Johnson v. Whirlpool Corporation

Filing 83

PRETRIAL ORDER Granting 79 Proposed Pretrial Order. Calendar Call set for 3/20/2019 at 01:30 PM in LV Courtroom 6A before Judge James C. Mahan. Jury Trial set for 3/25/2019 at 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 4B before Judge James C. Mahan. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5

PAUL S. PADDA, ESQ. (NV Bar #10417)
Email: [e-mail]
JOSHUA Y. ANG, ESQ. (NV Bar #14026)
Email: [e-mail]
PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC
4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

6
7

Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

ROBERT JOHNSON, Individually;

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH

vs.
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, a Foreign
Corporation;

15

Defendant.

16
PROPOSED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

17
18
19

Following pretrial proceedings in this case,
IT IS ORDERED:

20

I.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

This is an action for:
This case concerns a claim of workplace retaliation alleged by Plaintiff Robert Johnson
(“Plaintiff”) against his former employer, the Whirlpool Corporation (“Defendant” or
“Whirlpool”). Although Plaintiff’s Complaint initiating this lawsuit originally alleged claims of
age discrimination in addition to retaliation, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Whirlpool on August 6, 2018 and dismissed Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim. Accordingly,

1

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 2 of 30

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

the only remaining claim to be tried before a jury is Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against him when (1) he was placed on a
performance improvement plan (“PIP”) after he complained to his supervisor about
discrimination and (2) when he was terminated from employment after he filed a charge with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and sent a settlement demand letter
to Defendant alleging discrimination.
The damages Plaintiff seeks in this case are as follows:
a. Past salary loss, past variable pay loss, stress leave pay loss, contests/bonus loss, past
employee benefits loss, future wage and benefits loss, and damages for reduction in

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

value of life and pre-judgment interest;
b. Compensatory damages and all other damages permitted by law, according to proof, to
be determined at time of trial;
c. Punitive damages, according to proof to be determined at time of trial;
d. Attorney's fees, expenses and costs of suit; and
e. Such other and further relief as the Court may wish to entertain.
Defendant denies Plaintiff’s allegations and denies that he is entitled to any relief
whatsoever.

21
22
23

II.
Statement of jurisdiction:

24

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1331 because Plaintiff initially asserted claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment

26

Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et. seq. and a claim for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil

27

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq.

28

2

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 3 of 30

III.

1
2

The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof:

3

1. Plaintiff Robert Johnson’s date of birth is February 16, 1948.

4

2. Plaintiff commenced employment with Whirlpool in 1978.

5

3. Robert Bergeth (“Bergeth”) became Plaintiff’s supervisor in 2012.

6

4. On September 10, 2015 Plaintiff filed a formal charge of discrimination with the

7

EEOC and requested a dismissal and notice of right to sue letter.

8
9

5. Plaintiff was informed he was terminated from employment during a meeting with

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

Robert Bergeth on September 15, 2015.

11
IV.

12
13

The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence to the

14

contrary:

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

None. However, the parties (though not required to do so by the local rules) are hereby
providing a summary of the facts each side expects to establish at trial. The lists below are not
meant to be exhaustive but rather provide a detailed illustration of the facts from each party’s
perspective.
A. Plaintiff’s Facts and Contentions:
1. At the time of Plaintiff’s termination in 2015, he had worked for Defendant for
approximately 37 years.
2. Plaintiff was a model employee who received various honors and awards over the
years.
3. Plaintiff was promoted several times over the years, finally reaching the position
of National Account Sales Manager on or about 1998.

28

3

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 4 of 30

1
2
3
4
5
6

4. Plaintiff’s performance in this position was consistently stellar; for example, he
was Whirlpool’s National Account Executive of the Year in 2005.
5. Plaintiff was performing his employment duties satisfactorily until early to mid2012, when Whirlpool underwent reorganization. Many senior employees were
asked to retire and given severance packages. Plaintiff was not subjected to a

7

lay-off at the time, despite his age, because he was bringing in too much money

8

for Whirlpool. Plaintiff received excellent performance reviews for the years

9

2010, 2011 and 2012 while under the supervision of Kellene G. Safis.

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

6. Plaintiff managed the Whirlpool accounts for many different home builders, and

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

had a good relationship with all of them. Ms. Safis told Plaintiff he was a very
valuable asset to the company.
7. Bergeth became Plaintiff’s direct supervisor around this timeframe (2012) and
remained Plaintiff’s supervisor until Plaintiff’s termination.
8. In 2014, Plaintiff received his first ever (frivolous) negative performance review
from Bergeth, for the year of 2013. Plaintiff disagreed with this performance
review and did not sign it.
9. From 2010 to 2012, Plaintiff had received positive performance reviews from his
supervisors.
10. On or about March 3, 2015, Plaintiff received another frivolous negative

24

performance review from Bergeth, for the year of 2014. Again, Plaintiff did not

25

agree with this review and did not sign it.

26

11. Bergeth placed Plaintiff on a PIP on March 4, 2015.

27
28

4

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 5 of 30

1
2
3
4
5
6

12. The PIP set arbitrary, unattainable goals for Plaintiff. Bergeth did not sign the PIP
or the other disciplinary actions.
13. Being placed on a PIP reinforced Plaintiff’s reasonable belief that he was being
targeted for dismissal because of his age.
14. While Bergeth readily placed Plaintiff on a PIP, there were constant complaints,

7

in writing even, about the performance of a significantly younger, similarly

8

situated employee named Jason Wade from executive(s) at Pulte Homes, one of

9

Whirlpool’s biggest accounts at the time.

