UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION__________________________________________Cassandra WELCH and those listed in Appendix A,) individually and on behalf of a class; ) and the, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE )ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE )(“NAACP”), )

) Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-0641-RLY-JMSPlaintiffs, )

) Jury Demand)

v. ))

ELI LILLY & Company, ))

Defendant. )_________________________________________ )

SECOND AMENDEDCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the class described in this Second Amended

Complaint, seek relief for violations of the prohibitions against race discrimination in

employment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e,

et seq. (hereafter sometimes “Title VII”) and of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended.

2. This Court has jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331and § 1343 and under Section

706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(5)(f)(3).

3. Venue in this district is appropriate.

4. Defendant ELI LILLY & CO. (“Lilly”) is a Corporation with headquarters in the Southern

District of Indiana.

5. The individual plaintiffs are all African-Americans who have been “employees” of

Defendant within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f) during some or all of the time from

2

April 20, 2002 to the present.

6. Plaintiffs listed in Appendices A and B are African-American individuals who have been

employees of the Eli Lilly company during all or part of the time from April 20, 2002

forward.

7. Plaintiffs listed on Appendix A have retained Rose & Rose, P.C. and seek relief for

themselves and for the class as victims of discrimination in employment.

8. Plaintiffs listed on Appendix B have indicated to counsel and/or to one or more plaintiffs

listed on Appendix A that they have claims as class members for the discriminatory conduct

described in this action, but have not yet retained Rose & Rose, P.C. to assert the claims.

9. One or more plaintiffs listed in Appendix A has been employed by Defendant as an employee

in every significant area of the U.S. workforce below the senior management levels during

all times from April 20, 2002 to the present.

10. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a class of present and former African-Americans who

were employed by the Eli Lilly company from April 20, 2002 through the present and who

have been harmed during that time by the patterns of discrimination and the disparate impact

of the subjective practices described herein. All listed individual plaintiffs are members of

that class. The putative class also includes African-Americans who may work for Defendant

in the future and can benefit from injunctive relief, in addition to current employees.

11. One or more of the plaintiffs listed in Appendix A is currently employed in each significant

area of Defendant’s U.S. workforce below the senior executive level and can benefit from

injunctive relief to remedy the unlawful conduct alleged herein.

12. Plaintiff National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) is a

3

voluntary association committed to the improvement of the social and economic status of

minority groups, the elimination of racial prejudice and discrimination, and the attainment

of civil rights and equal opportunities for its members and other persons. While the NAACP

is committed to the achievement of civil rights and equal opportunities for all minority

groups, the majority of its members are African-American.

13. Plaintiff Welch is a member of the NAACP and has been a member at all material times.

More than 5 of the class members listed in Appendix A have been members of the NAACP

and its Indianapolis Branch at all times since April 20, 2008.

14. Plaintiff Indianapolis Branch, NAACP is a constituent unit of the NAACP, with the same

purposes and objectives as the NAACP.

15. Plaintiffs NAACP and Indianapolis Branch, NAACP have African-American members, who

have worked for Defendant at all relevant times who are not named as plaintiffs in this

action but who are members of the putative class described in the Amended Complaint.

They are also likely to have members in the future who can benefit from the injunctive relief

sought in this action.

16. Plaintiffs, the Indianapolis Branch, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored

People, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (hereinafter

"NAACP" or” NAACP Plaintiffs”) have standing as membership organizations, including

some of the Plaintiffs among their members. The NAACP Plaintiffs bring this suit to secure

the full enjoyment of the rights of their members and other persons they represent.

17. Defendant Eli Lilly (“Lilly”) has employed approximately 20,000 employees in the United

States and has been an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) at all relevant

4

times.

ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

18. Plaintiffs have met the administrative prerequisites to enforce their rights, and the rights of

the Class alleged herein under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42

U.S.C. §§ 2000e et. seq. There are no administrative prerequisites for filing suit under 42

U.S.C. § 1981.

19. Plaintiff Welch raised issues of race discrimination through internal Lilly processes and

raised specific issues relating to race discrimination in performance management, career

development, paying African-Americans at lower grade levels for similar work and related

issues during 2002, 2003 and 2004.

20. Plaintiff Welch signed a Complaint of Discrimination with the Indiana Civil Rights

Commission on September 20, 2004 which was duly filed under docket number

EMra04100511 and cross-filed with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”) as Charge No. 24FA500039. The charge alleges race discrimination and

retaliation and includes the allegation that: “There was also a pay disparity between blacks

and whites. Whites made more money for doing the same job.” Ms. Welch filed a second

charge relating to post-employment issues that was ultimately consolidated with her first

charge.

21. In addition to other issues raised by her charge, equal pay issues were investigated and were

a subject of submissions made to the Indiana Civil Rights Commission by Defendant Lilly.

22. The Welch charge and documents filed with the EEOC also described numerous

performance management and career development issues related to the Lilly Performance

5

Management process as well as hostile work environment and retaliation issues.

23. During the course of the investigation, counsel for Ms. Welch served Lilly with a demand

letter, dated June 1, 2005, which stated explicitly that Plaintiff would pursue class-wide

claims if there was no settlement. The letter specifically noted, “[i]f we are obliged to pursue

litigation in this case, we will certainly seek data to support class wide claims of disparate

pay levels, disparate promotion rates, disparate job assignments and disparate disciplinary

actions.”

24. During the course of the investigation, Ms. Welch and her counsel asked the Indiana Civil

Rights Commission, by telephone and by letter of July 8, 2005, to investigate the adverse

impact and pattern claims on a class-wide basis by obtaining specific data regarding

employees by race and pay levels.

25. Plaintiff Welch requested a right to sue letter from the EEOC on December 7, 2005. A

Notice of Right to Sue was issued on January 23, 2006.

26. Plaintiff Tyson raised issues of race discrimination in performance management, career

development and promotions, including the specific disconnect between objective

performance and subjective ratings for himself and for others through internal Lilly

processes during the summer of 2004.

27. Plaintiff Tyson signed a charge of race discrimination with the United States Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission on August 25, 2004. The charge describes

discrimination in pay, ratings, promotions and discipline as well as retaliation.

28. The charge describes “a discouraging trend” relating directly to the Lilly Performance

Management process. The company would hire African-Americans, but they never lasted

6

long with the company and were “coached” out or encouraged to resign rather than face

termination. Plaintiff Tyson also submitted statements to the EEOC by at least three other

victims of the kinds of discrimination he described. His submissions raised pay, promotion,

retention and related career development issues.

29. The EEOC issued a Right to Sue letter to Mr. Tyson on April 10, 2006.

30. Sheryl A. Davis filed Charge 470-2006-01941 with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission and

the US EEOC on March 31, 2006. That Charge is entitled “Class Action Charge” and

contains the following language: “Lilly follows a pattern of race discrimination in job

assignments and promotions, paying its black employees at levels below white employees

with the same or lower qualifications, education and experience. I am bringing this suit on

behalf of other black employees as well as to protect my own rights.” The Charge specifies

that the discrimination started in February 2000 and was “continuing” as of March 2006.

31. Dr. Davis received a Right to Sue Letter Issued October 12, 2006.

32. Other members of the putative class who have filed charges of race discrimination in

employment with the US EEOC include, Courtenay Davis (Charge No. 430-2006-01221;

Right to Sue Letter Issued June 14, 2006); Ruby S. Moaney (Charge 470-2006-04891);

LaToya Neal (Charge 240-2006-00089; Right to Sue June 20, 2006); Calvin Stewart (Charge

470-2006-05361; Right to Sue; March 15,2007) Rhonda Taylor (Charge 470-2006-00392;

Right to sue May 11, 2006).

33. Defendant agreed to extend the time for filing claims of class members with individual right

to sue letters, (including those listed in paragraphs 21-22), through November 1, 2007 (by

agreeing to several tolling agreements, then agreeing to treat such claims as if they had been

7

filed before the answer) and has, thereby, waived any defense based on failure to file those

claims prior to the expiration of 90 days after the Right to Sue Letters.

34. Plaintiff Bromell attempted to file a class charge of discrimination with the EEOC on

March 21, 2006 respectively. That charge has not yet resulted in a right to sue letter. The

charge is captioned “Class Action Charge.” It alleges a pattern of discrimination in

performance management and career development issues and the charging party’s desire to

assert claims on behalf of the class of victims of race discrimination.

35. The internal and EEOC charges of Plaintiffs Tyson and Welch and the ensuing investigation

and efforts at conciliation gave notice to the EEOC and to Defendant that Plaintiffs Tyson

and Welch charged Defendant with engaging in systemic discrimination against African-

American employees. All claims raised in this action arise from issues that would reasonably

have been expected to grow from a thorough investigation of the allegations of the Welch

and Tyson charges.

36. Any further efforts to raise the issues described in this complaint at the administrative level

would have been futile because Lilly indicated no interest in providing individual or class

relief through administrative or direct conciliation efforts.

37. To the extent that the Welch and Tyson charges did not provide adequate exhaustion of the

EEOC charge filing requirements of Title VII for all issues raised in this action, the charges

filed by Davis, Bromell and other plaintiffs fully exhausted the charge filing requirements

of Title VII.

38. The claims of the other members of the class are sufficiently similar to those of Plaintiffs

Tyson, Welch, Bromell, Davis and others listed above, so that the Defendant knows what it

8

is facing and can make efforts to exhaust the full array of such claims. Their claims

encompass discrimination like or reasonably related to the allegations in the complaints of

these four Plaintiffs and growing out of these allegations. Many of their claims met the time

limits for filing claims under Title VII after the time charges were filed by the above class

representatives.

39. The EEOC has received numerous administrative charges from African-American employees

of the Defendant alleging racially discriminatory practices against them. Such charges

provided the EEOC and Defendant with repeated notice of the kinds and nationwide scope

of the practices that the employees believe to be discriminatory.

40. Defendant has repeatedly been sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racially

discriminatory employment practices. Many such cases have been filed in this District.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

41. The Eli Lilly Company (“Lilly”) has, at all times relevant to this action, been engaged in a

pattern or practice of race discrimination in employment: African-American Lilly employees

are less likely than comparable white Lilly employees to have been promoted during the time

from April 20, 2002 through the end of 2007 and thereafter; African-Americans are more

likely than comparable white employees to have terminated their employment during the

same time period; African-Americans are less likely than whites to have received exemplary

ratings and more likely to have received unacceptable ratings.

42. The Performance Management process used throughout the Eli Lilly company relies

primarily upon the subjective evaluation of employees by supervisors and the inclination of

9

such supervisors to support and advocate for the advancement of the employee’s career based

on the supervisor’s opinion of the employee.

43. Under the Lilly Performance Management process supervisor input is the primary factor that

determines an employee’s ratings, his pay level and job designation, his annual pay raises,

his ability to obtain desirable assignments and training, his designation as having potential

for advancement, his ability to obtain positions by lateral transfer (either for purposes of

career advancement or in “re-allocation” situations where employees must find new positions

after their current positions are abolished) or bona fide promotion, his ability to obtain in-

line or career ladder promotions and most other aspects of his career development.

44. The Performance Management factors that all Lilly supervisors are directed to consider in

determining an employee’s performance and career path are dominated by subjective

evaluations of such factors as “modeling Lilly values,” “flexible thinking” and “achieving

results with people.”

45. Every supervisor has been trained and directed to rate employees and to award merit pay

based on both the “what” of results and the subjective “how” of “modeling behaviors.”

46. The Lilly Performance Management process delegates authority over employee career

development to supervisors and encourages them to pick favorites for advancement based

on subjective assessments which tend to be colored by racial preferences. Those preferences

have resulted in a pattern and practice of race discrimination across the Lilly U.S. workforce.

47. The Lilly Performance Management process is the procedure used throughout the Lilly U.S.

workforce for the selection of employees for pay raises, assignment of employees to pay

levels, assignment of desirable duties and positions, lateral transfers, reallocation transfers,

10

bona fide promotions, career ladder advancement and other career development decisions.

