Case: Breedlove v. Tele-Trip Co. Inc.

1:91-cv-05702 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Sept. 9, 1991

Closed Date: 1997

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 9, 1991, employees of Tele-Trip Co. filed a lawsuit against their employer, its owner Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, and their retirement plan, Mutual of Omaha Retirement Income Plan, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132a and had engaged in age discrimination.The plaintiffs were originally employees of Tele-Trip, but…

On September 9, 1991, employees of Tele-Trip Co. filed a lawsuit against their employer, its owner Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, and their retirement plan, Mutual of Omaha Retirement Income Plan, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132a and had engaged in age discrimination.

The plaintiffs were originally employees of Tele-Trip, but were reclassified as "independent operators" before they were eventually discharged. As independent operators, they performed the same duties as they did when they were employees and were subject to the same oversight. Since they were no longer classified as employees, however, they were not given pension benefits for their years as independent operators. They alleged that this was age discrimination and a violation of ERISA.

On June 22, 1992 the plaintiffs dismissed their age discrimination claims. On July 27, 1993, the court (Judge Harry D. Leinenweber) approved the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class consisted of "all persons who have been or are being characterized as independent operators of Tele-Trip airport locations, and the employees of such independent operators." The court also denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis that it could not disqualify the plaintiffs as a matter of law as employees since they were the functional equivalent of employees. Finally, the court dismissed Tele-Trip and Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company from the case. The parties thereafter reached a settlement that the court (Judge Leinenweber) approved on November 7, 1994. The details of the settlement are not known.

Summary Authors

Michael Perry (8/5/2010)

People


Judge(s)

Bucklo, Elaine E. (Illinois)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Allison, Robert D. (Illinois)

Hellman, Joel M. (Illinois)

Howard, Bruce C. (Illinois)

Attorney for Defendant

Hedrick, Janet Marie (Illinois)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

1:91-cv-05702

Docket

July 25, 1997

July 25, 1997

Docket
51

1:91-cv-05702

Opinion (Granting plaintiff permission to interview former employees of the defendant)

Aug. 12, 1992

Aug. 12, 1992

Order/Opinion

1992 WL 202147

70

1:91-cv-05702

Opinion (Granting class certification, denying defendants' motions for summary judgment, and dismissing two defendants)

Breedlove v. Tele-Trip Co. Inc

July 26, 1993

July 26, 1993

Order/Opinion

1993 WL 284327

Docket

Last updated March 25, 2025, 8:41 a.m.

ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Sept. 9, 1991

COMPLAINT; jury demand − Civil cover sheet − Appearance of Stephen G. Seliger as attorney for plaintiff Mary Ann Breedlove, plaintiff Joyce Culp, plaintiff Reba Languis, plaintiff Drusilla Massaro with Rule 39 affidavit ( 3 original and 3 copies summons(es) issued.) ( Documents: 1−1 through 1−4) (cdh) (Entered: 09/10/1991)

PACER
Sept. 9, 1991

RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 9/9/91 in the amount of $ 120.00, receipt # 359329. (cdh) (Entered: 09/10/1991)

PACER
2 Sept. 19, 1991

MINUTE ORDER of 9/19/91 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Robert D. Allison, Joel M. Hellman and Clare Kralovec granted leave to file their appearance as additional counsel for plaintiffs. No notice (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1991)

PACER
3 Sept. 20, 1991

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Robert D. Allison, Joel M. Hellman, Clare Marie Kralovec (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1991)

PACER
4 Sept. 20, 1991

RULE 39 Affidavit of Robert D. Allison (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1991)

PACER
5 Sept. 20, 1991

RULE 39 Affidavit of Joel M. Hellman (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1991)

PACER
6 Sept. 20, 1991

RULE 39 Affidavit of Clare Marie Kralovec (fce) (Entered: 09/20/1991)

PACER
7 Oct. 28, 1991

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT by defendants. (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1991)

PACER
8 Oct. 28, 1991

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants by Charles Benno Wolf, Janet Marie Hedrick (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1991)

PACER
9 Oct. 28, 1991

RULE 39 Affidavit of Charles Benno Wolf (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1991)

PACER
10 Oct. 28, 1991

RULE 39 Affidavit of Janet Marie Hedrick (fce) (Entered: 10/28/1991)

PACER
11 Dec. 11, 1991

MINUTE ORDER of 12/11/91 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing set for 02/04/92 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/12/1991)