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

15. Despite these complaints, Mr. Wade was never put on a PIP by Bergeth but was

11
12

instead allowed to take classes.

13

16. Indeed, prior to being placed on a PIP, Bergeth engaged Plaintiff in a conversation

14

(in approximately November 2014) in which he raised the possibility of Plaintiff

15

retiring citing his age and telling him that he should consider leaving before things

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

“got messy.” Bergeth also told Plaintiff at this time that he should be home
enjoying life.
17. In approximately late February 2015, before being placed on a PIP, Bergeth
engaged Plaintiff in a conversation in which he proposed that Plaintiff could train
his replacement and retire from the company. Bergeth also told Plaintiff that he
could either voluntarily choose to retire or be coached out of his position through
a PIP.

25

18. Plaintiff understood Bergeth to be saying that the groundwork had already been

26

laid through two years of poor performance reviews and that Plaintiff was being

27
28

5

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 6 of 30

1
2
3
4
5
6

set up to be fired. Plaintiff was stunned at the time and told Bergeth that he
believed he was being subjected to discrimination based upon his age.
19. Approximately 8 days after being placed on a PIP, or March 12, 2015, Plaintiff
sent Bergeth an email in which he proposed a “Win Win” for both parties.
20. Bergeth responded on May 1, 2015 with an email in which he stated Plaintiff could

7

choose to retire or remain on a PIP which would be “critical to continued

8

employment with Whirlpool.”

9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

21. Following receipt of this email, Plaintiff became concerned for his employment
and well-being and contacted the EEOC and filled out a questionnaire on May 11,

11
12

2015 in which he alleged discrimination.

13

22. On May 15, 2015, Plaintiff communicated with Bergeth and again expressed his

14

opinion that he was being set up for failure and termination because of his age.

15

23. On or about May 19, 2015, Plaintiff sent an email complaining about

16
17
18

discrimination, harassment and retaliation, among other things to Whirlpool’s
office of human resources.

19

24. Plaintiff also lodged a formal complaint of discrimination with Defendant on or

20

about May 26, 2015 and notified Defendant that he had contacted EEOC for the

21
22
23
24
25
26

purpose of making a complaint.
25. Defendant’s human resources department subsequently notified Plaintiff that they
could not substantiate his complaint of discrimination.
26. A demand letter was sent by Plaintiff’s attorneys on July 15, 2015 to Whirlpool’s
CEO and General Counsel alleging age discrimination and retaliation.

27
28

6

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 7 of 30

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

27. Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on or about September
10, 2015, alleging age discrimination and retaliation.
28. Between September 10, 2015 and September 15, 2015 Whirlpool received notice
of Plaintiff’s EEOC charge of discrimination.
29. After receiving notice of Plaintiff’s EEOC charge of discrimination, Whirlpool
decided to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.

8

30. On September 15, 2015 Plaintiff met with Marybeth Miles (from HR) and Robert

9

Bergeth. He was verbally informed by Bergeth at that meeting that he was being

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

terminated from his employment with Whirlpool. Prior to this meeting, Bergeth

11
12

kept it a secret from Plaintiff that he was going to be terminated. Instead, he told

13

Plaintiff he wanted to meet with him to discuss how he could improve his

14

performance.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

31. On September 16, 2015 Bergeth sent Plaintiff email notification that his
employment with Whirlpool was terminated effective October 1, 2015.
32. On or about September 25, 2015, Plaintiff received a dismissal and notice of
right to sue letter from the EEOC.
33. Plaintiff engaged in various efforts to secure new employment after being
terminated by Defendant. He made inquiries at more than 10 potential employers.
34. Plaintiff secured new employment with Hubbell Lighting, Inc. beginning on or
about August 7, 2016.
35. However, Plaintiff’s position at Hubbell Lighting was eliminated and he was again
let go, on or about March 14, 2017, less than a year after being hired.

27
28

7

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 8 of 30

1
2
3
4
5
6

36. Per Plaintiff’s economic expert, Dr. Terrence M. Clauretie, Plaintiff’s economic
losses currently stand at approximately $1,030,881 to $1,506,483.
B. Defendant’s Facts and Contentions:
1. Plaintiff (DOB: February 16, 1948) was an employee of Defendant from 1978 until
he was terminated on September 15, 2015 for unsatisfactory work performance.

7

2. On or about March 19, 1998, Plaintiff became a Senior Sales Manager for

8

Whirlpool (a.k.a. National Accounts Sales Manager) and held that position until

9

his termination.

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

3. As a National Account Sales Manager/Senior Sales Manager, Plaintiff was

11
12
13

responsible for obtaining national account business and servicing that business,
including managing customer relationships with Whirlpool.

14

4. The Senior Sales Manager position continually changed during the time Plaintiff

15

held that position, including increased expectations and demands of customers on

16
17
18

that position.
5. During the last two years of his employment with Whirlpool, Plaintiff managed

19

accounts for clients including KB Home, Meritage Homes, Standard Pacific

20

Homes (now CalAtlantic Homes), William Lyons Homes, Shea Homes, and

21
22
23
24

others.
6. Bergeth became Plaintiff’s direct supervisor in 2012 and remained his supervisor
until Plaintiff’s termination on September 15, 2015.