48. The Lilly Performance Management Process causes a disparate impact against African-

Americans.

49. The Lilly Performance Management Process is not validated, job related, consistent with

business necessity or otherwise shown to accurately predict successful objective

performance.

50. The elements of the Lilly Performance Management Process are not capable of separation

for analysis.

51. Lilly can achieve any legitimate, job related objectives of the Performance Management

Process through less discriminatory means.

52. The Eli Lilly Company is an integrated pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures

and sells pharmaceutical products globally. At all relevant times, it has employed some

40,000 people worldwide, approximately 20,000 of whom have been employed in the United

States.

53. The vast majority of Lilly’s U.S. employees have, at all relevant times, worked in Indiana and

the vast majority of those work in the corporate headquarters, manufacturing and research

facilities located in Indianapolis. Most employees listed in the EEO-1 reports are listed as

employed in Lilly “establishments” in Indiana. While many sales representatives are located

in other states, the sales organization is managed and directed from Indianapolis.

54. Lilly is not segmented into divisions by product lines or by geographic location. Rather, it

is a single company organized across functional areas such as science and technology,

manufacturing, sales, animal products and administrative services (such as legal, HR,

11

procurement and senior executive offices).

55. Lilly uses functional areas as units for analysis of feeder pools for internal availability in its

Affirmative Action reporting to the OFCCP. It also uses functional areas as units for

reporting on its internal “diversity scorecards” and in reports prepared since 2006 by the Vice

President for Diversity, Patricia Martin.

56. Many jobs at Lilly serve multiple functional areas. While the headcount budget for a

position may be allocated to one cost center or organization unit, many Lilly employees serve

“customers” in other areas of the company and may have multiple reporting relationships.

57. Lilly frequently changes aspects of its organizational structure and employees frequently

move among supervisory relationships. Over 85% of Lilly employees have changed cost

center and/or organization unit designations since April 20, 2002.

58. On information and belief, while Lilly uses cost centers and organization units for budgeting

and for some employee demographic reports, it uses larger units to analyze the impact of the

Performance Management Process.

59. At all relevant times, Lilly has managed its U.S. workforce through a single Human

Resources department with a single Performance Management (“PM”) process, which

includes: a single process for filling vacancies; a single HR data management system and a

single set of salary scales and guidelines which specifies pay ranges, methodology for “merit

pay” annual increases and promotion and rating guidelines for employees below the

executive level in all areas of the company.

60. Lilly employed some 21,856 U.S. employees as of August, 2002. Some 1,882 (8.6%) of

these were African American in 2002 and some 18,249 (83.5%) were white.

12

61. In August 2007, the Lilly U.S. workforce numbered 20,952 and was approximately 7.5%

African American and 82.5% white.

62. Approximately 75% of the Lilly U.S. workforce in 2007 was employed in positions

categorized as “sales,” “professional,” “managers” or “executives” in the EEO-1 reports filed

by the company that year. These are generally referred to “exempt” employees (not paid

overtime) and are paid at pay level 50 and up.

63. The EEO-1 categories of “sales,” “professional” “manager” and “executive” roughly

correspond to Lilly pay levels of 50-58 for professionals and sales personnel; 60-69 for

managers and directors (and certain highly paid professionals such as physicians, attorneys

and research scientists) and 70 and up for senior executives.

64. The remainder of the Lilly workforce is composed largely of manufacturing production and

craft workers and office and clerical personnel. The vast majority of these are “nonexempt”

employees for whom the entry level grades are 26-34 and the higher paid leader and

specialist grades run from 36-44.

65. Most executive positions filled by Lilly have, at all relevant times, been filled from the ranks

of managers employed by Lilly.

66. Most manager positions at Lilly have, at all relevant times, been filled from the ranks of

positions categorized as “professional” or “sales workers” in the EEO-1 reports.

67. Most non-exempt supervisor positions have, at all relevant times, been filled from the ranks

of incumbent, non-exempt employees.

68. African-Americans were some 7.4% of the pool of African American and white sales

workers and professionals employed by Lilly as reported on the 2007 EEO-1 report, yet

13

African-Americans were only 4.7% of the group of managers and executives on the same

report.

69. Whites were some 95.29% of managers and executives at Lilly in 2007, but only 92.6% of

the pool of professionals and sales workers as listed on the 2007 EEO-1 report.

70. African-Americans comprise some 8.4% of the pool of all black and white employees at Lilly

reported on the 2007 EEO-1 and some 9.7% of Lilly employees not listed as professionals,

sales workers or managers or executives.

71. Lilly employs employees in “specialist,” “senior,” “consultant” “team leader” and similar

titles in exempt level positions. Such employees are generally promoted from the ranks

of workers in the 50-54 pay levels. Such employees are generally paid at level 56 or above

for exempt level jobs.

72. On information and belief, African-American representation among exempt employees in

the 56-62 pay levels is well below African-American representation in the 50-54 pay levels.

73. Lilly employs employees in “specialist,” “leader” and senior craft roles among non-exempt

workers. Such employees are generally promoted from the ranks of workers in the 26-34 pay

levels and are paid in the 36-44 pay levels.

74. On information and belief, African-American representation among non-exempt employees

in the 36-44 pay levels is well below African-American representation among non-exempt

employees in the 26-34 pay levels.

75. Across the entire Lilly U.S. workforce (at least below the senior executive level), there is a

pattern of adverse impact in favor of white employees and against African-American

employees - African Americans are less likely to advance as rapidly or as far in their careers

14

as their white peers at Lilly. That pattern is manifest in the pattern of career advancement

across the company from April 20, 2002 to the present.

76. There is a statistically significant adverse impact against African-Americans in promotion

rates since April 2002 - African-Americans are less likely than whites to have been promoted

during a given time period.

77. There is a statistically significant adverse impact against African-Americans termination

rates since April 2002 - African-Americans are more likely to have left the company during

a given time period than whites.

78. There is a statistically significant adverse impact against African-Americans in the incidence

of “exceptional” and “unacceptable” overall performance ratings since April 2002. African-

Americans are more likely than whites to receive “unacceptable” ratings. Whites are more

likely than African Americans to receive “exemplary” ratings.

79. There is a statistically significant adverse impact in the representation of African-Americans

in management and executive level jobs as compared to their representation in the pool of

“sales” and “professional” employees.

80. There is an unlawful adverse impact against African-Americans in most progressions from

entry level to senior or specialist pay levels for similar work in various kinds of jobs

throughout the Lilly U.S. workforce.

81. The adverse impact against African-Americans in promotions, terminations and ratings is

present among both exempt level (50 and up) and non-exempt (below 50) positions. It is

present in a sample that includes employees in all major functional areas of the Eli Lilly

Company.

15

82. The Lilly Performance Management (“PM”) process is a facially neutral procedure for the

identification, grooming and advancement of employees based on the assessment by

management of their potential for career development.

83. The Lilly PM process encompasses several elements or sub-processes by which managers

determine the career trajectory of the employees they manage.

84. The Lilly PM process governs pay levels and job designations by giving supervisors

discretion to effectively assign different pay levels to employees performing comparable

tasks.

85. The PM process governs the grooming of employees for advancement through ratings, merit

pay, career plans, listing in the “talent pipeline” and other, informal measures to identify

employees deemed by their managers to have potential for advancement.

86. The PM process governs pay raises (known as merit pay), in-line promotions, technical

ladder and career ladder promotions, transfers, and bona fide promotions.

87. Through the PM process, managers identify which employees will receive rapid pay raises

and advancement, which will remain at their current levels and which will be rated and

counseled as unacceptable.

88. The PM process governs the selection of employees for most non-entry level positions in the

company and determines which employees will advance to higher pay levels and to

management levels rapidly, which employees will advance slowly and which employees will

not advance.

89. The PM process governs the promotion of employees from non-exempt to exempt level

positions and the promotion of employees on technical and career ladder progressions.

16

90. The elements of the PM process cannot be separated for disparate impact analysis as they all

rely on subjective evaluations and advocacy by supervisors.

91. The PM process relies, in material part on subjective factors demonstration of subjective

“behaviors” like “modeling Lilly Values” and, for management track, estimation of

“learning agility.” The methodology used for measuring those factors is neither standard nor

consistent across managers.

92. The methodology for rating employees in the PM process has not been validated as job

related or consistent with business necessity as applied with regard to any positions at Lilly.

93. The PM process relies heavily on assessment of employees by their supervisors and those

supervisors’ inclination and ability to help the employee advance in his or her career.

Supervisors select employees, rate them, prepare career plans, assess them for the “talent

pipeline.”

94. Supervisor assessment through the PM process are the primary determinant of an

employee’s ability to transfer to a lateral or promotional position either for career

advancement or during re-allocations. Few internal candidates are selected for available

positions without the support of their current supervisors.

95. Most employees are deterred from posting for promotional positions unless they have the

explicit support of their management hierarchy. Efforts to post without such support are

usually futile.

96. The PM process includes an annual cycle of individual objectives and ratings on

accomplishments as well as “Lilly values.” Every U.S. employee below the executive levels

has been rated on the same seven criteria on the individual performance document each year

17

since some point before April 2002.

97. Individual ratings are one factor in setting annual pay raises for the employee which are

known as “merit pay.”

98. Individual ratings are not the only factors considered in allocating merit pay through merit

pay tools and manager meetings. Other factors include the employee’’s ““percent in range””

(within the range of pay for his job title and pay level) and the supervisor's assessment of the

employee’’s overall performance (which may or may not be fully reflected in the rating

provided to the employee on his annual performance document).

99. Supervisors have discretion in setting merit pay within ranges set by the merit pay tools,

guidelines and local budgets.

100. Supervisors also have discretion in granting in-line promotions.

101. Past merit pay awards have a direct effect on employee eligibility for promotions.

Employees near the top of the range for one pay grade are frequently considered better

candidates for in-line or bona fide promotions to the next level.

102. In-line promotions have a direct effect on the employee’s eligibility for merit pay. An

employee who has been promoted recently is likely to be lower in his percent in range and,

therefore, eligible for a greater “merit pay” raise in annual base salary.

103. The PM process includes an annual cycle of management meetings during which each

manager can advocate for pay raises and career advancement for a limited proportion of the

employees under her management. Meetings are held at each level of management among

peer managers in a particular area and the manager of those managers. Recommendations

of lower level management meetings are reviewed at the meeting on each successive level.

18

104. The management meetings within the PM process for Lilly employees include:

a. A planning and budgeting meeting during the first quarter at which anticipated

staffing needs and vacancies are discussed together with possibilities for advancing

employees identified as having high potential;

b. For managers of exempt level employees, a formal talent assessment and succession

planning meeting where managers discuss employees identified as possibly having

potential for advancement on the management track and formulate a list of

employees to recommend for inclusion in the “talent pipeline” and in succession

management plans kept in the Succession Management database; For managers of

non-exempt level employees, succession planning is less formal, but meetings are

held to identify employees deemed to have potential to advance to the specialist and

non-exempt supervisor roles in the 40-44 pay levels;

c. An interim review meeting where planning projections are reviewed to determine

which goals are on track to be “hit” and what can be done with regard to goals in

danger of being “missed.” Interim meetings may also include discussions of

employee development needs in the context of the goals, adjustments and final

budget numbers. This may include employee progress and staffing developments and

review of in-line promotion potential; and

d. A year end process (formerly known as “consensus pay”) where managers allocate

the merit pay budget among employees in the unit based on factors including the

employee’s “percent in range” (within the range of pay for his job title and pay level)

and the manager’s assessment of the employee’s overall performance (which is

19

unlikely to be fully reflected in the rating provided to the employee on his annual

performance document).

105. Lilly maintains a Succession Management database which identifies candidates for

promotion to specific key positions, next generation candidates to be developed for those

positions in the future, and a general “talent pipeline” of employees in the ranks of

professionals and sales workers who have been identified as having potential that should be

developed to place them in the ranks of managerial and/or executive positions for which no

specific succession management plan has been developed.

