Job Change Application Tracking System Job Change Bates No. 12-32 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Untitled Document (Dangerous Goods Agent Description Included) Bates No. 12-33 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) People Manual Policies 1-7, 1-8, 1-68 and 5-5 Bates Nos. 0503P0100503P018; PM 0503P047-PM0503P048; PM0503P278 to PM0503P281. Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Human Capital Management Program Action Form Bates Nos. 4-230 to 4-4-234 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance) Any exhibit listed by Plaintiff. Any document for rebuttal or impeachment purposes. Plaintiff Sean Hargrow's Affidavit Submitted in Support of Plaintiff's Response to the Motion for Reconsideration, Paragraph 4, Lines 5-10 Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance), Cumulative, Unduly Prejudicial Return of service executed summons/complaint, filed on February 11, 2004. Plaintiff's Objections: FRE 601 (Foundation), FRE 801 (Hearsay), FRE 901 (Authenticity), FRE 402/403 (Relevance), Cumulative, Unduly Prejudicial

Case 2:03-cv-00642-DGC

Document 12443 - Filed 11/02/2006

Page 43 of 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1