Case: 1:11-cv-06754 Document #: 180 Filed: 08/11/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1319

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 11-cv-6754
Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis

SOURCE ONE STAFFING, INC.

Hon. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CLARIFY CONSENT DECREE
Defendant, SOURCE ONE STAFFING, INC. (“Source One”), by its attorneys, for its
Motion to Clarify Consent Decree, states:
1.

In or about September, 2007 Plaintiff, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (“EEOC”) commenced an investigation against Source One as a
result of allegedly gender-based discriminatory practices on Source One’s part. That investigation
ultimately led to EEOC commencing the instant action against Source One.
2.

On May 6, 2015, the Court entered a settlement agreement in the form of a Consent

Decree signed by both EEOC and Source One (the “Consent Decree,” a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A). [Docket #179] The Consent Decree was the result of
many hours of settlement discussions in the presence of the Honorable Judge Gilbert.
3.

At issue is whether the Consent Decree entered into between the parties requires

Source One to collect data relating to Source One employees’ gender.
4.

Source One is a temporary staffing agency that places its temporary employees at

various customers of Source One. The crux of EEOC’s lawsuit against Source One is that Source

 Case: 1:11-cv-06754 Document #: 180 Filed: 08/11/15 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:1320

One discriminated against its temporary employees based on gender. EEOC generally asserted that
Source One placed its temporary employees with Source One’s customers based on gender.
5.

When EEOC made its allegations of gender-based discrimination against Source

One, Source One immediately began adopting new policies and procedures. Of import, Source One
stopped questioning its employees about gender when the employees applied for positions with
Source One.
6.

Source One’s voluntary exclusion of any question about gender ensured that none of

Source One’s employees could search Source One’s database by gender.
7.

Thus, Source One does not ask its temporary employee-applicants to report their

gender when they apply for positions with Source One, nor at any time thereafter.
8.

The recently entered Consent Decree addressed this issue directly. Paragraph 20(E)

of the Consent Decree provides that Source One:
… shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying by the
EEOC and the Monitor … A list all employees with gender identification
assigned to each position at each client company, pursuant to Defendant’s
obligations under the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act, 820 ILCS
175/12(9) [sic].
(Exhibit A at page 12.)
9.

The statute referenced in the foregoing paragraph of the Consent Decree, Section

12(a)(9) of the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act, provides:
(a) Whenever a day and temporary labor service agency sends one or more
persons to work as day or temporary laborers, the day and temporary labor
service agency shall keep the following records relating to that transaction:
…
(9) the race and gender of each day or temporary laborer sent by the
temporary labor service agency, as provided by the day or temporary
laborer[.] [Emphasis added.]
820 ILCS 175/12(a)(9).

2

 Case: 1:11-cv-06754 Document #: 180 Filed: 08/11/15 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:1321

10.

On July 21, 2015, EEOC served Source One with correspondence, a true and correct

copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, wherein EEOC informed Source One that EEOC
believed that EEOC was not in compliance with paragraph 20(E) of the Consent Decree because
Source One was not tracking the gender of its employees. Specifically, EEOC noted that:
[T]he Monitor indicated that Source One is strongly opposed to tracking the
gender of its employees and that Source One believes that he is misreading
this paragraph. It is EEOC’s position that Paragraph 20(E) unambiguously
requires Source One to track the gender of all of its employees.
(Exhibit B.)
11.

On July 29, 2015, Source One served EEOC with correspondence, a true and correct

copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, wherein Source One expressed its disagreement with
EEOC’s interpretation of paragraph 20(E) of the Consent Decree. Specifically, Source One
expressed to EEOC that Source One employees do not provide race or gender information nor
does Source One ask its employees for their race or gender information. Since Source One
employees do not provide such information, Source One does not compile such gender
information.
12.

However, at the conclusion of its July 29, 2015 correspondence, Source One invited

EEOC to file a joint motion with the Court, wherein the parties would ask the Court for its
interpretation of paragraph 20(E).
13.

On August 4, 2015, EEOC served Source One with correspondence, a true and

correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D, wherein EEOC informed Source One that
EEOC did not agree with Source One’s interpretation of the relevant language of the Consent
Decree and would not agree to the filing of a joint motion.
14.

As a result of EEOC’s investigation and the litigation that ensued, Source One is

obviously concerned that tracking the gender of its temporary employees might be viewed as gender

3

 Case: 1:11-cv-06754 Document #: 180 Filed: 08/11/15 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:1322

discrimination.1 Based on that concern, Source One does not ask its employees for their gender and
the employees do not provide that information to Source One. As stated above, since Source One
employees do not provide gender or race information, Source One does not compile such gender or
race information.
15.

The Day Labor Act, 820 ILCS 175/12(a)(9) does not require Source One to obtain

this information; it only requires Source One to keep it if the employees provide it.
16.

Accordingly, Source One brings this motion, seeking the Court’s interpretation of

paragraph 20(E) of the Consent Decree.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Source One Staffing, Inc., respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court enter an order that provides the parties with clarification regarding the Court’s
interpretation of paragraph 20(E) of the Consent Decree and any other relief that the Court deems
appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
SOURCE ONE STAFFING, INC.
/s/Elliot S. Wiczer
One of its Attorneys
Elliot S. Wiczer (ARDC #6208432)
John M. Sheldon (ARDC #6256666)
WICZER & SHELDON, LLC
500 Skokie Blvd., Suite 325
Northbrook, IL 60062
(847) 849-4850

This issue strikes directly at the heart of litigation that the parties engaged in for over four years, i.e. tracking
gender.
1

4