25

7. In or around March 2014, Bergeth delivered to Plaintiff his performance

26

evaluation for 2013 and rated his overall performance for 2013 as “Results Need

27
28

8

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 9 of 30

1
2
3
4
5
6

to Be Improved.” Bergeth’s primary work performance concerns with Plaintiff
were problem resolution and ownership of key role responsibilities.
8. Bergeth had previously given Plaintiff a mid-year rating for 2013 of “Results Need
to Be Improved.”
9. In March of 2015, Bergeth delivered to Plaintiff his performance evaluation for

7

2014. Bergeth again rated Plaintiff’s overall performance for 2014 as “Results

8

Need to Be Improved.”

9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

10. Bergeth had also previously rated Plaintiff’s performance as “Results Need to Be
Improved in his mid-year evaluation for 2014.

11
12
13

11. In 2014, Plaintiff lost the Shea Homes account resulting in a $9,000,000 loss to
Whirlpool. Plaintiff also lost a second account in 2014.

14

12. Bergeth later gave Plaintiff a mid-year performance evaluation for 2015 where

15

Bergeth rated Plaintiff as “Results Need To Be Improved.” The review detailed

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff’s continuing performance issues including, but not limited to, providing
detailed examples of his continued failure to exercise appropriate ownership and
management of his account responsibilities.
13. On March 3, 2015, Whirlpool issued Plaintiff a Formal Coaching Discussion
Action Plan documenting his inadequate performance. The discipline noted that
Plaintiff had not adequately taken ownership of a plan to handle Shea Homes’

24

transition from Defendant to a competitor, including by changing out Whirlpool

25

appliances at model homes and design centers.

26
27
28

9

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 10 of 30

1

14. On March 3, 2015, Plaintiff also received a Formal Coaching Discussion & Action

2

Plan for inadequate performance because he mishandled the process of ordering

3

appliances for the chief executive officer of one of his accounts.

4
5
6
7
8
9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

15. On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff received a third Formal Coaching Discussion Action
Plan for inadequate performance.
16. On March 4, 2015, Defendant placed Plaintiff on a PIP for his continuing work
performance issues.
17. Plaintiff did not complain of discrimination or retaliation during any of Bergeth’s
discussions with him regarding the Formal Coaching Discussion and Action Plans.

11
12
13

Plaintiff’s age did not come up in any of these discussions, nor was there any
discussion of Plaintiff retiring.

14

18. On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff proposed to Bergeth that he be taken off the PIP, that

15

he retire from Defendant on a mutually agreeable date, and that Defendant pay him

16
17
18

a “buyout.” Later in March, Bergeth informed Plaintiff that Defendant would not
agree to pay him in a buyout for his retiring.

19

19. In May 2015, Plaintiff lodged an internal complaint of discrimination with

20

Defendant and complained of age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

20. Defendant later communicated to Plaintiff that his allegations were investigated
but could not be substantiated.
21. On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff’s attorneys sent a settlement demand letter to Defendant
alleging that he was being subjected to age discrimination.
22. On September 10, 2015, Plaintiff submitted his Charge of Discrimination to the
EEOC claiming age discrimination and harassment.

28

10

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 11 of 30

1

23. On September 15, 2015, Bergeth terminated Plaintiff’s employment, effective

2

September 30, 2015, for unsatisfactory work performance. Bergeth terminated

3

Plaintiff solely because of his unsatisfactory work performance, which did not

4
5
6

sufficiently improve, despite being given unsatisfactory performance reviews,
three Formal Coaching Discussion & Action Plans, being placed on a performance

7

improvement plan and being provided with formal and informal coaching to assist

8

him in improving his performance.

9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

24. Plaintiff testified that he holds no ill feelings towards Bergeth, that there’s nothing
wrong with Bergeth, that Bergeth’s “really a good person,” and that Bergeth held

11
12

no animus towards him.
V.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

The following are the issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial.
Plaintiff: The following is a statement of factual issues from Plaintiff’s perspective that are
central to the outcome of this case. For a more comprehensive list of alleged facts, see
Plaintiff’s facts and contentions above.
1. Whether Plaintiff was performing his job satisfactorily at the time when he was first
put on a PIP.
2. Whether Defendant illegally discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of age.
3. Whether Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendant had discriminated against him
on the basis of age.
4. The extent of compensatory and other damages to be awarded to Plaintiff including
but not limited to punitive damages.

27
28

11

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 12 of 30

1
2
3
4
5
6

5. Whether Defendant kept Plaintiff on a PIP in retaliation for Plaintiff engaging in
protected activity.
6. Whether Defendant put Plaintiff on a PIP as retaliation for Plaintiff engaging in
protected activity.
7. Whether Plaintiff made complaints constituting protected activity, or engaged in other

7

protected activity, prior to being put on a PIP and subsequent to being put on a PIP,

8

and prior to being terminated.

9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

8. Whether Plaintiff belonged to a protected class.
9. Whether Plaintiff engaged in protected activity prior to being terminated.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

10. Whether Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant in retaliation for engaging in protected
activity.
11. Credibility of witnesses.
Defendant: The following is a statement of factual issues from Defendant’s perspective that are
central to the outcome of this case. For a more comprehensive list of alleged facts, see Defendant’s
facts and contentions above.
1. Whether Plaintiff complained about discrimination or engaged in protected activity in
November 2014, February 2015, or any other time.
2. Whether Plaintiff’s PIP or termination were in retaliation for Plaintiff engaging in
protected activity.
3. Whether Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s EEOC charge of discrimination
when it made the decision to terminate his employment.
4. Whether Plaintiff has mitigated his alleged damages.
5. Credibility of witnesses.

