Matthew Fogg V U.S. Department of Justice, Jeff Sessions
Matthew Fogg V U.S. Department of Justice, Jeff Sessions
Matthew Fogg V U.S. Department of Justice, Jeff Sessions
Pursuant to the Decision on Request for Reconsideration issued by the EEOC Office of
Federal Operations (OFO), Fogg v. Department of Justice, EEOC Request No. 0520120575
(November 17, 2015), on May 9, 2016, I Ordered the parties to provide briefing on the
appropriate date range for the class certified in the Commissions decision, and on the estimated
time required for discovery. I also authorized the Class Agent to submit a renewed motion to
amend, and ordered the parties to summarize the status of settlement negotiations.
Upon review of the Agencys June 27, 2016 Response to May 9, 2016 Order, the July 2,
2016 Class Agents Motion to Amend Class Charge, the Agencys July 18, 2016 Opposition to
Motion to Amend, Complainants August 1, 2016 Reply to Agencys Opposition to Motion to
Amend, and the Agencys August 12, 2016 Surreply, Complainants Motion to Amend is hereby
GRANTED.
1
The Amended Class Charge shall serve as the operable complaint for this case. The class
for this complaint is defined as all current and former African American Deputy U.S. Marshals
and Detention Enforcement Officers who were subjected to the Agencys policies and practices
regarding promotions, including reassignments and transfers, Headquarters assignments, and
hiring and recruitment from January 23, 1994 to present. Matthew Fogg shall remain a Class
Agent, and Antonio Gause, Regina Holsey, Thomas Hedgepath, Charles Fonseca, Ivan Baptiste,
Tracey Bryce and Theodore Riley shall be added as class agents.
Discovery
Dispositive Motions
Any Motions for Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than January 5, 2018.
Oppositions to any Motions for Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than February 9,
2018. Any Reply in Support of a Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than
February 23, 2018.
Settlement
Sanctions
Failure to follow this Order or other orders of the Administrative Judge may result in
sanctions pursuant to EEOC Regulations at 29 C.F.R. 1614.109(f)(3) and 1614.2014(f)(2).
The Administrative Judge may, where appropriate:
2
(A) Draw an adverse inference that the requested information, or the testimony of the
requested witness, would have reflected unfavorably on the party refusing to provide the
requested information;
(B) Consider the matters to which the requested information or testimony pertains to be
established in favor of the opposing party;
(C) Exclude other evidence offered by the party failing to produce the requested
information or witness;
It is so ORDERED.