Case: 1:10-cv-O7109 Document 4-1 Filed: 11/04/10 Page 2 of 83 PageID #:26 IN THE STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F ILLINOIS EASTERN BIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Applieant, v. AEROTEK, INC. Respondent. DECLARATION OF ERIC G. LAMB Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, 1, Eric G. Lamb, state as follows: I. I am more than eighteen years in age, have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below, and if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2.. I am an investigater with the Chieage District Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or ?Commissien?), and in that role, I am responsible fer the investigation ef charges (if employment discrimination. 3. lhave been assigned to investigate Charge efDiseriminatien Nos. 440~2008? 05698 and 44%2008-05713, ?led by Manse A. Rivera (?Rivera?), and Oscar A. Gutierrez (?Gutierrez?), respectiveiy, against lee. er ?Respendent?). ii. additiee te investigating the charges ef disefiminatien filed by Rivera end Gutierrez, i have eise been assigned te investigate ali ethei' eharges ef disenminetien ?ied ageinet Aeratek in Etlieeis, whieh ieciudes fee charges et?diseiimieetiee {ceileetively, These Chaiges ?ied b5; meme: fermer emplegees whe werke? at Aetetek?s Sehaembui?g, Oak Breek, and Resement Case: 1:10-cv-O7109 Document 4-1 Filed: 11/04/10 Page 3 of 83 PageID #:27 S. declare the renewing based er: my pereerial experience the twelve Charges tiled against Aeretek ia liliaeisi as welt as my review et?the investigative tiles. It is my underetaadittg that Aeretek hea sever: facilities Illirteie: Chicage, Cryetel Lake, Oak Breekg Gumtree} Reekt?erd, Resemeeti and Sehettmhurg, All of these facilities are subject re the at issue in. Applieatien to Shew Cause, Subpeena Ne. "?Sabpeetia?). The Subpoena references Rivera and Getierrez?s Charges et?Diseriminatien. On May 20} 2008, Rivera and Gutierrez filed Charges against Respondent. True and cerrect copies of Rivera?s and Gutierrez?s Charges are attached celleetively hereto as Exhibit 1, Rivera and Gutierree were internal employees of Aerotek who worked as Recruiter 1?s and recruited temporary employees to be placed with Aeratek?s clients. Rivera worked at Aerotek?s Sehaumburg and Cryetal Lake locations. Gutierrez worked at Aeratek?s Schaumburg and Rockford lecatione. in their Charges, Rivera and Gutierrez allege that Reependent discriminated against them on the baeie of their natienel erigin, Mexican, by segregating them, denying them training and denying them premetiene. Charging Parties aise allege that Respeedent retaliated against them for engaging in pretected aetivitiee &t?i?l discharged them. Or: May 2t)? 2808, EEQC mailed et?Rivere arid Getterrezie Cherges ef Dieeriminetiee amt copies ef the Chargee te Resperiderit. True arid eerreet eepiee et?the ere attaehed herete as Exhibit 2. Qt?the tee Charges i em it} edditieri te Rivera?s end Getierree?s Case: 1:10-cv-O7109 Document 4-1 Filed: 11/04/10 Page 4 of 83 PageID #:28 Charges. live Charges allege retaliation. Alse, while Gutierrez and Rivers. were internal empleyees, ether Charging Parties were temperery emeleyees whe were reeruited by Aeretek and placed with Aerotek?s clients. Finally. while Rivera and Gutierrez allege teilure tn premete. ether Charges allege. fer example. discharge because ef age and disability; layoff because et?netienal erigin; sex harassment; end race harassment. g. While Rivera and Gutierrez allege Title VII Vieletieirs, I am also investigating twe Charges alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and one Charge alleging violatien ot?the Americans with Disabilities Act h. in the course (if investigating the Rivera and Gutierrez Charges, I learned that certain Acrotek empleyees may have been placed into jebs with lower pay and inferior status than similarly situated individuals because of their national origin. I else learned that Aerotck employees may have been directed to reeruit temporary employees based on prehibited factors such as race, national erigin, disability status. and sex. 1 obtained witness testimony regarding potential discriminatery conduct at all of Aerotekgs seven locations in i. Based upon the additienal allegatiens ef discriminatien that i uneevered derieg my investigatien, my seperyiser and 1 determined that we were ebligeted te further investigate my findings. 