PACER
12 Jan. 16, 1992

MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel discovery (Exhibits); notice of motion. (hp) (Entered: 01/17/1992)

PACER
13 Jan. 16, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 1/16/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Plaintiffs' motion to compel continued generally. [12−1] Defendant to file its motion for protective order with supporting memorandum by 01/27/92. Plaintiffs' response due 01/31/92. The court will rule orally on 02/04/92. No notice (hp) (Entered: 01/17/1992)

PACER
14 Jan. 31, 1992

REPLY by plaintiffs' in support of their motion for a narrow protective order (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (hp) (Entered: 02/03/1992)

PACER
15 Jan. 31, 1992

MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs' in support of motion for class certification on count II ERISA claim (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (hp) (Entered: 02/03/1992)

PACER
16 Feb. 3, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 2/3/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Mary L. Mikva, Bruce C. Howard and Josua Karsh granted leave to file their appearance as additional counsel on behalf of plaintiffs. No notice (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1992)

PACER
18 Feb. 3, 1992

RULE 39 Affidavit of Mary Lane Mikva (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1992)

PACER
19 Feb. 3, 1992

RULE 39 Affidavit of Bruce C Howard (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1992)

PACER
20 Feb. 3, 1992

RULE 39 Affidavit of Joshua Karsh (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1992)

PACER
21 Feb. 3, 1992

NOTICE of filing by plaintiffs regarding affidavit [20−1], regarding affidavit [19−1], regarding affidavit [18−1], regarding attorney [17−1] (fce) (Entered: 02/04/1992)

PACER
22 Feb. 4, 1992

MOTION by defendants' for protective order (Exhibits); notice of motion. (hp) (Entered: 02/07/1992)

PACER
23 Feb. 4, 1992

ORDER regarding motion for protective order [22−1] (hp) (Entered: 02/07/1992)

PACER
24 Feb. 4, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 2/4/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Enter protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Fed. R.Civ.P. [22−1] Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 02/07/1992)

PACER
25 Feb. 4, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 2/4/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Patrick Shea granted leave to file his appearance as additional counsel. Plaintiffs' granted leave to file its motion for class certification with supporting brief by 02/04/92. Defendants' response to be filed by 04/03/92. Plaintiffs' reply brief due by 04/24/92. The court will rule orally on 05/11/92 at 9:00 a.m. Status hearing held. Court to issue protective order. No notice (hp) (Entered: 02/07/1992)

PACER
26 Feb. 5, 1992

MOTION by plaintiffs' for class certification on count II ERISA claim ; Notice of filing. (hp) (Entered: 02/07/1992)

PACER
27 Feb. 26, 1992

AGREED MOTION by parties' for an extension of time ; notice of motion. (hp) (Entered: 02/27/1992)

PACER
28 Feb. 26, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 2/26/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : The agreed motion to extend the briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Count II is granted. [27−1] Defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Count II due 05/15/92. Plaintiff's reply to be filed by 06/05/92. The court oral ruling date set for 05/11/92 is reset to 06/26/92 at 9:00 a.m. [26−1] Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 02/27/1992)

PACER
29 April 7, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 4/7/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Defendant's oral motion to compel is denied. [0−1] No notice (hp) (Entered: 04/09/1992)

PACER
April 7, 1992

ORAL MOTION by defendant to compel ;. (hp) (Entered: 04/09/1992)

PACER
30 April 28, 1992

UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendants' for an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification ; . (hp) (Entered: 04/29/1992)

PACER
31 April 28, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 4/28/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to 06/15/92 in which to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. [30−1] Plaintiffs' reply brief now due by 07/06/92. [26−1] Oral ruling date of 06/26/92 is reset to 07/28/92 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 04/29/1992)

PACER
32 June 3, 1992

SETTLEMENT agreement and release by plaintiffs and defendants. (Attachment) (hp) Modified on 08/22/2001 (Entered: 06/04/1992)

PACER
33 June 5, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 6/5/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Briefing schedule on plaintiff's motion for class is extended as follows: Defendant's response to be filed by 06/30/92. [26−1] Plaintiff's reply brief due by 08/07/92. The court's oral ruling date set for 07/28/92 is reset to 08/28/92 at 9:00 a.m. [26−1] Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 06/08/1992)

PACER
34 June 17, 1992

MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel certain documents (Exhibits); notice of motion. (hp) (Entered: 06/18/1992)