28

12

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 13 of 30

1
2
3

VI.
The following are issues of law to be tried and determined at trial.
Plaintiff:

4
5
6
7
8
9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10
11

1. Whether Defendant subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment actions;
2. Whether Defendant subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment actions because of
protected activity such as complaints of age discrimination and/or retaliation.
3. Whether Defendant took adverse employment action against Plaintiff because he
complained about actions of Defendant which he reasonably believed were
discriminatory.

12

4. Whether Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by taking adverse employment actions

13

against Plaintiff because Plaintiff complained about age discrimination and retaliation.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

5. Whether Defendant has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for adverse
employment actions against Plaintiff.
6. Whether Defendant's proffered explanation in support of adverse employment actions is
pre-textual and unworthy of credence.
7. Whether Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under Title VII and/or the ADEA and
whether there is a casual link between the protected activity and the adverse employment

21
22
23

action.
Defendant:

24

a. Whether and when Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the ADEA.

25

b. Whether Defendant placed Plaintiff on a PIP or terminated his employment in

26
27

retaliation for protected activity engaged in by Plaintiff.
c. Whether Plaintiff sufficiently mitigated any damages he may have suffered.

28

13

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 14 of 30

1

A. The Following Exhibits Are Stipulated Into Evidence In This Case And May Be
Marked By The Clerk

2

With respect to all the documents identified below, no stipulations at this time. However,

3
4

the parties will confer before trial and attempt to stipulate to the admission of as many exhibits as

5

possible. The party against whom these exhibits will be offered may object to their admission

6

upon the grounds stated: Pending the stipulations contemplated above, the parties reserve their

7
8
9

right to object to any exhibit as permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal
Rules of Evidence. Tentative designation of the same documents or items as exhibits by both

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

parties does not constitute a concession or agreement as to the admissibility of said documents or

11

items, functioning merely to preserve their usability by the parties at trial per LR16-3(c).

12

Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Documents From Plaintiff’s FRCP 26 Disclosures:
Exhibit Description
#
1.
Nevada Equal Rights Commission/EEOC Charge
of Discrimination
2.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Dismissal and Notice of Bights
3.
Settlement Demand prepared by the Law Offices of
Mayor Joseph L. Alioto and Angela Alioto
4.
Timeline of events prepared by Plaintiff
5.
Whirlpool Formal Coaching & Action Plan
6.
Email correspondence from Robert Bergeth to
Plaintiff dated May 1, 2015

23

7.

24

8.

25

9.

26
27
28

10.
11.

Email correspondence from Robert Bergeth to
Plaintiff dated May 15, 2015
Email correspondence from Plaintiff to Marybeth
Miles dated May 19. 2015
Email correspondence from Plaintiff to William
Schultz dated June 9, 2015
Offer of Employment Letter to Robert Johnson
from Hubbell Lighting Inc, July 28, 2016
Robert Johnson’s Termination Packet from Hubbell

14

Bates Stamp #
JOHNSON 001-002
JOHNSON 003
JOHNSON 004-010
JOHNSON 011 -017
JOHNSON 018-020
JOHNSON 021
JOHNSON 022
JOHNSON 023-024
JOHNSON 025
JOHNSON 026-028
JOHNSON 029-044

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 15 of 30

Lighting

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10
11
12
13

Documents From Defendant’s FRCP 26 Disclosures:
Exhibit
#
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

14

24.
25.

15

26.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

Description

Bates Stamp #

Notices of Charge of Discrimination
Charge of Discrimination
Dismissal and Notice of Rights
2013 Performance Management Plan
2014 Performance Management Plan
2015 Mid-Year Performance Management Plan
Performance Improvement Plan and Coaching
Discussions
Email correspondence dated March 12, 2015
Plaintiff’s Personnel Records
Performance Coaching Process
Termination Process for Supervisors
Correspondences by/between Robert Bergeth
and Plaintiff regarding Performance.
Benefits Detail for Plaintiff
Group Sales and Distribution Excellence Award
Nomination
FOIA Response Regarding Charge No. 487-201500719
Sample Formal Coaching Discussion & Action
Plan
Correspondence between Robert Bergeth and
Plaintiff Regarding performance.
Notice of Termination
Whirlpool Code of Ethics
Whirlpool Equal Opportunity Policy
Whirlpool Non-Discrimination and AntiHarassment Policy
Whirlpool Open Door Communications Policy
Whirlpool Separation from Employment Policy
2010 Performance Rating for Plaintiff
2011 PMP for Plaintiff
2012 PMP for Plaintiff
National Sales Manager Job Description
Documents concerning investigation
Email Correspondences

WPC000001 - WPC000002
WPC000003
WPC000004
WPC000005 - WPC000010
WPC000011 - WPC000016
WPC000017 - WPC000022
WPC000023 - WPC000031

27
28

15

WPC000032 - WPC000033
WPC000034 - WPC000208
WPC000209 - WPC000212
WPC000213 - WPC000219
WPC000220 - WPC000244
WPC000245 - WPC000246
WPC000247
WPC000248 - WPC000295
WPC000296 - WPC000297
WPC000298
WPC000299
WPC000300 - WPC000316
WPC000317
WPC000318 - WPC000321
WPC000322
WPC000323 - WPC000324
WPC000325
WPC000326 - WPC000329
WPC000330 - WPC000333
WPC000334
WPC000335 - WPC000403
WPC000404 - WPC000411

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 16 of 30

1
2
3
4
5

The Parties’ Expert Disclosures And Associated Documents:
Exhibit Description
#
41.
Plaintiff's Disclosure Of Expert Witnesses And
Documents (and all documents attached thereto):
42.
 Curriculum Vitae of Terrence M. Clauretie,
Ph.D.