106. Generally, employees in exempt level positions between level 50 and level G-2 (and G-3 in

the research area) may be proposed for the Talent Pipeline and the Succession Management

process if their managers choose to nominate them.

107. Nomination to the Talent Pipeline or to specific succession management plans is based on

a supervisor’s assessment of factors described in a “Talent Assessment” tool.

108. The Talent Assessment tool is supposed to be used company-wide.

109. The process whereby managers meet to identify candidates for rapid advancement through

processes similar to the talent assessment tool, and succession management meetings, has

been used in all areas of Lilly at all times relevant to this action.

110. The process used to identify candidates for rapid advancement is highly subjective and has

not been validated as job related and consistent with business necessity for any positions at

Lilly.

111. The talent pipeline, Succession Management and similar processes for identifying candidates

for rapid advancement cannot be separated from the broader PM process because it affects

20

the availability of desirable assignments and positions for all employees.

112. As a result of the PM process, employees are identified as having varying opportunities for

career advancement. That process has a disparate impact against African-Americans.

113. Employees who believe that they are the victims of race discrimination or other unfair

treatment may discuss such issues with their managers and with their Human Resources

representatives. Lilly has had no process for the investigation of EEO complaints outside of

the employee’s management structure. Complaints to HR representatives or to the hotline

set up in recent years are typically investigated, if at all, by contacting the supervisor who is

the subject of the complaint.

114. Neither the EEO office nor the Diversity office has included personnel or a mission of

investigating, adjudicating or devising remedies in response to internal EEO complaints.

115. Defendant has not tracked EEO complaints or performed audits during most of the time from

April 20, 2002 through the present and has made no similar effort (outside the required AAP

process) to identify areas with specific EEO problems that might require remedial action.

116. Employees who raise EEO complaints rarely, if ever, obtain the managerial support

necessary to advance in their careers, or even to make lateral transfers after raising such

complaints. Such employees are effectively “blackballed” in most cases and are typically

encouraged to leave the company.

117. Lilly rarely, if ever, punishes managers for discriminatory and/or retaliatory conduct.

Employees are deterred from raising such EEO issues due to the by such futile and retaliatory

results.

118. Retaliation and the threat of retaliation are an inseparable part of the PM process because

21

employees are dependent on current supervisors for most aspects of their career development

and for obtaining transfers or promotions.

119. On information and belief, the PM process also gives sales managers discretion in adjusting

territories, staffing, sales goals and results and the resulting bonus and varying recognition

of the contributions of members of sales teams.

120. The Lilly PM process is a facially neutral personnel practice which causes disparate impact

against African Americans in career development. It is a proximate cause of the disparate

promotion, termination and ratings rates and the disparity between African-American

representation among feeder groups for management positions and African-Americans

holding management positions.

121. The Lilly PM process is neither validated nor job related nor consistent with business

necessity. It does not serve a legitimate business purpose that cannot be better served by a

more objectively job related and less discriminatory method of identifying employees for

career advancement.

122. The Lilly PM process is governed, in material part, by the wholly subjective assessments of

employees by managers.

123. The Lilly PM process is strongly influenced by a pattern or practice of unlawful managerial

preference for white employees over African-American employees. The adverse impacts

discussed above would not exist but for such a pattern of race discrimination in employment.

124. Lilly uses a posting system to announce vacancies that are open to internal applicants.

125. Lilly policy calls for the use of the “Targeted Selection” method of interviewing candidates

who apply for vacant positions. That method considers the same subjective “values” and

22

“behaviors” reflected in the rest of the PM process.

126. While employees may post for open positions, they do not have a meaningful chance of being

selected without the support of their management through the PM process. Selections of

internal candidates through the posting system are so heavily influenced by managerial

opinion as reflected in the PM process that they cannot be analyzed separately. Posting and

selection are inseparable components of the PM process.

127. Most employees reasonably believe that the influence of management is such that they are

unlikely to apply for posted positions before obtaining the support of their current managers

and are likely to be deterred from applying if that support is not forthcoming.

128. While Targeted Selection techniques may be used during interviews of internal candidates,

the influence of the employee’s current management is the strongest element in filling most

positions from internal applicants.

129. Posting and targeted selection as applied at Lilly as part of the PM process are used both by

employees seeking more desirable transfer or promotional opportunities and by employees

who are on “reallocation” because their positions have been eliminated.

130. To the extent that the posting and targeted selection processes can be separated for disparate

impact analysis, they are sub-processes that cause a disparate impact against African-

American Lilly employees.

131. The ability of employees whose positions have been eliminated to find new positions through

“re-allocation” is heavily influenced by and cannot be analyzed separately from the PM

process because the support of current management is a key factor in selecting employees

from re-allocation.

23

132. The processes of identifying positions for re-allocation, assisting re-allocated employees in

locating new positions and offering severance packages to others are linked to the PM

process because the same assessments of employees career prospects that govern merit pay,

career development and promotion also play an important role in the re-allocation and

transfer process.

133. To the extent that re-allocation and related transfers can be analyzed separately, it is a

process which has had a disparate impact against African Americans.

134. Defendant Lilly is aware, and has at all material times has been aware that its PM process

favors white employees over African-Americans in career development.

135. Defendant Lilly has not undertaken management practices reasonably designed to remedy

the disparities in its PM process.

136. Defendant Lilly has adopted and implemented a “diversity” policy that is not reasonably

calculated to identify and eliminate racially discriminatory practices within its PM process.

137. Defendant Lilly has been aware of serious adverse impacts in the career progressions of

African-Americans at all times relevant to this action and has not taken measures reasonably

calculated to reduce or eliminate the adverse impact and/or to use PM processes that are job

related and consistent with business necessity.

138. Lilly does not employ management techniques proven to foster Equal Employment

Opportunity (EEO) for African-Americans.

139. Lilly’s “diversity” policy and practices are not designed to promote equal opportunities in

employment for African Americans.

140. Lilly does not set objectives or deliver ratings to managers that have the effect of rewarding

24

supervisors for success in the EEO realm or for punishing those whose performance in those

areas is poor.

141. Lilly has no meaningful procedure for the fair investigation of complaints of race

discrimination, for providing review of such complaints outside the management chain or

for providing effective relief to victims of such discrimination.

142. Lilly fosters a culture of secrecy with regard to compensation and reasons for advancement

that does not allow employees to determine how and why they are treated unfairly or to

address issues of unfair treatment without fear of retaliation.

143. Lilly discourages investigations that uncover evidence of race discrimination or racially

hostile environment. It encourages “cover up” practices in an effort to deny the existence of

race discrimination problems.

144. Lilly has, for many years, covered up both information regarding adverse racial impact

caused by the exercise of managerial discretion and information regarding incidents of overt

racial hostility such as the placement of nooses and Ku Klux Klan imagery and the use of

racially offensive language among employees.

145. By failing to investigate EEO complaints, failing to punish EEO infractions and failing to

reward EEO successes and by discouraging negative findings in EEO investigations, Lilly

allows personnel who have engaged in racially discriminatory and/or retaliatory conduct to

advance to management and executive roles.

146. Lilly engages in frequent changes in organizational structure which result in management

changes that expose employees to inconsistent ratings, career development, management

support and similar PM treatment. Such inconsistent supervisory support is a cause of

25

adverse impact against African-Americans.

147. Lilly, through the PM process described above, effectively retaliates against employees who

raise issues of race discrimination in employment.

148. Lilly’s management practices have the effect of causing and perpetuating disparities in the

advancement of African-American employees as compared to their white peers. They are a

cause of the company wide pattern of unequal opportunity for African-Americans at Lilly.

149. As a result of defendant’s discriminatory practices, African-American employees at Lilly are

generally paid less than white employees with comparable education, training and

experience. The disparity increases with longer company service.

150. Lilly’s PM process, together with its management practices and culture of secrecy allow

employees performing similar work to be paid at different levels and pay scales. The result

is that African-American employees are disproportionately concentrated at the lower end of

career progressions as compared to white employees of similar education, experience and

training.

151. Defendant does not provide equal opportunities to black and white employees in moving to

new positions through lateral transfer, promotion and/or bidding after positions are lost in

re-allocations and after extended leave. Unequal application of rules barring transfer and

promotion, unequal grooming and development of employees, unequal nomination of

employees to promotion eligibility and priority lists, insufficient attention to objective

qualifications and undue emphasis on subjective and informal recommendations by

supervisors. As a result, African-American employees do not reach supervisory levels at the

same rate as comparable white employees and African-American employees tend to have

26

fewer and less frequent promotions and fewer and less frequent opportunities to transfer into

new positions.

152. Defendant fosters a hostile work environment for many of its African-American employees

by failing to investigate claims of employment discrimination; by allowing managers to

retaliate against and to blackball employees who complain of unequal treatment; by failing

to punish managers who discriminate against African-Americans and by failing to reward

managers who provide equal employment opportunities to African-American employees.

153. Defendant has a company culture that favors conformity with the majority, white culture.

Company culture has a strong tendency to place African-Americans in the lower positions

within each work group which impedes equal employment opportunities.

154. All Lilly employees in the United States are in the same company bonus plan.

155. Defendant is engaged in a pattern or practice of race discrimination in employment which

has adversely affected African-American employees of the company from the time they were

hired through the present.

156. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated

employees of Lilly who have suffered harm as a result of Defendant’s pattern and practice

of race discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment that includes the practices

and adverse impacts described above and may be summarized as follows:

a. Paying African-American workers in both hourly and salaried positions less

than other comparably situated workers;

b. Different treatment, based upon race in grooming employees for promotion -

i.e.: providing African-Americans with fewer opportunities to bid for

27

promotional and desirable transfer positions, fewer desirable duties that are

likely to lead to promotions and inferior ratings and recommendations;

c. Promoting African-Americans less often and after longer waits than for other

comparable workers;

d. Race discrimination in ratings and recognition of accomplishments;

e. Race discrimination in discipline;

f. Race discrimination in terminations and in encouraging employees to seek

employment elsewhere;

g. Creating a hostile work environment for many African-American employees;

h. Retaliation against employees who complain of discrimination

i. Race discrimination in down sizings, re-organizations, severance

opportunities and transfer opportunities.

157. Numerosity. On information and belief, well over 1,000 African-American employees of

Lilly have suffered the kind of discrimination described herein during the time from April

20, 2002 to the present. The claims of the members of the class are so numerous that joinder

would be impractical.

158. Commonality. The questions of fact and law of the named individual Plaintiffs are common

to other members of the class. Common questions of fact and law predominate over other

questions affecting individual class members.

159. Typicality. The named Plaintiffs have claims that are typical of those of the other class

members.

160. Adequacy. The class representatives will adequately represent the class. The class

28

representatives have no interests that conflict with the interests of unnamed members of the

class. They are interested in pursuing relief against Lilly vigorously. They have retained

qualified counsel. Their legal representatives will adequately represent the class.

161. Pursuit of the claims of the class members in separate individual actions by employees

carries a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications. As a practical matter, adjudications

with respect to individual employees may be dispositive of the interests of other employees,

or may substantially impede or impair their ability to protect their interests with regard to the

class claims.

162. A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims

of the class members because the claims involve the interpretation of common documents

and work situations. It would not be in the best interests of the present and former employees

to individually control the prosecution of the claims. Without a class action, it is unlikely

that most individual employees would be economically able to bring suit.

163. There are no unusual legal or factual issues creating class manageability problems.

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS

164. Appendices A and B contain allegations concerning the individual circumstances and claims

of more than 150 plaintiff class members who have been harmed by the pattern of race

discrimination in employment at Lilly. Such allegations are incorporated herein by reference.

COUNT I - VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

165. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 164 herein by reference.