PACER
35 June 17, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 6/17/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Filed plaintiffs' motion to compel. [34−1] Defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion to compel to be filed by 07/10/92. Plaintiffs' reply brief due by 07/24/92. The court will rule orally on 08/18/92 at 9:00 a.m. [34−1] No notice (hp) (Entered: 06/18/1992)

PACER
36 June 22, 1992

MOTION by plaintiffs' to enter agreed order dismissing count I (Attachment); Notice of filing. (hp) (Entered: 06/23/1992)

PACER
37 June 22, 1992

ORDER regarding motion to enter agreed order dismissing count I [36−1] (hp) (Entered: 06/23/1992)

PACER
38 June 22, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 6/22/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Enter agreed order dismissing Count I with prejudice and without costs pursuant to the settlement of the parties. [36−1] Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 06/23/1992)

PACER
39 June 26, 1992

MOTION by defendants' to extend page limit ; notice of motion. (hp) (Entered: 06/29/1992)

PACER
40 June 26, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 6/26/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Defendants' motion to extend page limit to 40 pages is granted. [39−1] No notice (hp) (Entered: 06/29/1992)

PACER
41 July 22, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 7/22/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Parties having resolved plaintiff's motion to compel, [12−1] [34−1] ruling date set for 08/28/92 is stricken. Ruling date on plaintiffs' motion for class certification set for 08/28/92 is reset to 09/08/92 at 9:00 a.m. [26−1] Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 07/23/1992)

PACER
42 July 27, 1992

MEMORANDUM of law by defendants' in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification [26−1] (Attachment). (hp) (Entered: 07/28/1992)

PACER
43 July 27, 1992

APPENDIX filed by defendants' to defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification [42−1] (Attachments). (Volume 1 of 2). (hp) (Entered: 07/28/1992)

PACER
44 July 27, 1992

APPENDIX filed by defendants' to defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification [42−1] (Attachments). (Volume 2 of 2). (hp) (Entered: 07/28/1992)

PACER
45 July 27, 1992

MOTION by defendants' to dismiss plaintiffs' claims and to dismiss defendants Tele−Trip and Mutual and or for summary judgment (Attachment); notice of motion. (hp) (Entered: 07/28/1992)

PACER
46 July 27, 1992

MEMORANDUM of law by defendants' in support of motion to dismiss and/or [45−1] for summary judgment [45−2] (Attachment). (hp) (Entered: 07/28/1992)

PACER
47 July 27, 1992

MOTION by plaintiffs' for a protective order (Exhibits); notice of motion. (hp) (Entered: 07/28/1992)

PACER
48 July 27, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 7/27/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Plaintiffs' granted leave to file motion for a protective order. [47−1] Defendants' response due by 07/30/92. Plaintiffs' reply brief due by 08/03/92. The court will endeavor to rule expeditiously on plaintiffs' motion for protective order. Defendants' granted leave to file motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. [45−1] [45−2] Plaintiff's response due by 10/08/92. Defendants' reply brief due 10/22/92. Plaintiffs' reply brief to its motion for class certification now due by 09/08/92. Oral ruling date of 09/08/92 is stricken. [26−1] No notice (hp) (Entered: 07/28/1992)

PACER
49 July 30, 1992

MEMORANDUM by defendants of law in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a protective order [47−1] (Exhibits) (is) (Entered: 07/31/1992)

PACER
50 Aug. 3, 1992

REPLY memorandum by plaintiffs in support of motion for a protective order [47−1] (Attachment); Notice of filing. (fce) (Entered: 08/04/1992)

PACER
51 Aug. 12, 1992

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (hp) (Entered: 08/14/1992)

PACER
52 Aug. 12, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 8/12/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Enter memorandum opinion and order regarding plaintiffs' request to conduct ex parte interviews with Tele−Trip Compnay, Inc.'s former employees. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 08/14/1992)

PACER
54 Sept. 1, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 9/1/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Plaintiffs' agreed motion for extension of time to 09/22/92 in which to file its reply to defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. [26−1] [53−1] Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 09/02/1992)

PACER
55 Sept. 18, 1992

RULE 12 Statement of undisputed facts in support of their motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment by defendants'. (hp) (Entered: 09/21/1992)

PACER
56 Sept. 22, 1992

LETTER from plaintiffs' counsel, Mary L. Mikva to Ms. Powell dated 09/22/92 (hp) (Entered: 09/24/1992)

PACER
57 Sept. 22, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 9/22/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Without objection, plaintiff granted leave to file memorandum in excess of 15 pages. No notice (hp) (Entered: 09/24/1992)