6
7

43.



Dr. Clauretie's Lists of Cases

44.



Dr. Clauretie's Fee Schedule

45.



Dr. Clauretie's Expert Report

8
9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10
11
12
13

46.

14
15

47.

16
17

48.

Plaintiff's First Supplemental Disclosure Of Expert
Witnesses And Documents (and all documents
attached thereto):
 Curriculum Vitae of Terrence M. Clauretie,
Ph.D. (Updated)


Dr. Clauretie's Lists of Cases (Updated)

18
19
20

49.

21
22

50.

23
24

51.

25
26
27
28

52.

Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Disclosure Of
Expert Witnesses And Documents (and all
documents attached thereto):
 Dr. Clauretie's Supplemental Expert Report

Bates Stamp #
N/A
R.JOHNSON EXP
00000001 R.JOHNSON EXP
00000008
R.JOHNSON EXP
00000009 R.JOHNSON EXP
00000029
R.JOHNSON EXP
00000030
R.JOHNSON EXP
00000031 R.JOHNSON EXP
00000043
N/A
R.JOHNSON EXP
00000044 R.JOHNSON EXP
00000051
R.JOHNSON EXP
00000052 R.JOHNSON EXP
00000072
N/A

R.JOHNSON EXP
00000073 R.JOHNSON EXP
00000084
Plaintiff's Third Supplemental Disclosure Of Expert N/A
Witnesses And Documents (and all documents
attached thereto):
R.JOHNSON EXP
 Dr. Clauretie's Second Supplemental
00000085 Expert Report
R.JOHNSON EXP
00000097

16

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 17 of 30

1

53.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

54.

9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Defendant's Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure
Pursuant To FRCP 26(A)(2) (and all documents
attached thereto):
 Exhibit A- CV of Thomas M. Carroll, Ph.
D.
 Exhibit B- Prior testimony list of Thomas
M. Carroll, Ph. D.
 Exhibit C- Fee Schedule of Thomas M.
Carroll, Ph.D.
 Exhibit D- Rebuttal Expert Report of
Thomas M. Carroll, Ph.D.
Defendant's Supplemental Rebuttal Expert Witness
Disclosure Pursuant To FRCP 26(A)(2) (and all
documents attached thereto):
 Supplemental Rebuttal Expert Report of
Thomas M. Carroll, Ph.D.

Exhibit Description
#
55.
Plaintiff Robert Johnson's Responses To
Defendant's 1st Request For Production Of
Documents (and all documents attached thereto):
56.
 Plaintiff’s Social Security Benefits
Information
57.
 Plaintiff’s CV
58.



Plaintiff’s Job Application Related Emails

59.



Unfavorable Online
Materials/Reviews/Articles Regarding
Defendant By Former Employee(s)

60.



2012/2015 Emails Regarding Various
Circumstances Surrounding Plaintiff’s
Employment At Whirlpool

61.



Various Notes

62.



Various Employment Related Internal
Whirlpool Emails

21

23
24
25
26

N/A

Written Discovery Responses And Documents Disclosed Therewith:

20

22

WPC000245 - WPC000246

27
28

17

Bates Stamp #
N/A
R.JOHNSON DP 00000001R.JOHNSON DP 00000002
R.JOHNSON DP 00000003R.JOHNSON DP 00000004
R.JOHNSON DP 00000005R.JOHNSON DP 00000017
R.JOHNSON DP 00000018R.JOHNSON DP 00000036;
R.JOHNSON DP 00000043R.JOHNSON DP 00000046
R.JOHNSON DP 00000037R.JOHNSON DP 00000042
R.JOHNSON DP 00000047R.JOHNSON DP 00000051
R.JOHNSON DP 00000052R.JOHNSON DP 00000053;
R.JOHNSON DP 00000060R.JOHNSON DP 00000076;
R.JOHNSON DP 00000082-

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 18 of 30

1

63.



Investigation Process- Statement of Plaintiff

64.



Formal Coaching Discussion & Action
Plans

5

65.



Plaintiff’s Performance Improvement Notes

6

66.



EEOC Documents

67.



10

68.



Documents Regarding Plaintiff’s Health
Insurance
Plaintiff’s 2011-2015 W-2s from Whirlpool

11

69.



70.



71.



2
3
4

7
8

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

9

12
13
14
15

72.

16
17

73.

18

74.

19

75.

20
21

76.

22

77.

23

78.

24
25
26

79.
80.

27

81.

28

82.