166. Defendant was the "employer" of the individual Plaintiffs and has been an employer of other

African-American employees. The individual Plaintiffs and other African-Americans are or

29

were "employees" of Defendant.

167. Plaintiffs Welch, Tyson, Davis and others as described in paragraphs 18-40 above, for

themselves and as class representatives, have fulfilled the administrative prerequisites to

seeking relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§

2000e et. seq.

168. The claims of the other members of the class are sufficiently similar to those raised in the

administrative process or that should have been part of a reasonable investigation so that the

Defendant knew what it was facing and had every opportunity to resolve the full array of

such claims through the administrative process. The claims described in the administrative

charges encompass discrimination like or reasonably related to the allegations in the

complaints of the class and of the representative plaintiffs whose claims are more fully

described in appendices A and B and growing out of these allegations. Many of their claims

met the time limits for filing claims under Title VII after the time charges were filed by the

above class representatives.

169. Defendant Eli Lilly & Co. has followed and continues to follow a pattern and practice of race

discrimination against African-Americans in the terms and conditions of their employment.

170. Defendant pays its African-American employees less than what it pays most of its similarly

situated white employees who perform comparable work.

171. Defendant disproportionately grooms white employees for rapid promotion and does not

provide similar opportunities for most African-Americans.

172. Defendant disproportionately promotes white employees earlier and more often than

comparably situated African-Americans.

30

173. Defendant has engaged in race discrimination with regard to ratings and discipline of

employees.

174. Defendant engages in retaliation against employees who claim of race discrimination.

175. Defendant allows a hostile work environment to exist.

176. Defendant intentionally discriminates against African-American employees.

177. Defendant engages in practices that have a disparate impact. They have the effect of

providing lower pay, fewer promotions, shorter job tenure and less desirable terms and

conditions of employment to African-Americans as compared to comparably situated

Caucasians as alleged in paragraphs 41-163 above. Such practices are not job related or

otherwise justified by business necessity.

178. Defendant's discriminatory practices have harmed the individual Plaintiffs listed in

Appendices A and B and other similarly situated employees and former employees of

Defendant, in violation of Title VII. Those practices have resulted in the termination of the

employment of some members of the class. Other class members have suffered from a loss

of income and other benefits as well as from less prestigious titles and duties and emotional

harm as more fully described in Appendices A and B.

179. All class members have suffered harm by virtue of the disparate impact of the Performance

Management Process.

180. The NAACP Plaintiffs have members who have been harmed by the discriminatory practices

alleged herein. They seek relief on behalf of their members and others whose interests they

represent who have been harmed by the discriminatory practices of the Defendant.

181. Unless restrained by order of this Court, Defendant will continue to pursue policies and

31

practices that discriminate against Plaintiffs and other similarly situated African-Americans

and that cause them further harm.

COUNT II - VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1981, AS AMENDED

182. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1-181 herein by reference.

183. Defendant has intentionally denied Plaintiffs and similarly situated African-Americans the

right to contract with it on the same basis as whites.

184. Defendant pays its African-American employees less than what it pays most of its white

employees who hold the same or similar positions.

185. Defendant grooms most white employees for rapid promotion and does not provide similar

opportunities for most African-Americans.

186. Defendant promotes most white employees earlier and more often than comparably situated

African-Americans.

187. Defendant engages in race discrimination with regard to ratings and discipline of employees.

188. Defendant engages in retaliation against African-American employees who complain of race

discrimination.

189. Defendant allows a hostile work environment to exist and foments a culture adverse to

African-Americans.

190. Defendant intentionally discriminates against African-American employees in favor of white

employees.

191. Defendant's discriminatory practices have harmed individual Plaintiffs and other similarly

situated employees and former employees of Defendant, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981,

as amended. Those discriminatory practices resulted in the termination of the employment

32

of some members of the class. Other class members have suffered from a loss of income and

other benefits as well as from less prestigious titles and duties and emotional harm as more

fully described in Appendices A and B. The NAACP Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of their

members and others whose interests they represent who have been harmed by the

discriminatory practices of the Defendant.

192. Unless restrained by order of this Court, Defendant will continue to pursue policies and

practices that cause Plaintiffs and other similarly situated African Americans further harm.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Court to:

1) Enter an Order granting class certification under Rule 23 of the Fed. R. Civ. P.;

2) Find and declare that Defendant has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination

against African-Americans because of their race in all or some specific parts of its

administrative structure;

3) Enjoin the Defendant from engaging in the same or like practices in the future and

enter remedial orders designed to bring Defendant into compliance with the law and

to end the lingering effects of past discrimination;

4) Enter judgment awarding the Plaintiffs back pay, and other loss of income, loss of

retirement and health benefits, and other make-whole relief, in an amount to be

determined after trial;

5) Award compensatory damages, including compensation for emotional distress and

costs of treatment for stress-induced medical conditions, in amounts consistent with

a class-wide formula in amounts to be determined by a jury after trial (or in amounts

to be determined after individualized proceedings if required);

33

6) Award to the Plaintiffs of the costs of litigation including reasonable expenses,

attorneys' fees and expert witness fees;

7) Provide such other relief as is just.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Joshua N. RoseJoshua N. RoseDavid L. RoseYuval RubinsteinROSE & ROSE PC1320 19th Street, NW, Suite 601Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 331-8555Fax: (202) 331-0996josh@roselawyers.com daver@roselawyers.comyrubinstein@roselawyers.com

By:/s/ Phillip Sever By:/s/ Andrew Dutkanych, IIIPhillip Sever Andrew Dutkanych, IIIJason P. Hopper Kyle BieseckerSEVER STOREY, LLP BIESECKER & DUTKANYCH, LLC3720 S. Rangeline Road 317 SE Third StreetCarmel, IN 46032 Evansville, IN 47713(317) 575-0320 (812) 424-1002Fax: (318) 575-9570 Fax: (812) 434-1005phil@severstorey.com Ad@bdlegal.comjason@severstorey.com Kfb@bdlegal.com

Date: September 8, 2008 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cassandra Welch, et. al.

34

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 8th day of September, 2008, the foregoing Second Amended

Class Action Complaint was filed under seal via Electronic Case Filing (ECF). A true and correct

copy of the foregoing Second Amended Class Action Complaint was served, via electronic mail,

upon:

Ellen E. Boshkoff (#16365-49)Adrienne F. Busby (#22964-49-A)BAKER & DANIELS LLP300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700Indianapolis, IN 46204Telephone: (317) 237-0300Facsimile: (317) 237-1000ellen.boshkoff@bakerd.comadrienne.busby@bakerd.com

/s/ Yuval RubinsteinYuval Rubinstein

35

APPENDIX A

1. Plaintiff Haile Abebe holds M.S. degrees in Biochemistry and Microbiology, and has been

employed at Lilly since 1995. Mr. Abebe has been adversely affected by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. In 2004, Mr. Abebe interviewed for a team leader position, and was told that

he did not have enough industrial microbiology experience, which was inaccurate. However, the

white male hired for this position did not have any industrial microbiology experience at all. Mr.

Abebe complained to HR about his nonselection, but nothing was done.

In 2006, Mr. Abebe recommended that an open position be awarded to an African-American

male with insulin manufacturing experience. However, Mr. Abebe’s team leader resisted, and

insisted that Mr. Abebe interview and hire a white female with far less experience. The woman hired

proved to be a “disaster” in this position.

The discrimination Mr. Abebe was subjected to continued throughout 2006, when a team

leader position in validation became open. Mr. Abebe wrote an email explaining why he was a

perfect fit for the position based on his eleven years of experience at Lilly. Mr. Abebe’s manager did

not support Mr. Abebe for this opening, claiming that he had been in the area for too short of a

period. Instead, the manager picked a far less experienced colleague who had been working in the

control room as a technical services representative. Moreover, Mr. Abebe’s manager sent him back

to the control room, which is the position he had held ten years prior.

Mr. Abebe’s colleagues were angry on his behalf over these actions. Mr. Abebe spoke with

his team leader, and made an appointment with his manager to complain that the unequal grooming

was discriminatory and violated Redbook policy. However, nothing was done.

Even after Mr. Abebe was sent to the control room, his manager continued to discriminate

36

against him. During a professional feedback session, he claimed Mr. Abebe was not a “good fit” for

manufacturing, despite Mr. Abebe’s proven success and experience in this area. On another occasion

in January 2007, a deviation occurred in Mr. Abebe’s area, which was taken care of. Mr. Abebe’s

manager went to his HR representative first before talking with him. Mr. Abebe realized that his

manager was seeking to drive him out of manufacturing in retaliation for his complaints of

discrimination.

In late 2007, the team leader role in Mr. Abebe’s area was eliminated. This has prevented Mr.

Abebe from going on the management track, so that he is “frozen” in his current position. Mr. Abebe

thereafter wrote a memo to the executive director to complain of his discriminatory treatment.

2. Plaintiff Leigh Abel is employed as a Systems Technical Underwriter in LTC Automation,

and is a Level 50. Ms. Abel became eligible in November 2002 to post for exempt job level openings

following successful completion of the exempt review process. In 2003, Ms. Abel moved from the

non-exempt position of Senior Executive Assistant, to her current exempt position as a Systems

Technical Underwriter. Ms. Abel has been unable to receive a lateral increase in pay grade to 52 or

54 since 2003.

Ms. Abel has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Ms.

Abel received a rating of “successful” or greater in each category of her 2006 Performance

Management summary. In 2005 and 2006 Ms. Abel posted for exempt positions, including that of

a Senior Human Resources Representative, pay grade 56 to 58. Ms. Abel’s team leader and rating

supervisor, summarizing a face-to-face conversation on the matter, reiterated in an October 2006

email that employees with her education and experience rarely "jump" from pay grade 50 to 56.

However, two white co-workers received promotions from positions with pay grades of 50 or lower

37

to pay grade 56 or higher despite each having less education and experience than Ms. Abel. One of

these white counterparts obtained the position of Senior Human Resources Representative, a position

Ms. Abel applied for but was not selected.

Ms. Abel applied for a Recruiting Associate position in August 2007 and an HR Associate

position in January 2008, both of which were in the 50-54 levels. Ms. Abel was discouraged by her

team leader from applying for these positions, and was told she should be focused on finishing her

degree. The Recruiting Associate position went to a white female without any recruiting experience,

while the HR Associate position was given to a white male from the sales force. Ms. Abel was

promoted to Level 52 in 2008.

3. Plaintiff Rosalyn Adams-Smith holds BA and MA degrees in communications, and has been

employed by Lilly since 2000. Since 2003, Ms. Adams-Smith has been a Level 52 Project Manager

in the CRU Services unit in the Information Technology function. Ms. Adams-Smith has been

adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She has not received a promotion

since she began working at Lilly. Nor has she received assignments that are given to her white

counterparts with comparable qualifications. Ms. Adams-Smith has also been subject to ridicule by

her white colleagues in front of her entire team. Although she has gone to her managers to complain

about this treatment, nothing has been done.

4. Plaintiff Adebowale “Debo” Adenekan was employed as a Level 54 Senior Analytical

Chemist in the Manufacturing function between October 2003 and December 2007. Mr. Adenakan

was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process throughout his tenure. Mr.

Adenekan’s Senior Analytical Chemist position was downsized one year after he began working at

Lilly. Despite Mr. Adenekan’s excellent performance ratings, two white colleagues within his unit

38

that had lower seniority and less experience were not affected. Mr. Adenekan was reallocated, and

he interviewed for a number of positions he was qualified for, but was not selected. Mr. Adenekan

was forced to take a position as a Bench Chemist in February 2005.

Mr. Adenekan tried to apply for three positions, and each time was told that he had to be in

the position for at least one year. However, a white colleague applied for and received a position

despite being in her current position for less than one year.