PACER
58 Sept. 22, 1992

REPLY by plaintiffs' memorandum in support of their motion for class certification [26−1] (Attachment); Notice of filing. (hp) (Entered: 09/24/1992)

PACER
59 Sept. 22, 1992

APPENDIX by plaintiffs to plaintiffs' reply memorandum in support of their motion for class certification (hp) Modified on 08/22/2001 (Entered: 09/24/1992)

PACER
60 Oct. 8, 1992

AGREED MOTION by plaintiffs' for an extension of time to file response to motion to dismiss ; notice of motion. (hp) (Entered: 10/09/1992)

PACER
61 Oct. 8, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 10/8/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Granting plaintiffs' agreed motion for an extension of time to file response to motion to dismiss. [60−1] Plaintiff given to 10/15/92 in which to file their response to defendants' motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. [45−1] [45−2] Defendants' reply brief due by 10/29/92. The court will rule by mail. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 10/09/1992)

PACER
62 Oct. 15, 1992

EXHIBITS by plaintiffs to plaintiffs' response to defendants' motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. (hp) Modified on 08/22/2001 (Entered: 10/16/1992)

PACER
63 Oct. 15, 1992

LOCAL RULE 12(N) Statement by plaintiffs' in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment ; Notice of filing (hp) (Entered: 10/16/1992)

PACER
64 Oct. 20, 1992

MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file memorandum in excess of fifteen pages ; notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 10/21/1992)

PACER
65 Oct. 20, 1992

RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' claims and to dismiss defendants Tele−Trip and Mutual and [45−1], motion for summary judgment [45−2] (fce) (Entered: 10/21/1992)

PACER
66 Oct. 20, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 10/20/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to file memorandum in excess of fifteen pages [64−1] Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/21/1992)

PACER
67 Oct. 29, 1992

REPLY by defendants' memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment [45−1][45−2] (hp) (Entered: 10/30/1992)

PACER
68 Oct. 29, 1992

AFFIDAVIT of Jane Meyer regarding motion reply [67−1] (Attachment). (hp) (Entered: 10/30/1992)

PACER
69 Oct. 29, 1992

MINUTE ORDER of 10/29/92 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing held; continued to 11/20/92 at 10:00 a.m. All third party defendants granted to and including 11/20/92 to answer or otherwise plead to the third party complaint. No notice (hp) (Entered: 10/30/1992)

PACER
70 July 26, 1993

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (ar) (Entered: 07/27/1993)

PACER
71 July 26, 1993

MINUTE ORDER of 7/26/93 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing set for 08/26/93 at 9:00 am . Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order: The court finds that plaintiffs' proposed class satisfies the class certification requirements enumerated in Rule 23 of the Fed.R.Civ.P. and, therefore, grants plaintiffs' motion to certify as a class [26−1]. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied [[45−1]. Defendants' motion to dismiss defendants Mutual and Tele−Trip, finding them to be improper defendants for a section 502 action is granted [45−2]. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 07/27/1993)

PACER
72 Aug. 26, 1993

MINUTE ORDER of 8/26/93 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing held; continued to 10/08/93 at 9:00 a.m. No notice (fce) (Entered: 08/27/1993)

PACER
73 Oct. 8, 1993

MINUTE ORDER of 10/8/93 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing held; continued to 11/22/93 at 9:30 am. No notice (ar) (Entered: 10/12/1993)

PACER
74 Nov. 22, 1993

MINUTE ORDER of 11/22/93 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing held; continued to 01/18/94 at 9:00 am. No notice (ar) (Entered: 11/29/1993)

PACER
75 Jan. 18, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 1/18/94 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing held; continued to 02/18/94 at 9:00 am. No notice (ar) (Entered: 01/20/1994)

PACER
76 Feb. 18, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 2/18/94 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing held; continued to 25 Mar 94 at 9:00 a.m. Matter referred to Mag. Judge Gottschall for settlement conference. No notice (eav) (Entered: 02/22/1994)

PACER
77 Feb. 22, 1994

REFERRAL ORDER of 2/22/94: Case referred to Magistrate Judge Joan B. Gottschall pursuant to local General Rule 2.41(b) to conduct hearings and enter appropriate orders on the following pretrial motion/matter: Settlement conference. Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 02/24/1994)

PACER
78 Feb. 23, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 2/23/94 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing held. Settlement Conference set for March 21, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. Parties with settlement authority are to be present. Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 02/24/1994)