Plaintiff’s Preliminary Rough Self-Estimate
of Monetary Damages
Awards/Articles Honoring Plaintiff

Plaintiff’s 2013 Whirlpool Compensation
Statement
 Documents Regarding Estate of Minnie
Johnson, et. al. v. Willow Creek at San
Martin Assisted Living, LLC
 Various Authorizations Produced to
Defendants
Plaintiff's Responses To Defendant's First Set Of
Interrogatories To Plaintiff
Defendant’s Responses To Plaintiff’s First Request
For Admissions
Defendant’s Responses To Plaintiff’s First
Requests For Production
Defendant’s Responses To
Plaintiff’s First Set Of Interrogatories
Defendant’s Responses To Plaintiff’s Second
Requests For Production
Defendant's Responses To Plaintiff's Third Set Of
Revised Requests For Admissions
Defendant's Responses To Plaintiff's Third Set Of
Revised Interrogatories
Defendant's Responses To Plaintiff's Third Set Of
Revised Requests For Production
Defendant's Supplemental Responses To Plaintiff's

18

R.JOHNSON DP 00000091
R.JOHNSON DP 00000054R.JOHNSON DP 00000056
R.JOHNSON DP 00000057R.JOHNSON DP 00000059;
R.JOHNSON DP 00000077R.JOHNSON DP 00000081
R.JOHNSON DP 00000092R.JOHNSON DP 00000104
R.JOHNSON DP 00000105R.JOHNSON DP 00000108;
R.JOHNSON DP 00000158R.JOHNSON DP 00000160
R.JOHNSON DP 00000109R.JOHNSON DP 00000110
R.JOHNSON DP 00000111R.JOHNSON DP 00000113
R.JOHNSON DP 00000114
R.JOHNSON DP 00000115R.JOHNSON DP 00000128
R.JOHNSON DP 00000129R.JOHNSON DP 00000132
R.JOHNSON DP 00000133R.JOHNSON DP 00000157
R.JOHNSON DP 00000161R.JOHNSON DP 00000165
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 19 of 30

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Third Set Of Revised Requests For Production
Deposition Transcripts And Exhibits Thereto:
Exhibit Description
#
83.
Transcript of Deposition of Robert Johnson (and all
associated Exhibits as follows):
 Exhibit A- Plaintiff's Responses to
Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories to
Plaintiff
 Exhibit B- 2013 PMP for Robert James
Johnson, Bates WPC000005 to 10
 Exhibit C- Formal Coaching Discussion &
Action Plan
 Exhibit D- E-Mail From Robert Johnson to
Robert Bergeth, dated March 12, 2015,
Bates WPC000032 to 33
 Exhibit E- Response to EEOC
Questionnaire
 Exhibit F- Intake Notes
 Exhibit G- Investigation Process Statement with Addendums
 Exhibit H- Letter to Mr. Fettig and Ms.
Hewitt dated July 15, 2015, Bates Johnson
004 to 010
 Exhibit I- Charge of Discrimination, Bates
Johnson 001
 Exhibit J- Timeline of Events, E-mails,
Conversations, and Other Communications,
Bates Johnson 011 to 025
 Exhibit K- Memo to Cynthia Wilson from
Robert Johnson dated August 31, 2015 with
Attachments
 Exhibit L- Handwritten Notes, Bates 210
R.Johnson DP 50 and 49
 Exhibit M- Plaintiff Robert Johnson's
Responses to Defendant's First Request for
Production of Documents
 Exhibit N- Plaintiff Robert Johnson's Initial
FRCP 26 Initial Witness and Document
Disclosure
 Exhibit O- E-Mail String, Bates R.Johnson
DP 00000040 to 91
 Exhibit P- New Job Posting Template,

19

Bates Stamp #
N/A

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 20 of 30

1

84.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

85.

Bates WPC000334
Transcript of Deposition of Whirlpool’s Person
Most Knowledgeable, Jocelyn Zappala (and all
associated Exhibits as follows):
 Exhibit 100- Notice of Deposition
 Exhibit 101- Complaint with Jury Demand
 Exhibit 102- WPC300-324, Code of Ethics
 Exhibit 103- WPC209-219, Performance
Coaching
 Exhibit 104- WPC335-403, Packet of
Documents
Transcript of Deposition of Robert Bergeth (and all
associated Exhibits as follows):
 Exhibit 200- Notice of Deposition
 Exhibit 201- Complaint with Jury Demand
 Exhibit 202- Group Sales & Distribution
Excellence Award, news articles
 Exhibit 203- WPC325-022, Whirlpool
performance Rating
 Exhibit 204- WPC335-403, Packet of
Documents
 Exhibit 205- WPC000299, 9-16-15
Termination Notice e-mail

N/A

N/A

Defendant’s Exhibits:

17

1. 2010 Performance Rating Form (WPC000325)

18

2. 2011 PMP (WPC000326-329)

19

3. 2012 PMP (WPC000330-333)

20
21

4. 2013 PMP (WPC000005-10)

22

5. 2014 PMP (WPC000011-16)

23

6. 2015 PMP (WPC000017-22)

24

7. 3/3/15 Formal Coaching Discussion & Action Plan (WPC000026-27)

25
26
27
28

8. 3/3/15 Formal Coaching Discussion & Action Plan (WPC000030-31)
9. 3/4/15 Formal Coaching Discussion & Action Plan (WPC000023-25)
10. 3/4/15 Formal Coaching Discussion & Action Plan (WPC000028-29)

20

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 21 of 30

1

11. 3/12/15 Email from Plaintiff to Bergeth (WPC000032-33)

2

12. U.S. EEOC intake form (WPC000277-290)

3

13. Investigation Process – Statement by Plaintiff (Exhibit G to Plaintiff’s deposition)

4
5
6

14. Robert J. Johnson vs. Whirlpool Corporation Time line of events, emails, conversation,
and other communications (Exhibit J to Plaintiff’s deposition)

7

15. Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination (WPC000269)