As a Bench Chemist, Mr. Adenekan was subject to racial harassment by a white female

colleague regarding his salary and his race. In one instance, she called him a “dumb ass nigger” in

the presence of his supervisor, who said she did not mean it that way. This behavior continued for

six to seven months, yet Mr. Adenekan’s supervisor did nothing. Mr. Adenekan went to HR and

spoke of the problems with his white colleague, and was then transferred to the night shift. Within

three weeks, however, his white female colleague was working the same shift as Mr. Adenekan

doing overtime, which further demonstrated his supervisor’s disregard for the racial harassment he

experienced.

Mr. Adenekan was then called in by his supervisor to discuss his deviations, and eventually

received a written warning in November 2006. As a result, Mr. Adenekan’s yearly bonus was taken

away for two years, and he did not receive any merit increase. However, Mr. Adenekan’s deviations

were no greater than that of his white colleagues, who were not subject to similar discipline. Mr.

Adenekan did not have any additional deviations after being written up, yet his supervisor did not

note this improvement on Mr. Adenekan’s Performance Management reviews. Mr. Adenekan was

terminated from Lilly on December 9, 2007.

5. Plaintiff Angel Allen holds a BA degree in business, and has been employed by Lilly

39

since 2001 as a Sales Representative, and is currently a Level 54 Sourcing Associate in the

Procurement function. Ms. Allen has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management

process. As a sales representative, Ms. Allen was passed over for a promotion in favor of a white

female with similar credentials. When she moved to her position in Procurement, Ms. Allen entered

a hostile environment, and was subject to verbal degradation by her manager. As a result, Ms. Allen

asked permission to post out of her area due to the stress she was experiencing.

6. Plaintiff Georgia Anderson has been employed at Lilly since 1972, and is currently in Indy

Dry Products. Ms. Anderson has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management

process. In June 2002, Ms. Anderson posted for a specialist position, and had performed the job with

training for a few weeks. Despite interviewing well and being told by the hiring supervisor that she

would get the job, Ms. Anderson was turned down without any reason given. Ms. Anderson has since

been denied opportunities for advancement based on lack of support from her management.

7. Plaintiff Doriel Armstead holds a BA in Communications and a MA in Human Resources

Development, and was employed as a Campus Relations Account Leader at US Recruiting and

Staffing between October 2001 and April 2004, and as a Senior Human Resources representative in

the Information Technology function until she left Lilly in March 2005. Ms. Armstead learned after

she was hired that the Account Leader position was initially leveled as a Level 54 or 56, yet she was

hired in as a Level 52.

Ms. Armstead was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process during

her period of employment. Ms. Armstead’s pay grade level and salary as Account Leader were lower

than that of her white peers doing comparable work. When Ms. Armstead complained about this

disparity to her HR representative, it was agreed that she would move to an HR Representative

40

position as a Level 54. Ms. Armstead left Lilly in March 2005.

8. Plaintiff Jamin Armistead holds a BA in economics, and began working at Lilly in 2000,

and is currently a Level 30 Production Operator in the Manufacturing function. Mr. Armistead has

been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process during his period of

employment. After receiving his BA in 2003 and finishing three years in his grade, Mr. Armistead

posted for but did not receive a promotion to a Level 40 Development Tech job in which a college

degree was not required, while his white counterparts who were hired at the same time as he received

this promotion.

In April 2005, Mr. Armistead wanted to post for a sales position. In preparation for this

transition, Mr. Armistead took “ride alongs” with sales representatives, passed an aptitude test, and

was interviewed by district managers. Mr. Armistead also attended training at Lilly University, and

was highly recommended. However, Mr. Armistead had to wait 18 months to apply for a sales

representative position due to issues with his background check. When the 18 months ended in

September 2006, Mr. Armistead still did not receive a sales position. A white colleague in

manufacturing was promoted to a sales position after obtaining a degree.

9. Plaintiff David Bailey was employed by Lilly between 1982 and August 2003, and left as

a Manufacturing Production Technician. Mr. Bailey was adversely affected by Lilly’s Performance

Management process during his period of employment. He did not receive any promotions between

1999 and his departure in 2003, but was passed over in favor of white counterparts with less

experience. He consistently performed extra work in repairs and maintenance, but was not paid a

higher level of salary. Mr. Bailey was wrongfully terminated in August 2003.

10. Plaintiff Chris Barrett was hired by Lilly in 1995 as a Senior Oncology Sales Representative.

41

Mr. Barrett was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process; despite meeting

his sales goals, he was rated poorly by his manager beginning in 2005, and did not receive a merit

increase for the first time. Mr. Barrett was singled out for racial harassment by this manager

throughout 2006. His manager, among other things, called him at his house to review his account,

and told Mr. Barrett that his plan of action was “stupid.” Mr. Barrett’s white colleagues submitted

identical account planning reports to her, yet when they were called individually to review the

reports, she only criticized Mr. Barrett, not his white colleagues. She would also assign Mr. Barrett

additional projects that his white colleagues were not required to perform.

Mr. Barrett experienced severe medical problems as a result of the hostile work environment,

and was placed on medical leave in December 2006. On March 13, 2007, Mr. Barrett received a

letter from Lilly claiming his doctors had submitted insufficient medical information, and that they

would consider him resigned if he didn’t return to work by March 19 or provide such information.

When contacted by the doctor’s office about what additional information was required, Lilly did not

respond and did not return his calls to clarify what was requested. Mr. Barrett was terminated on

March 27, 2007.

11. Plaintiff Tonya Baskerville holds an MBA in management, and was employed by Lilly

between May 2003 and June 2008, where she was a Level 52 Sales Representative on the

Neuroscience Therapeutic Team in the Sales Function. Ms. Baskerville was adversely impacted by

Lilly’s Performance Management process. She was never been promoted in her time at Lilly.

Although she was ranked number one in her district, Ms. Baskerville was given unfair scores on her

Performance Management reviews. Ms. Baskerville never received a raise at Lilly, while her white

counterparts did receive raises with inferior sales performance. As a result of these unfair reviews,

42

Ms. Baskerville had to go on medical leave. Ms. Baskerville’s manager also threatened to take her

off his route as retaliation for complaining to HR about the discrimination she was experiencing. Ms.

Baskerville decided to resign from Lilly in June 2008 as a result of this discriminatory treatment.

12. Plaintiff Claude Bibbs holds a technical degree from the Air Force, and was employed at

Lilly between 1977 and 2007. Mr. Bibbs was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process during his period of employment. In August 2006, Mr. Bibbs was instructed

to post elsewhere as the Vancomyasin (VANCO) Department was closing down. Mr. Bibbs posted

for an inventory position in September 2006, and was competing against a white male. Despite

having more seniority and superior education, Mr. Bibbs was not selected for the position, even

though Mr. Bibbs’s HR representative stated that seniority should prevail.

Mr. Bibbs was assigned to a Fermentation position that he did not post for. Although his

white colleagues were informed of their assignments ahead of time and thus had the opportunity to

take GPIB training, Mr. Bibbs was not informed ahead of time about his move to the Fermentation

position, and thus did not receive the necessary training. In June 2007, Mr. Bibbs was warned that

he had not learned the first phase of training fast enough, and that he would be disciplined if he did

not complete the second phase within 90 days. Mr. Bibbs was not aware of other Lilly employees

being given a deadline for training. Mr. Bibbs retired from Lilly in September 2007.

13. Plaintiff Kenneth Bigbee has been employed at Lilly since 1979. He is a level 54

PRFNLCB1. Mr. Bigbee was a Technical Services representative between 1990 and 2004, when he

transferred to the Sterility Assurance Validation group. Since 2006, Mr. Bigbee has been a Technical

Services Representative in Annual Product Reviews writing, which is part of the Manufacturing,

Science & Technology function. Mr. Bigbee’s base pay and merit pay are less than what his similarly

43

qualified co-workers earn. Mr. Bigbee has also been passed over for promotions in favor of less

qualified white employees.

Mr. Bigbee has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. A

white female was appointed to the Exacta filtration project while Mr. Bigbee was in the Sterility

Assurance Validation group. Mr. Bigbee had previously been informed that he was to receive the

lead on this project, which had greater exposure and would lead to greater merit increases and a

promotion. Although Mr. Bigbee had trained her in filtration when she joined the company, he was

kept on as backup support for those filtration projects after her appointment to the Exacta project.

Prior to Mr. Bigbee’s move to the Sterility Assurance Validation group, his manager asked

his opinion about the work environment when he first became manager of Technical Services. Mr.

Bigbee explained his concern that management was failing to promote individuals based on

performance, but rather based on workload placed on representatives after poor decisions were made

by upper management. Mr. Bigbee’s manager was irate over this comment, and informed HR

personnel that Mr. Bigbee should be transferred. Mr. Bigbee was also informed me that he should

look for another position in the company. He was continually passed over for promotions and

opportunities for advancement after that occasion.

14. Plaintiff Jacyntha Billingsley was employed at Lilly between November 2001 and July

2004, and was a Level 52 Neuroscience Specialty Representative. Ms. Billingsley was adversely

impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She was denied a promotion to a Treatment

Team Specialist position in favor of a white female with less experience than she. This same white

colleague was brought in at a higher pay level than Ms. Billingsley despite having less training and

experience. Ms. Billingsley, as the only African-American in her district, was subject to retaliation

44

by her manager after she complained of race discrimination issues to her HR representative. Ms.

Billingsley left Lilly in July 2004.

15. Plaintiff Barbara Boone has been employed at Lilly since 1994, and from 2001 to

February 2007 was a Contracts Associate in the US Affiliate Medical unit. She is a level 50. Ms.

Boone was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process in this position. She

earned less in base pay and merit pay than her white co-workers despite having similar or better

qualifications. Ms. Boone never received an in-line promotion in this position, while a white

colleague received an in-line promotion despite having less education and similar experience to Ms.

Boone.

Ms. Boone was given the most difficult area to manage contracts, but did not receive any

training from her management. Ms. Boone’s supervisor would question her performance openly in

front of all her coworkers, but when another associate had an issue of some kind, Ms. Boone’s

supervisor wold cover for her. Ms. Boone was continually overburdened with projects and singled

out in her department, while her white colleagues were given more favorable assignments. In 2007,

Ms. Boone moved to a Level 52 Patent Associate position in the Legal function.

16. Plaintiff John Boyd has been employed at Lilly since 1997, and is currently a Level 54

Senior Sales Representative. Mr. Boyd has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. His base pay is less than that of a white male colleague who started on the

same day at Lilly. Mr. Boyd is also earning less than a white female counterpart in his district who

has less experience than he. Mr. Boyd is denied training opportunities given to his white

counterparts, and has been passed over for promotions in favor of similarly qualified white

colleagues. Mr. Boyd’s District Manager was asked to resign on April 30, 2008 as a result of several

45

discrimination complaints made by African-Americans and minorities in his district.

17. Plaintiff Jarmaine Bromell was an experienced sales representative with an MBA in

marketing when he was hired by Lilly. He was offered a position as a "sales representative" and was

told that this was the highest level available for a person with his credentials. Mr. Bromell later

learned that white representatives with no better credentials were hired in the same office at a higher

pay level with the title of "Senior Sales Representative."

Mr. Bromell was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Despite

being a top performer who exceeded the quota for his territory for 2.5 years, Mr. Bromell was not

paid or provided with desirable opportunities at a level equivalent to his white peers with comparable

performance and credentials. At least one other African-American who worked with Mr. Bromell

in Philadelphia was similarly paid less than white employees with comparable or inferior credentials

and was provided with inferior opportunities for bonus, assignments and promotions.

Mr. Bromell complained that his base pay and bonus pay were not equal to the pay provided

to white employees with comparable objective performance. He raised equal pay and equal

assignment issues with his managers in 2005 and filed an internal EEO complaint in November

2005. Defendant did not provide him with the information he requested to support his equal pay

complaint.

Mr. Bromell's sales quota was adjusted in 2005 to make it difficult for him to maintain his

high level of performance. Following his equal pay complaints, Mr. Bromell's manager advised him

that his subjective ratings would be low and that she would not consider him for promotion or allow

him to apply for promotional positions. Mr. Bromell reasonably understood her message as a

constructive discharge and found other employment.