PACER
79 March 21, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 3/21/94 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Settlement Conference held and continued to March 28, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. No notice (eav) (Entered: 03/22/1994)

PACER
80 March 25, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 3/25/94 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing held; continued to 8 Apr 94 at 9:00 a.m. No notice (eav) (Entered: 03/28/1994)

PACER
81 March 28, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 3/28/94 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Settlement conference continued. Status hearing on settlement set for April 22, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. No notice (eav) (Entered: 03/29/1994)

PACER
82 April 8, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 4/8/94 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing held; continued to 6 May 94 at 9:00 a.m. No notice (eav) (Entered: 04/11/1994)

PACER
83 April 22, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 4/22/94 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing reset for 05/11/94 at 10:00 am. Telephoned notice (ar) (Entered: 04/25/1994)

PACER
84 May 11, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 5/11/94 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing held; continued to 05/26/94 at l0:00 a.m. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 05/12/1994)

PACER
85 May 19, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 5/19/94 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing reset for 06/02/94 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 05/20/1994)

PACER
86 May 26, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 5/26/94 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing held; continued to 06/17/94 at 10:00 a.m. No notice (ldg) (Entered: 05/31/1994)

PACER
87 June 2, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 6/2/94 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing held; continued to 06/24/94 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 06/03/1994)

PACER
88 June 17, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 6/17/94 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Settlement conference held. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge. Terminate case referral. Terminating case referral to Hon. Joan B. Gottschall . Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 06/20/1994)

PACER
89 June 24, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 6/24/94 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Status hearing held; continued to 08/09/94 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered:

PACER
91 Aug. 9, 1994

ORDER regarding motion for preliminary approval of settlement and [90−1] for other relief [90−2] (ldg) (Entered: 08/12/1994)

PACER
92 Aug. 9, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 8/9/94 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Granting plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of settlement and [90−1] other relief [90−2]. Fairness hearing set for 11/07/94 at l0:00 a.m. Magistrate Judge Joan B. Gottschall to be appointed as Special Master. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 08/12/1994)

PACER
93 Aug. 16, 1994

REFERRAL ORDER of 08/15/94: Case referred to Hon. Joan B. Gottschall pursuant to local General Rule 2.41(b) to conduct hearings and enter appropriate orders on the following pretrial motion/matter: To serve as Special Master under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(2), as more specifically to hear and determine various disputes that might arise in connection with the administration of the settlement agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Procedure 53. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 08/22/1994)

PACER
94 Aug. 24, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 8/24/94 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Initial status hearing is set for 09/16/94 at l0:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Gottschall. Parties are directed to furnish courtesy copies of any documents relevant to the referral of this case to Chambers 2490 by 09/09/94. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 08/25/1994)

PACER
95 Sept. 8, 1994

SUMMARY AND DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS by plaintiffs of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs and expenses through preliminary approval settlement (08/09/94) (Attachments); Notice of filing. (1 vol.) (ar) (Entered: 09/09/1994)

PACER
96 Sept. 16, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 9/16/94 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing held; continued to 10/21/94 at ll:00 a.m. Reply to attorney fees due on or before 09/30/94. No notice (ldg) (Entered: 09/19/1994)

PACER
97 Oct. 21, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 10/21/94 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Status hearing held and continued to 04/07/95 at l0:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Gottschall. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 10/28/1994)

PACER
98 Oct. 25, 1994

CLAIM pursuant to class action and settlement by claimant Mary Dombrowski (ldg) (Entered: 10/28/1994)

PACER
99 Oct. 25, 1994

AFFIDAVIT of Mary Dombrowski (Attachments); Notice of filing. (ldg) (Entered: 10/28/1994)

PACER
100 Nov. 2, 1994

MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file memorandum in excess of fifteen pages in support of class action settlement agreement ; Notice of motion (ldg) (Entered: 11/03/1994)

PACER
101 Nov. 2, 1994

MINUTE ORDER of 11/2/94 by Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber : Granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file memorandum in excess of fifteen pages in support of class action settlement agreement [100−1]. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 11/03/1994)

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory:

Illinois

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 9, 1991

Closing Date: 1997

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All persons who had been or were characterized as independent operators of Tele-Trip airport locations and any employees of such independent operators.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Private Entity/Person

Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001

Other Dockets:

Northern District of Illinois 1:91-cv-05702

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Issues

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Treatment

Pay / Benefits

Discrimination Basis:

Age discrimination

Recommended Citation