8

16. EEOC documents (WPC000251-252, WPC000256, and WPC000273-276)

9

17. March 3, 2015 email communication (WPC000298)

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

18. March 6, 2105 email communication (WPC000220)

11
12

19. June 23, 2015 email communication (WPC000221-222)

13

20. June 19, 2015 email communication (WPC000223-226)

14

21. July 9, 2015 email communication and Performance Improvement – Notes (WPC000227-

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

236)
22. Various email communications relating to the termination meeting (WPC000404-411)
23. September 15, 2015 email communication and Performance Improvement – Notes
(WPC000237-242)
24. September 16, 2015 email communication (WPC000299)
25. Email communication dated March 3, 2015 (WPC000243-244)
26. Whirlpool Equal Opportunity Policy (WPC000317)

24

27. Whirlpool Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy (WPC000318-321)

25

28. Investigation report and associated documents (WPC000344-403)

26

29. National Sales Manager Job Description (WPC000334)

27

30. Defendant’s Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure Pursuant to FRCP 26(A)(2)

28

21

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 22 of 30

1
2
3
4

31. Defendant’s Supplemental Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure Pursuant to FRCP
26(A)(2)
B. As To The Following Additional Exhibits, The Parties Have Reached The
Stipulations Stated:

5

(1) Plaintiff’s Exhibits- As mentioned above, no stipulations at this time. However, the

6

parties will confer before trial and attempt to stipulate to the admission of as many

7
8
9

exhibits as possible. The party against whom the foregoing exhibits will be offered
may object to their admission upon the grounds stated: Pending the stipulations

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

contemplated above, the parties reserve their right to object to any exhibit as permitted

11

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence. Tentative

12

designation of the same documents or items as exhibits by both parties does not

13
14
15

constitute a concession or agreement as to the admissibility of said documents or
items, functioning merely to preserve their usability by a party at trial per LR16-3(c).

16

(2) Defendant’s Exhibits- As mentioned above, no stipulations at this time. However,

17

the parties will confer before trial and attempt to stipulate to the admission of as many

18
19
20
21

exhibits as possible. The party against whom the foregoing exhibits will be offered
may object to their admission upon the grounds stated: Pending the stipulations
contemplated above, the parties reserve their right to object to any exhibit as permitted

22

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence. Tentative

23

designation of the same documents or items as exhibits by both parties does not

24
25
26

constitute a concession or agreement as to the admissibility of said documents or
items, functioning merely to preserve their usability by a party at trial per LR16-3(c).

27
28

22

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 23 of 30

1
2
3
4

C. As To The Following Exhibits, The Party Against Whom The Same Will Be
Offered Objects To Their Admission On The Grounds Stated:
(1) Plaintiff’s Exhibits- As stated above, pending the stipulations to the parties’ exhibits
contemplated above, the parties reserve their right to object to any exhibit as permitted

5

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence. Tentative

6

designation of the same documents or items as exhibits by both parties does not

7
8
9

constitute a concession or agreement as to the admissibility of said documents or
items, functioning merely to preserve their usability by a party at trial per LR16-3(c).

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

(2) Defendant’s Exhibits- As stated above, pending the stipulations to the parties’

11

exhibits contemplated above, the parties reserve their right to object to any exhibit as

12

permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Tentative designation of the same documents or items as exhibits by both parties does
not constitute a concession or agreement as to the admissibility of said documents or
items, functioning merely to preserve their usability by a party at trial per LR16-3(c).
D. Electronic Evidence:
The parties anticipate utilizing the court’s electronic evidence display system. The parties
do not anticipate utilizing natively electronic evidence but will be displaying PDFs electronically.

21

This includes the presentation of PDFs electronically to the jury for deliberations. The parties

22

will coordinate with the courtroom administrator as contemplated by the Local Rules.

23

E. Depositions:

24

(1) Plaintiff will offer the following depositions- None at this time. Plaintiff reserves

25

the right to utilize all deposition transcripts and exhibits for impeachment purposes,

26
27
28

depending on and based on the specific testimony of witnesses at trial. Plaintiff further
reserves the right to update this category should a witness be “unavailable” to testify
at trial or otherwise.
23

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 24 of 30

(2) Defendant will offer the following depositions- The only deposition testimony

1
2

Defendant intends to offer would be for impeachment purposes only. The specific

3

deposition testimony offered for impeachment would be based on what the witness

4

testifies to at trial. Defendant reserves the right to update this category if a witness is

5

“unavailable” to testify at trial or otherwise.

6

F. Objections to Depositions:

7
8

(1) Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s depositions as follows- Not applicable at this time.

9

However, Plaintiff reserves the right to object should Defendant attempt to present or

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

use any deposition.

11
(2) Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s depositions as follows- Not applicable at this time.

12
13

However, Defendant reserves the right to object should Plaintiff attempt to present or

14

use any deposition.

