Case: 1:15-cv-00275 Document 4-1 Filed: 01/13/15 Page 2 of 44 PageID #:17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, CIVIL ACTION NO.: Applicant, Judge v. Magistrate Judge AEROTEK, INC., Respondent. DECLARATION OF EEOC INVESTIGATOR ERIC LAMB 1, Eric Lamb, state as follows: 1. I am an Investigator in the Chicago District Of?ce of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the 2. The Chicago District Of?ce is responsible for the investigation of charges that employers doing business within the State of Illinois have engaged in employment practices made unlawful by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq. 3. I am the Investigator assigned to the ?le for ADEA Directed Investigation Number 440- 2013-05194, ?led by then-Chicago District Director John P. Rowe against Aerotek, Inc. (?Aerotek? or ?Respondent?). 4. I state the following based on my personal experience in working on this ?le and on my personal knowledge of the procedures used by and documents maintained by the Chicago District Of?ce: 5. On or about August 19, 2013, the Commission informed Respondent that EEOC had scheduled an investigation of Respondent (EEOC Investigation Number Case: 1:15-cv-00275 Document 4-1 Filed: 01/13/15 Page 3 of 44 PageID #:18 directed by the District Director, to determine its compliance under the ADEA with respect to its recruitment, hiring and placement of individuals at all facilities in the United States Respondent?s facilities and facilities owned and/or operated by Respondent?s clients) during the time period of January 1, 2009 to the present. At the same time, EEOC issued a Request for Information seeking information related to Respondent?s computerized ?les. See Ex. A, Letter to Todd M. Mohr from John P. Rowe, dated Aug. 19, 2013. 6. On or about March 4, 2014, EEOC served Subpoena No. on Respondent requesting, from January 1, 2009 to the present: 1) certain information about all persons Aerotek referred from its Illinois facilities for employment at Aerotek?s clients; (2) certain information about all job requisition requests by clients of Aerotek nationwide; (3) information about individuals who were hired into certain internal positions at Aertoek?s Illinois facilities; and (4) documents related to Aerotek?s analysis of its workforce which it referenced in a prior letter. Respondent produced the information sought in part in a computerized database. See Ex. B, 3/4/14 Subpoena No. 7. review of the information produced by Aerotek revealed hundreds of discriminatory job requests by Aerotek?s clients. A few examples of such requests are: 1) . . is 22 years old and his two employees are both in their 203 a person in their 403 or 50s would not be a cultural 2) ?Looking for young entergetic [sic] guys with some sports knowledge and good attention to detail;? and 3) ?We?re looking for a Fresh College Grad . . 8. In a letter from Andrew Scroggins to EEOC, Aerotek admitted that it discovered ?incidents that suggest certain Aerotek employees were not acting in a manner consistent with Company policies and practices.? See Ex. C, 3/31/14 Letter from Andrew Scroggins to Eric Lamb, p. 2. 9. On or about July 30, 2014, EEOC issued another RFI to Respondent, seeking information for the individuals who were assigned by Aerotek to its clients nationwide, including but not Case: 1:15-cv-00275 Document 4-1 Filed: 01/13/15 Page 4 of 44 PageID #:19 limited to, the individuals? names, dates of birth, and contact information, and the names of the clients to which they were assigned. See Ex. D, 7/30/14 RFI. 10. Again, Aerotek produced in part the information in a computerized database. Most notably, Aerotek did not produce the names of its clients or the names, dates of birth, and contact information of the individuals hired by its clients. Instead, it provided a unique identifying code for its client accounts and an individual employee number for the requested employees. 11. On or about August 27, 2014, I sent an email asking Respondent to produce the information that was missing in response to the July 30 RFI. See Ex. E, 8/27/14 Email from Eric Lamb to Andrew Scroggins. 12. On September 3, 2014, Aerotek responded by stating that it was refusing to produce individual employee names dates of birth, and contact information as well as individual client account information. See Ex. F, 9/3/14 Letter from Andrew Scroggins to Eric Lamb. 13. On or about October 15, 2014, EEOC issued Subpoena No. to Respondent seeking the information which Aertoek had refused to provide, but narrowing the request geographically to those individuals whom Aerotek referred for employment from 62 facilities (those from which EEOC previously identi?ed discriminatory requests). For those individuals, EEOC sought, inter alia, their names, dates of birth, and contact information and the names of the clients to which they were assigned. See Ex. G, 10/15/14 Subpoena No. 14. On or about October 29, 2014, Aerotek reSponded by continuing to refuse to provide the names, dates of birth, addresses, and telephone numbers of the requested employees as well as the names of its clients. See Ex. H, 10/29/ 14 Letter from Andrew Scroggins to Eric Lamb. I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing declaration and that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and recollection. Case: 1:15-cv-00275 Document 4-1 Filed: 01/13/15 Page 5 of 44 PageID #:20 Date: January 12, 2015 Eric Lamb