46

18. Plaintiff Damon Brooks has been employed by Lilly since 1999, and is currently a Sales

Representative. Mr. Brooks has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management

process. He is not given the same pay or opportunities for advancement as his white colleagues.

In 2007, Mr. Brooks was told by his District Manager that he needed development with his

performance “behaviors,” yet there were no specifics that could be provided on where Mr. Brooks

was not successful. Indeed, Mr. Brooks was exceeding his sales goals, with better percentages than

his white counterparts. The manager has provided no other feedback. Mr. Brooks’s partner

documented that the same District Manager had informed him of Mr. Brooks’s status, even though

such information is to be confidential between management and employee.

19. Plaintiff Nathalie Bryant was employed at Lilly between 1966 and March 2003, and retired

as an Administrative Assistant in the Quality Control/Quality Assurance function. Ms. Bryant career

advancement was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process, and in particular

due to the subjective evaluations of her management. Despite receiving positive ratings, Ms. Bryant

earned less than her white peers performing comparable work. At the time of her retirement, she was

just one grade above where she had started.

20. Plaintiff Dominique Campbell was employed by Lilly as a Technical Services Representative

until 2005. Ms. Campbell was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management proces. She

was considered a top performer and afforded a talent assessment for one of Lilly’s critical Succession

Management positions until she filed an internal complaint for discrimination in merit pay. Once Ms.

Campbell filed the complaint, she was taken off the talent pipeline and the retaliation began. Ms.

Campbell quickly became a victim of a hostile work environment that resulted in mental stress. As

a result, Ms. Campbell left Lilly in 2005.

47

21. Plaintiff Arthur Cantrell has been employed at Lilly since 1991. Between 2001 and 2004,

Mr. Cantrell was an Analytical Engineering Technician, and since 2004 he has been a Quality

Assurance Engineering Technician. He is currently a level 40. Mr. Cantrell earns less in base pay

and merit pay than his white peers in his current position.

Mr. Cantrell has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. A

white male in Mr. Cantrell’s department who performs similar functions as he is paid at a Level 42.

In 2003, Mr. Cantrell posted for a position of Senior Engineering Technician. After he took it, his

team leader, downgraded him, saying the promotion was a "mistake" and that it was actually a

lateral. Mr. Cantrell’s white co-workers who were re-deployed at the same time received promotions.

Mr. Cantrell’s downgrade has set back his opportunities for advancement and promotion compared

to his white colleagues.

A white male colleague of Mr. Cantrell was promoted to the exempt position of Quality

Engineer, despite not having a Bachelor’s degree, which Mr. Cantrell does have. The position was

not posted, and a result Mr. Cantrell was not able to interview for the position.

22. Plaintiff Betty Cantrell has been employed by Lilly since 1989, and is currently a Quality

Control Assistant in Pharmaceutical Delivery Systems, where she is a Level 32. Ms. Cantrell has

been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Three of Ms. Cantrell’s white

employees have been promoted to "engineering techs" at Level 40-42, where they do the same work

as Ms. Cantrell but are paid more. Ms. Cantrell’s supervisor constantly gave these employees special

assignments to groom them for their current positions, while Ms. Cantrell was not given the same

opportunity. During her Performance Management meetings, Ms. Cantrell has never received any

suggestions from her supervisor on what she can do to be promoted to the “engineering tech

48

position,” nor has she received any assistance on her development plan. Mr. Cantrell’s supervisor

is also pitting African-American employees in her department against each other by taking away one

of her duties (traveling to Arizona for training on insulin-related training issues) and assigning it to

another African-American female.

23. Plaintiff Allison Carter has been employed at Lilly since 2000. Between August 2001 and

August 2004, Ms. Carter was a Preventive Maintenance Mechanic in the Quality function, then

moving to a Training Assistant position in Product Research and Development Department in the

Human Resources. Ms. Carter was reallocated in February 2006 to serve as a Training Specialist in

Manassas, VA in the Human Resources function, and since February 2007 has been a Project

Management specialist in the Science & Technology function. Ms. Carter has been adversely

impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process, which has affected her pay and opportunities

to advance. She has also been subject to a hostile work environment.

Pay - While she was a Preventive Maintenance Mechanic, Ms. Carter’s white colleagues were

classified in the better paying positions of Instrumentation Technician and

Metrologist/Instrumentation Engineer despite performing comparable duties, and were paid more

than her in bonus/incentive pay despite comparable performance while doing comparable work. As

a Training Assistant, Ms. Carter was paid less than a white female colleague who performed similar

work.

Promotions

Ms. Carter has repeatedly been passed over for in-line promotions in favor of lesser qualified

white counterparts. As a Preventive Maintenance Mechanic, a white male colleague was promoted

to Instrumentation Engineer Metrologist with only a high school diploma. As a Training Specialist

49

in Virginia, Ms. Carter was on reallocation, and applied for a Quality Assurance Representative

position. However, her supervisor informed the individual who was reviewing the application that

Ms. Carter did not have strong leadership skills, even though she previously stated that Ms. Carter

would make a great Quality Assurance Specialist (pay grade 40-42) since it was a position that

required strong leadership skills.

While in Virginia, Ms. Carter also sought to apply for a Senior Training Associate position.

She was told that she could not apply for the position, and did not have the support of her supervisor

or management. Ms. Carter was denied the promotion in favor of a white male who only possessed

an Associate’s degree.

Hostile Work Environment

During her tenure as a Preventive Maintenance Mechanic, Ms. Carter was shouted at by her

white colleagues and subject to face-to-face intimidation. In March 2004, Ms. Carter and another

African-American employee were called “monkeys” in the presence of other co-workers by a white

Metrologist-Instrument Engineer.

At a plant barbeque in the summer of 2006, Ms. Carter witnessed a white colleague running

around with a white-hood over his head and face. His picture was taken and placed on the first page

of Volume 1, Issue 9 of the Lilly Prince William newsletter "The Pennacle" in June 2006, however

copies containing his picture were collected by Lilly and a version of the newsletter without his

picture was later distributed by Lilly.

Ms. Carter was instructed by her supervisor, over her objection, to address everyone with the

following question at the end of every team meeting, "Did I say anything to offend you and if so how

can I correct the situation?" in 2005 while employed as a Training Assistant. None of her white

50

colleagues were subject to the same treatment. Ms. Carter has also been consistently yelled at by her

supervisor, and been accused of not being a “team player.”

24. Plaintiff Bryant Carter received a BA in Finance from Michigan State, and began at Lilly

as a Sales Representative in 1999, moving to Senior Sales Representative in 2001. Mr. Carter was

a senior Human Resources recruiter at Level 54 from January 2003 until his resignation from Lilly

in May 2006.

Mr. Carter was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. When he

moved into recruiting in 2003, he was assigned a new developmental director, Carlos Crawford. Mr.

Carter was consistently performing his duties and met his objectives while employed in the Senior

Recruiter role. Mr. Carter’s Development Management Team said he was doing an outstanding job,

and all recommended that he should move to the next level, yet Mr. Crawford, despite minimal direct

contact with Mr. Carter, disagreed. Mr. Crawford said Mr. Carter wasn’t ready to move forward, and

wanted to give Mr. Carter additional things to do. Mr. Carter’s developmental manager, Raymond

Patche, interjected, and stated he didn’t remember any other recruiters that were being asked to do

the things Mr. Carter was being asked to do. Mr. Carter’s current manager at the time, Heidi Rolhof,

then interjected and stated that Mr. Carter was farther along at that stage in his development than the

other recruiters that had moved on to management position, two of whom were working for Mr.

Crawford. One month after this conference call, Mr. Carter was informed by Buck Payne that Mr.

Crawford did not have his best interests in mind, and to “watch his back.”

Mr. Carter approached Mr. Crawford about riding and coaching his representatives; Mr.

Crawford acted as if it was a good idea but never followed up. Mr. Crawford questioned his manager

about Mr. Carter’s experience in coaching, and whether Mr. Carter was certified. Ina Roland, a

51

manager Mr. Carter worked with, reminded Mike Toelle that neither Mark Aguillard, a Caucasian

co-worker of Mr. Carter, nor any other employee doing coaching started out with coaching

experience or product certification; instead, this experience was gained on the job. Mr. Toelle agreed,

and said he would convey this to Mr. Crawford, yet nothing happened. No other recruiter was

required to take product exams, and Mr. Crawford requested that Mr. Carter do so. Mr. Carter passed

every product exam and sent his results to Mr. Crawford and other directors and everyone responded

back positively except Mr. Crawford, who never even responded to Mr. Carter’s email.

Mr. Crawford exhibited preferential treatment to Mr. Aguillard, who had similar

qualifications to Mr. Carter and who was hired as a trainer a year-and-a-half after Mr. Carter became

a Senior Recruiter. Mr. Crawford invited Mr. Aguilllard out for drinks, and to his home for cocktails

and sporting events. Mr. Carter was not included in these social gatherings. Mr. Crawford assisted

Mr. Aguillard in his career advancement, yet blocked Mr. Carter in his quest for advancement and

promotion at Lilly. In 2005, a maternity leave position became open under Mr. Crawford, yet Mr.

Carter was never informed of the opening or the opportunity to perform relief management duty for

the manager, Shelley Millsap. Instead, the position went to Mr. Aguillard, and Mr. Carter only found

out after the fact.

Although Mr. Crawford was eventually removed as developmental director, Mr. Carter had

to go on medical leave as a result of his experience, and resigned from Lilly in 2006.

25. Plaintiff Linda Chavis holds a Ph.d. in organizational leadership and management, and

was employed at Lilly between 1983 and October 2005, where she was a Senior Administrative

Assistant at the time of her separation. Ms. Chavis was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. She was told that she did not have the experience or expertise for the positions

52

she applied for, yet even after obtained a BA in 2000 and an MBA in 2002, it did not help her. Ms.

Chavis’s white peers received the grooming and support from management for their advancement

and promotion.

Ms. Chavis’s Senior Marketing Assistant position was eliminated in 2004, yet she was not

placed in a position that was equal to her education and experience, and was forced to take an

Administrative Assistant position.. A white female counterpart whose position was also eliminated

received support from management, and was appropriately placed. Although Ms. Chavis was

promised that her position would be reclassified to a higher grade, this never happened. When Ms.

Chavis complained about this treatment, her supervisor started to nit-pick her performance. Ms.

Chavis was terminated in October 2005 for allegedly not paying for a cup of coffee.

26. Plaintiff Jackie Ray Colbert has been working as a production worker at Lilly since 1999.

Mr. Colbert has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. He is a

licensed aircraft mechanic but has never been able to get a position using his mechanical skills.

When there was a position for a line mechanic, a Caucasian was hired with less qualifications than

Mr. Colbert. Several Caucasian co-workers with less seniority have been given more opportunities

and responsibilities and more training. When Mr. Colbert tried coming in on his off days to receive

training, he was told that this was not necessary. However, Caucasians who wanted to come in for

training on their off days were encouraged to do so.

27. Plaintiff Craig Coleman holds a BS degree in engineering, and has worked at Lilly since

2000. Mr. Coleman’s white coworkers with less experience were brought in as senior engineers at

Level 54. He was a Level 52 Project Engineer in Indy Dry Manufacturing and Packaging until 2006,

when he left Manufacturing to join the Corporate Procurement office. In 2008, Mr. Coleman was

53

promoted to a senior-level position at Level 54.

Mr. Colemen has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process.

While in Manufacturing, Mr. Coleman’s expertise was utilized to train nearly every white co-worker

of his as they surpassed him in development. Mr. Coleman devised a testing strategy that eliminated

a malfunction in a product, yet after Mr. Coleman’s report was accepted, a white coworker received

the credit. Mr. Coleman complained to his management, but nothing was done.