15
16
17

VII.
The following witnesses may be called by the parties at trial.
(a) By Plaintiff:

18

1. Robert Johnson, Plaintiff
c/o Paul Padda Law
4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103

19
20
21

2. Rob Byrd
c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

22
23
24

3. Robert Bergeth
c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

25
26
27
28

…

24

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 25 of 30

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4. Tom Arent
c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
5. Sam Abdelnour
c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
6. Jason Wade
c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
7. Marybeth Miles
c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
8. William Schultz
c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
9. Jeff Fettig
c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
10. Dr. Alan J. Stahl, PC
653 N Town Center Dr # 400
Las Vegas, NV 89144
Phone: [phone]
11. Jeffrey T. Mezger
KB Homes
10990 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone [phone]
12. Steve Hilton
Meritage Homes
8800 E. Raintree Dr., Suite 300
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Phone [phone]

25

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 26 of 30

13. Dan Bridelman
KB Homes
10990 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone [phone]

1
2
3
4

14. John Hughes
KB Homes
10990 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone [phone]

5
6
7

15. Kelly Alamonte
Equity Residential
6100 Center Drive, Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90045
[phone]

8
9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10
11

16. Royal Erickson
Meritage Homes
8800 E. Raintree Dr., Suite 300
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Phone [phone]

12
13
14
15

17. Sabrina Johnson, Plaintiff’s Wife
c/o Paul Padda Law
4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103

16
17
18

18. Tom Halford
Samsung Electronics America
85 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park
New Jersey 07660

19
20
21

19. Kelly Hansen
Pulte Homes
3350 Peachtree Rd NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30326

22
23
24

20. Kellene Safis
c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

25
26
27
28

…

26

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 27 of 30

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

21. Neal Butler
c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
22. Thomas M. Carroll, Ph.D.
Thomas Carroll and Associates, Ltd.
2470 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 209
Henderson, NV 89074
23. Terrence M. Clauretie, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, University of Nevada Las Vegas
217 Palmetto Pointe Dr.
Henderson, NV 89012
24. Cynthia Wilson
U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8112
Las Vegas, NV 89101
In addition to the foregoing witnesses, Plaintiff reserves the right to call on witnesses
listed or called by any other party.
(b) By Defendant:
1. Robert Johnson, c/o Paul Padda Law, Ruth L. Cohen, Esq., Paul S. Padda, Esq., 4560
South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300, Las Vegas, Nevada 89103.
2. Robert Bergeth, c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C., Michael A. Wilder, Esq., Wendy Medura
Krincek, Esq., Marcus B. Smith, Esq., 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste. 300, Las
Vegas NV, 89169.
3. Marybeth Miles, c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C., Michael A. Wilder, Esq., Wendy Medura
Krincek, Esq., Marcus B. Smith, Esq., 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste. 300, Las
Vegas NV, 89169.
4. Neal Butler, c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C., Michael A. Wilder, Esq., Wendy Medura
Krincek, Esq., Marcus B. Smith, Esq., 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste. 300, Las
Vegas NV, 89169.
5. William Schultz, c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C., Michael A. Wilder, Esq., Wendy Medura
Krincek, Esq., Marcus B. Smith, Esq., 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste. 300, Las
Vegas NV, 89169.

28

27

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 28 of 30

6. Robert Byrd, c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C., Michael A. Wilder, Esq., Wendy Medura
Krincek, Esq., Marcus B. Smith, Esq., 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste. 300, Las
Vegas NV, 89169.

1
2

7. Kellene Safis, c/o Littler Mendelson, P.C., Michael A. Wilder, Esq., Wendy Medura
Krincek, Esq., Marcus B. Smith, Esq., 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste. 300, Las
Vegas NV, 89169.

3
4

8. Thomas M. Carroll, Ph.D., Thomas Carroll and Associates, Ltd., 2470 St. Rose
Parkway, Suite 209, Henderson, NV 89074

5
6

In addition to the foregoing witnesses, Defendant reserves the right to call on witnesses

7
8

listed or called by any other party.
VIII.

9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10

The attorneys or parties have met and jointly offer these three trial dates:

11
12
13

February 5, 2019-March 1, 2019

March 18-22, 2019

March 25-29, 2019

It is expressly understood by the undersigned that the court will set the trial of this matter on one

14

of the agreed-upon dates if possible; if not, the trial will be set at the convenience of the court’s

15

calendar.

16

…

17

…

18
19

…

20

…

21

…

22

…

23
24
25

…
…

26

…

27

…

28

28

IX.

1
2
3

It is estimated that the trial will take a total of 3-5 days.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

4
5
6

Dated: October 2, 2018

Dated: October 2, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted,

/s/JoshuaYAng
PAUL S. PADDA, ESQ.
JOSHUA Y. ANG, ESQ.
PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

/s/MichaelAWilder
MICHAEL A. WILDER, ESQ.
WENDY MEDURA KRINCEK, ESQ.
MARCUS B. SMITH, ESQ.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

7
8
9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ROBERT JOHNSON

12

Attorneys for Defendant,
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION

13

X.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ACTION BY THE COURT
This case is set for jury trial on the stacked calendar on 3/25/2019 at 9:00 a.m.
Calendar call will be held on 3/20/2019 at 1:30 p.m.
parties shall file a joint stipulation no later than 30-days before trial addressing the parties’
agreements/objections to all exhibits.
This pretrial order has been approved by the parties to this action as evidenced by their
signatures or the signatures of their attorneys hereon, and the order is hereby entered and will
govern the trial of this case. This order may not be amended except by court order and based upon

24

the parties’ agreement or to prevent manifest injustice.

25

October 12, 2018
DATED: ____________________.

26
27

____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

29

Case 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Document 82 Filed 10/10/18 Page 30 of 30

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules,

3

2
the undersigned hereby certifies that on this day, October ___, 2018, a copy of the

4
5
6

foregoing document was served upon all registered parties and their counsel through the Court’s
electronic filing system (CM/ECF).

7

/S/
An Employee of Paul Padda Law, PLLC
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8
9

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC

4560 South Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Tele: [phone] • Fax [phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

30