37. Aceerdingly. en September '15, 2099, EEOC mailed Sub-peene Net {Eli-98- 322 te Resperideet. A tree and eerreet eepy is attached herete as Exhibit 3. ii. Orr September 29, 286%}, Res-pendent sebrnitted e. Petitien re Rey?eke er Case: 1:10-cv-07109 Document 4-1 Filed: 11/04/10 Page 5 of 83 PageID #:29 Medity the Subpeene (?Petitiort?). A tree and correct eepy et?the Petitiert ie attached hereto as Exhibit 4. On January 19, 2010, EEOC Cemmissieners issued a Detennirtatiett, denying Respondent?s Petitien to Remite the Subpeerta. Hewever, EEOC advieed Respondent that it would net require Respendent te previde any documents respensive t0 Cetegery 11 at that time, and that in response te Categery 12, Reependent only had to provide two sample contracts between Respendent and its aeceunts, thereby drastically limiting requests. The Determination directed Respondent to comply with the Subpoena by February 10, 2010 for Categories HS, 10, 12, as modi?ed, and 13-17, and by March 12, 2010 for Categories 7?9. A true and correct copy (if the Determination is attached as Exhibit 5. In response to Respondent?s requests for further modi?cations to the Subpoena, on February 25, 2010, EEOC narrewed its requests in Categories 7? 0 to a twowyear time Span (years 2007 and 2008) to determine whether Respondent would suffer an undue burden. in responding. On April 7, 2010, after several communicatiens with Respondent threughout February and March 0192030, inelttding at least fear calls and feur electrenie mails addressing Respendent?s eeneerns abeut hertz te prednee the infermatien, EEOC again demaeded that Respertdent preduee eertein inferrnatier; requested in the Sebpeeria. A tree and eerreet cepy of the letter is attached as Exhibit 6. Or: April 19, .2010 and en May 2, 2010, mere that; {we menths after meterieis Case: 1:10-cv-O7109 Document 4-1 Filed: 11/04/10 Page 6 of 83 PageID #:30 were dee, Respondent submitted partial meet ot?whieh repreaented information only from Scha?amburg, and not the other at); lecatiees requested in the Subpoena. A Chart detailing modi?eatione te the Seepoena and the Categories Reepoadent has; not yet complied with is attached as Exhibit 7. p. Alter analyzing the ioforrttation provided, EEOC determined that compliance with the Subpoena, including the creation of electronic databases, such as an Excel database, Would not be unduly burdeaaorne. For example, EEOC determined that creation ofan electronic database, in response to Categories 7-9, would not be unduly burdensome because Respondent produced what appears to be a printout copy of an Excel database in response to Category 7. However, Respondent refused to produce the actual database, and continues to suggest that the creation of electronic Excel databases would be unduly burdensome, even though Aerotek has already created one electronic database. Accordingly, on May '27, 2010, I sent a letter to Respondent advising that it was required to fully comply with the Subpoena by June I l, 2010, and provide information from ZO?o?present, as requested in the original Subpoena. The letter explained that at that time, EEOC would not redoire Respondent to provide an}; doeumeote reepons?ee to Category 8, which requests the predeetioe of an electre-eie databaee. A true and correct copy of the letter ie attaebed as; Exhibit 8, q. (3a lane 10, Respondent aeet me a letter it} ?Whli?il?i it deeliaed to comply with the Subpoeaa. A. tree and eorreet Copy ot?the letter? is attached a5; Exhibit Vt Case: 1:10-cv-O7109 Document 4-1 Filed: 11/04/10 Page 7 of 83 PageID #:31 .9. 6. As of the eate of this Deelaeation,? Respendent has tailed te eempiy with fer: categeries efreqeests Subpeene Ne. Hewever, at this time: EEOC is seeking iefertnatien from only seven ef the ten outstanding categories et?ieterrnatien that have not beet: previdedi Categories ?-lO end 1244. 8. Respendeiit?s refusei to eemply with the S'uhpeena has hindered my ability to investigate the Charges tiled agaiest Respondent. 9. As haekgretind ini?orrnationg in additien to Respendent?s refusal to comply with the Suhpeenea I also encountered preblems communicating with Respondent?s employees. On December 14, 20093 EEOC filed a Petition fer a Preliminary Injunction against Aerotek in this Court (Case No. Q9-cv~07740) alleging that Aerotek told all ef its Illinois Recruiters not to speak with EEOC without: counsel present, even though EEOC had reason to believe that the majority of Recruiter personnel are neither managers nor supervisors. I testi?ed in Court that Aerotek was illegally interfering with my ability to investigate the Charges. A true and correct copy of Petition is attached as Exhibit 10. 10. On January 19, 2010} after Respondent agreed to tell its non?managerial Recruiters in writing that they were permitted te speak freely and openly with EEOC and witheut the presence ef ceenseli EEOC tiled a Motien to Withdraw its Petition, which this Ceert granted. A tree and eerreet eepy et? Metieh is ettaehed as Exhibit 1 li Case: 1:10-cv-O7109 Document 4-1 Filed: 11/04/10 Page 8 of 83 PageID #:32 1 I. I have read this Declaratien and declare under penalty Ofperjury that the foregoiag %3 true and armrest Ema-jg g6?* f? Dated: 5 1 if a? {my-g] g1 Eric (3. Lamb