Mr. Coleman also designed the equipment layout and containment strategy on a high

visibility project, and was scheduled to travel to Puerto Rico with two white coworkers to investigate

technologies for containment. However, despite being more involved in the project, Mr. Coleman

was not sent to Puerto Rico, and was informed that the trip was more in line with the career

development of a white colleague, who was promoted to team leader in 2003. The project was

transferred to another, less experienced white colleague, who took over the responsibilities for the

project Mr. Coleman had designed, and was also promoted to team leader.

Mr. Coleman became involved in the African-American Network in 2002, and became the

chair in 2003. In this role, Mr. Coleman shared with senior management common themes African-

American employees experienced throughout Lilly. For example, Mr. Coleman partnered with co-

plaintiff Joy Mason to solicit the experiences of fifteen African-American employees, whose case

studies were presented to senior management in the Manufacturing function. However, management

did not follow-up on this study. Mr. Coleman’s managers did not support his involvement in this

Network, and he was forced to take a vacation day to participate at the 2004 African-American

Forum.

28. Plaintiff Robin Coleman is employed by Lilly as a Sales Representative in the Texas region.

54

Ms. Coleman has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Despite

consistently reaching her goals as defined by her PM and remaining in the top 5% sales for the

Neuroscience division nationally; she is not given the same opportunities for grooming and

advancement as her white colleagues. Ms. Coleman went forward with an internal EEO complaint

along with co-plaintiffs John Boyd and Janell McSween-Hicks, but received no relief.

29. Plaintiff Helen Curry has been employed at Lilly since 1990, and was an insurance clerk until

2003, when she became a Level 28 Assistant Clerk in the Human Resources department of U.S.

Sales. Ms. Curry has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She has

never received a promotion in her 18 years of employment. Despite being rated successfully on her

performance evaluations, Ms. Curry receives smaller raises than her white colleagues for doing

comparable work.

30. Plaintiff Monique Davenport was employed at Lilly between September 2003 and July

2005, and was a Sales Representative. Despite being the MVP of her sales training class in 2003, Ms.

Davenport was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Ms. Davenport was

denied promotions in favor of her white colleagues, and was repeatedly told by her manager that,

while she met expectations, she was brought in at “too high” of a salary. Ms. Davenport’s manager

never provided any explanations for the lack of raises and promotions while she was employed at

Lilly. Ms. Davenport left Lilly as a result of the discrimination she experienced.

31. Plaintiff Courtenay Davis holds an MPA degree, and was employed by Lilly between January

2002 and March 2006 as a Level 52 Neuroscience Retail Sales Representative. Ms. Davis was

adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She was paid less than two of her

colleagues despite having more experience than both colleagues, and having more education than

55

one of her colleagues. Ms. Davis was informed that she would be fired if she took this equal pay

issues through the internal EEO process. Ms. Davis was terminated in March 2006.

32. Plaintiff Lisa Davis has been employed at Lilly since 1991, and is currently a Level 40

Specialist in Indy Dry Packaging. Ms. Davis has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. In 2002, when Ms. Davis was in Clinical Trials, she took the job of a white

female; however, this white colleague was brought back to her old position at a higher rate of pay

than Ms. Davis. In 2003, Ms. Davis’s area was reorganized, and her supervisors wanted her to train

a white female. Ms. Davis’s supervisor gave her a verbal warning in 2003 based on her alleged

refusal to train the white female colleague. When Ms. Davis told her side of the story, the supervisor

stated she would take away the verbal warning. However, Ms. Davis’s supervisor was still singling

her out, and so Ms. Davis went to HR. Ms. Davis was informed that she should not have received

a verbal warning in the first place.

Ms. Davis was denied a Control Specialist position in March 2006 in favor of a white male

with less experience and qualifications. Ms. Davis complained to her HR representative, yet nothing

was done. At the end of 2006, Ms. Davis was allowed to post out for a QA Specialist position, but

was told by her Team Leader that she was wasting her time. Ms. Davis did not get the position, yet

the person hired turned down the position. Ms. Davis was offered the position, yet her Team Leader

did not provide the required information. Ms. Davis only obtained the position by having the

department that was hiring go over the head of her team leader.

33. Plaintiff Roderick Davis has been employed at Lilly since 1991, and until recently was a

Level 32 Validation Technician in the Global Parenteral Products section of the Manufacturing,

Science & Technology function. Mr. Davis has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

56

Management process. He was receiving lower pay raises than his white colleagues for performing

the same work. Mr. Davis was also subject to crude and demeaning behavior by his white mentor.

Mr. Davis’s mentor informed his supervisor in 2004 that Mr. Davis was not capable of doing

technical work in the Freeze Dryers unit, despite Mr. Davis receiving a quality award. Mr. Davis’s

opportunities for advancement and promotion were limited as a result of this lack of support from

his mentor and supervisor. Mr. Davis received a promotion only in 2008.

34. Plaintiff Sheryl Davis was a practicing dentist for 11 years and had 8 years of experience

in pharmaceutical sales before joining Lilly as a Senior Sales Representative in early 2000. Dr. Davis

has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She has repeatedly been

provided with assignments that involve the training and mentoring of inexperienced sales

representatives who have been promoted to more desirable assignments. Yet Davis has not been

recognized for her leadership and training roles. Instead she has been advised that her "behaviors"

in those areas are inadequate to lead to desirable assignments and promotions.

Dr. Davis has repeatedly identified available positions and requested transfers and/or

promotions to more desirable assignments that are likely to lead to promotions - such as speciality

representative assignments. Her managers have refused to provide her with the desirable

assignments and/or to support her in competing for promotional opportunities. These include an

institutional representative position filled by a less qualified white male in February 2004; and a

second institutional sales representative position assigned to his wife - a less qualified white female

in November 2005; and an account executive position that was given to the same white male in

March 2006.

Dr. Davis has repeatedly advised her managers that her pay is well below what her white

57

peers are paid - most recently in 2006. Dr. Davis filed an internal complaint of race discrimination

in pay, job assignments and promotions in late 2005. Shortly thereafter, her manager advised her

that she was too valuable in her current position to allow her to post for a hospital representative

position that she wanted - yet he encouraged her to post for a position that had long been vacant

because it was not likely to lead to success and promotions.

35. Plaintiff Crystal Derrick was employed as a Sales Representative in the Neuroscience

Division from 1998 to March 2006. Ms. Derrick was brought in as a Marketing Associate through

Lilly’s corporate hire program after receiving an MBA from Indiana University. The corporate hire

program is a targeted recruiting program that attempts to find candidates that Lilly then fast tracks

for advancement to management. Ms. Derrick was paid less than her white colleagues brought in

through the corporate hire program. Ms. Derrick was also adversely impacted by Defendant’s

Performance Management process. Her white peers in the program were also groomed for

advancement and promotion, while she was not. When Ms. Derrick left Lilly in March 2006, she

landed a position two levels above that she held at Lilly because of her education and experience.

36. Plaintiff Shazell “Cookie” Dixon has been employed at Lilly since 1990. Ms. Dixon is

currently in a Level 32 rotating receptionist position at Lilly Corporate Center as part of the Shared

Support Services function. Ms. Dixon began in Manufacturing, and took a Level 32 security guard

position at Lilly Corporate Center in 1999 after her position in Manufacturing was eliminated.

Ms. Dixon has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. In

2004, the security guard positions at LCC were outsourced except four Level 40-42 security

coordinator positions. Ms. Dixon applied for one of these positions, but a white male with less

seniority was promoted instead. Ms. Dixon then applied for a security guard position at Tippi Labs,

58

where all the security guards are white males. Ms. Dixon was once again passed over for a promotion

in favor of a white male with no security experience and less relevant training. She is also earning

a lower base salary and receives lower raises than her white counterparts that perform comparable

work.

Ms. Dixon has experienced a hostile work environment throughout her tenure at Lilly. During

her employment in Clinton in the early 1990s, she saw an effigy of a black man hanging in her

building. Ms. Dixon was subject to repeated racial epithets by her white colleagues. When she

complained, she was told that she should keep quiet. In February 2008, a rope resembling a noose

was hung on a tree near a parking lot at Lilly headquarters. Ms. Dixon was informed of this incident

by Dawn Johnson, an African-American security guard who encountered the noose. Ms. Dixon

brought this incident to the attention of Nick Marietta, Lilly’s director of homeland security yet he

never got back to Ms. Dixon.

37. Plaintiff Delise Douglas was employed as a Level 26 Lab Technician in the corporate quality

control function for Lilly Research Labs (LRL) between November 1993 and October 2002. Ms.

Douglas was the only African American lab assistant in that area, and worked under the assignment

of two senior research Ph.d’s. Ms. Douglas was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. Despite her good performance, she never received a lateral or bona fide

promotion in her area, yet two white colleagues within her unit that had lower seniority and less

experience received promotions. Ms. Douglas interviewed for a number of other positions she was

qualified for, but was not selected. She was also treated in a discriminatory manner by the Ph.d’s that

supervised her.

Ms. Douglas held a BA degree in General Studies, but wanted to further her career with Lilly

59

to move into the sales and marketing function. Upon obtaining a letter of recommendation from

then-CEO Sydney Taurel, Ms. Douglas became an MBA Candidate for the Wharton School of

Business. However, she never received the chance to accept the Lilly graduate school opportunity

because, shortly after receiving the recommendation, Ms. Douglas filed an internal claim of race

discrimination and sexual harassment against one of the Ph.d supervisors. As a result, Ms. Douglas

was subject to a hostile work environment and retaliation to the point that she had to leave on

medical stress leave.

38. Plaintiff Michelle Earley has a BA degree from Indiana Institute of Technology, and was

employed at Lilly as an Administrative Assistant in Information Technology between 1999 and July

2002, and as a Level 28 Financial Assistant in the Financial function from July 2002 to November

2006. Ms. Earley was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She

received lesser pay and grooming opportunities than a white counterpart, despite Ms. Earley’s

superior education. Ms. Earley was terminated in November 2006 for allegedly falsifying timesheets.

However, Ms. Earley’s white colleagues were not disciplined despite engaging in similar conduct

for which she was accused.

39. Plaintiff Brenda Edwards has been employed by Lilly since 1972. She is currently a Level

42 Marketing Specialist in the Information Technology function, and received the National

Marketing Global Award in 2006. Ms. Edwards has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. She is currently performing as a supervisor in responsibility, but not in pay

or rank. Ms. Edwards wanted to move into an exempt position, but was denied, while three of her

white colleagues moved from non-exempt to exempt despite having similar education and less

experience than she. Ms. Edwards has gone to human resources to ask them what she must do to

60

receive a promotion, but nothing has happened.

40. Plaintiff George Evans has been employed at Lilly since 1982, and is a Level 40

Formulations Technician in the Science & Technology function. Mr. Evans has been adversely

affected by Lilly’s Performance Management process. He has not been promoted since the mid-

1990s. He has also received lesser merit increases than his white colleagues for performing

comparable work. Mr. Evans sat in on a session to rank other employees, and pushed back on how

other African-Americans and his direct reports were being rated; as a result, he received lesser raises.

41. Plaintiff Ronald Fields was employed at Lilly between 1989 and April 2005, and retired as

a Capsule Operator in the Manufacturing function. Mr. Fields was adversely impacted by Lilly’s

Performance Management process. His last promotion was in 1994, and he was repeatedly denied

promotions in favor of white employees with similar or inferior qualifications. Mr. Fields’s white

colleagues would consistently receive extra help on projects that would position them for

advancement, while he and other African-American lab techs were stuck with “busy work.” Mr.

Fields repeatedly requested special projects that would enable him to advance his career, but was

denied the opportunity.

42. Plaintiff Darryl Finch was employed at Lilly between 1978 and August 2004, and was a

Level 23 Senior Process Operator of new synthetic products in the Manufacturing function. Mr.

Finch worked a night shift, and would often assume a supervisor’s responsibilities when his

supervisor would take off or leave early for the evening.

Mr. Finch was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. In October

2003, a supervisor position became available, and he was informed that management was going to

hire from within. It was soon brought to Mr. Finch’s attention that white counterparts with the same

61

or lesser experience had been approached with respect to their interest in the supervisor’s opening.

Some were told if they were interested that the job was theirs. Mr. Finch was never approached but

decided to inquire about the position. Although he was granted what would constitute an interview,

no consideration was given to his supervisory experience.

After Mr. Finch expressed interest in the supervisor’s position, the process for selecting the

finalist changed. Instead of each person being interviewed, they were appointed by the department

head. The four finalists were white males with less experience than Mr. Finch.

In August 2004, an error occurred while running a process that involved Mr. Finch and two

white colleagues. Mr. Finch documented the error, consulted with the engineer of the process and

under his guidance was advised how to correct the error and proceed. Yet as a result of this error he

was terminated on August 26, 2004 after 25 years of service, without any other disciplinary measures

considered. Although Mr. Finch thought the two white employees were also terminated, he was

informed by one of the employees, who had been at Lilly for 30 years, that he was allowed to retire

from Lilly instead of being terminated.

43. Plaintiff Steve Gentry joined Lilly in August 1992. He received a BS in Law Enforcement

Administration from Western Illinois University in 1984. Mr. Gentry served in the U.S. Army from

1975 to 1987. He is a Quality Control Assistant in Pharmaceutical Delivery Systems, and was

promoted to a Level 36 only in April 2008.

Mr. Gentry has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process.. In

2004 two Engineering Technician positions became available. The positions were awarded

to white candidates who did not have any education other than high school. One had (in 2004) two

years in PDS and six years at Lilly, as compared to Mr. Gentry's nine years at PDS and twelve years

62

at Lilly. This particular white counterpart, however, was a regular lunch and workout companion of

their direct supervisor. The second person selected had, as of 2004, approximately five years in PDS

and 14 years at Lilly. Mr. Gentry had more experience than either of them in doing the types of tests

expected to be performed by Engineering Technicians.

When Mr. Gentry asked why he wasn't selected for these positions despite his superior

qualifications, he was told that the people selected had more experience participating in Six Sigma

projects. However, these training opportunities had been denied to Mr. Gentry, but were afforded

to his white counterparts. He was not given an opportunity to participate in any Six Sigma projects,

except for one occasion in 2005. On another occasion, when there was a Six Sigma project

concerning Level 1, Cool testing which Mr. Gentry performed more than his peers, Mr. Gentry’s

supervisor asked for information on the test but sent one of the white Engineering Technicians to the

Six Sigma project. Mr. Gentry also asked for training to become a trainer for outside contractors, but

was not given this opportunity.

44. Plaintiff Danielle Gilliam was employed at Lilly between October 2000 and March 2004,

where she was a Specialty Sales Representative in the Neuroscience division. Ms. Gilliam was

adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Ms. Gilliam’s performance ratings

were subjective, and did not reflect her actual performance. Despite her qualifications, she was

passed over for promotions in favor of white colleagues. She posted for other positions and did not

get even though she was qualified. Ms. Gilliam left Lilly in March 2004 due to the discrimination

she experienced.

45. Plaintiff Natarshia Gray (Levy) has been employed at Lilly since July 2001, and is a Level

52 Global Business Integrator in the Information Technology function. Ms. Gray has been adversely

63

impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She is the only African-American in her area,

and has been denied training opportunities given to her white colleagues. She has also been subject

to a hostile environment. Ms. Gray’s Team Leader has acted in a hostile and threatening manner, and

provided unfair evaluations, even though Ms. Gray successfully implemented a “Bulk Load” project

and worked overtime. Ms. Gray is also intentionally excluded from team meetings by her Team

Leader. As a result of this hostile environment, Ms. Gray was forced to take leave in 2006, and she

subsequently filed an internal EEO complaint documenting the discrimination and harassment she

experienced on a daily basis. Ms. Gray moved to a different department in March 2008.

46. Plaintiff Lillian Green has more than two decades of experience as an Administrative

Assistant, and was employed at Lilly between 2001 and May 2007, where she was a Level 30

Administrative Assistant in Pharmaceutical Project Management in the Corporate function at the

time of her separation.

Ms. Green was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. A number

of Ms. Green’s white colleagues were hired in at higher pay grades doing the same work as Ms.

Green, despite having less experience than she. These employees also received higher raises and in-

line promotions, and received opportunities for grooming and coaching that were denied to Ms.

Green. Ms. Green’s workload was significantly greater than that of her white counterparts; in 2004,

for example, she was given responsibility for 58 clinical teams, and was assigned special projects,

while her white peers were only assigned 10 clinical teams. Ms. Green asked for a pay increase and

in-line pay grade promotion to match her white peers and to factor in her higher workload, but was

unsuccessful.

Ms. Green was subject to a hostile work environment, and was called the “n” word by a white

64

colleague in mid-2002. Upper management responded by indicating to her that there was nothing

wrong, and that Ms. Green did not embrace her white colleague, and should have went to lunch with

her. In 2006, a white manager was speaking to his executive assistant in Ms. Green’s vicinity, and

made a “Buckwheat” comment, after which the two white colleagues looked at Ms. Green. Ms.

Green contacted human resources, and an investigation was conducted, but no actions were taken.

Ms. Green was terminated in May 2007 in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination she

experienced.

47. Plaintiff Debra Hart has more than a quarter-century of health insurance experience, and has

been employed at Lilly since 1991, where she works in the HR Insurance Benefit department of

Lilly’s U.S. Corporate Affiliate. Ms. Hart has been adversely impacted by Defendant’s Performance

Management process. All opportunities for advancement in Ms. Hart’s department are given to a

small set of white employees, without everyone being advised of the promotion opportunities

available. Ms. Hart became aware during a February 2003 reallocation that this small group of white

employees in her department were in higher pay grades and classifications for performing

comparable work.

48. Plaintiff Buford Harvey worked in the Information Technology Department at Lilly from

June 1998 to July 2005. He has a BS degree in computer information systems, graduating magna

cum laude. Mr. Harvey was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. A

white male employee with lower grades at school, less experience, and less knowledge of sales and

marketing or of Lilly policies and procedures was appointed as Team Leader. Mr. Harvey had to

train his supervisor. Mr. Harvey's starting salary with his new employer, after he left Lilly in 2005,

was $22,500 higher than what he received at Lilly, a 38% increase. In addition he was given a

65

$10,000 sign on bonus.

49. Plaintiff Floyd Hawkins was employed at Lilly between 1972 and April 2007, and retired as

a Level 32 Customer Service Representative at LTC South and Plainfield. Mr. Hawkins was the only

African-American male in his area. Mr. Hawkins was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. Although he had been in the same department for eleven years prior to retiring,

he was never used to provide training to other employees, while his white colleagues were used for

such training. Mr. Hawkins was consistently told that he was doing an excellent job, but when job

opportunities would become available he would always be overlooked by his supervisor.

50. Plaintiff Marlon Heidelberg was hired by Lilly in January 2002 as a sales representative.

Mr. Heidelberg was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Despite

consistently ranking in the top 3% in sales in the entire nation, he never received a pay raise, unlike

his white counterparts. When Lilly gathered the top 5% sales representatives for a conference, Mr.

Heidelberg’s supervisor made up a reason to put him on written warning and he was not allowed to

attend. Mr. Heidelberg resigned from Lilly in June 2004.

51. Plaintiff Jimmy Housley was employed by Lilly between 1990 to 2007 in the Clinton Plant

working for the Elanco Animal Health function as a Production Technician. Mr. Housley was

adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. He received only one increase

from pay grade 26 to pay grade level 28 during his entire 17 year career. Mr. Housley earned less

than his white counterparts that were hired at the same time. He was denied also opportunities for

advancement that were given to his white counterparts. Mr. Housley also reported a Hangman’s

Noose that was dangling in the production area, yet Lilly took no action.

52. Plaintiff Monica Hubbard was employed at Lilly between 1990 and September 2002, and

66

was a Clinical Data Management Assistant. Ms. Hubbard was subject to a hostile work environment

by her managers over the course of several years, with numerous incidents of physical and verbal

abuse. On one occasion, Ms. Hubbard had a stress ball thrown at her chest. On another occasion, her

manager physically grabbed Ms. Hubbard’s right wrist at her desk; later on that day, this same

manager grabbed Ms. Hubbard by the back of her dress in front of other Lilly employees and told

Ms. Hubbard to come with her.

The racially hostile environment Ms. Hubbard was subjected to by her supervisors negatively

impacted her Performance Management ratings. Ms. Hubbard’s position was reallocated in 2002,

and she was given six months to find another position. Although she posted for numerous positions,

her Performance Management ratings and feedback from her human resources representative and

manager impeded her ability to be hired. Ms. Hubbard was passed over for positions in favor of

similarly qualified white employees. She left Lilly in September 2002.

53. Plaintiff Cassandra Hughes has been employed at Lilly since 1989, and is a Level 36 Senior

Computer System Technician in the Information Technology function. Ms. Hughes has never

received a negative performance review in her career at Lilly. However, Ms. Hughes has been

adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. In 2004, she and two other women

were told to find jobs elsewhere, as their current positions were outsourced. Ms. Hughes was passed

over for the promotion in favor of a white colleague who had an inferior performance history. Ms.

Hughes has also been denied by her supervisor the training opportunities that are needed for her

advancement and promotion.

54. Plaintiff Cynthia Hunter has been employed at Lilly since 2000, where she is a Level 54 in

Individual Contributor in the Regulatory Affairs Division. Ms. Hunter was hired into a group leader

67

role, but has been paid an analytical chemist salary. When Ms. Hunter inquired about this disparity,

she was told that she would need to supervise seven or more employees to get the title, but not the

pay increase. Ms. Hunter’s white counterparts have not gone through this same process.

Ms. Hunter has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. When

Ms. Hunter asked a white supervisor why she was not receiving pay raises, Ms. Hunter was told that

she was not “diplomatic” enough. Ms. Hunter has also been denied grooming opportunities for

promotion and advancement that are given to her white counterparts.

As a leader, Ms. Hunter has direct reports, but is denied the Level 56 pay that is normally

given to leaders. Ms. Hunter has two chemists as direct reports, with the African-American chemist

earning less than her white colleague for doing the same work. Although Ms. Hunter has

recommended her African-American chemist for promotions and merit increases, Ms. Hunter’s

supervisors have turned down her recommendations in favor of the white chemist.

55. Plaintiff Rainford Hunter holds a BS in Industrial Technology and an MA in Environmental

Engineering, and was employed at Lilly between May 2001 and May 2002, and was a Quality

Account Leader for Biosynthetic Human Insulin in the Manufacturing function. Mr. Hunter was

partnered with a white female mentor just out of college and with no experience. The white female

wanted to make herself look good by making Mr. Hunter look bad. Mr. Hunter reported her behavior

to management, yet no action was taken.

Mr. Hunter was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. He was

the only African-American in his group, and did not receive the same opportunities for grooming and

advancement as his white colleagues. He was given more responsibility than his white colleagues

without being given the same pay. Mr. Hunter had to respond to twice as many deviations and

68

incidents as his white colleagues because he was working alone, and was forced to take over

additional assignments for a white colleague in addition to his own workload because she was being

groomed for the position of senior process engineer. Mr. Hunter decided to resign from Lilly in May

2002.

56. Plaintiff Tito Jackson was employed at Eli Lilly from 2004 to 2005 as a Pharmaceutical Sales

Representative. Mr. Jackson was subject to a hostile work environment in his position. During his

tour of the “Lilly Mansion”, Mr. Jackson noticed there were swastika tiles decorating the floors. On

one occasion, he was interrogated for three hours as his white supervisors attempted to prove he was

lying about a doctor’s name he had filled out. Mr. Jackson’s African-American colleagues were

subjected to the same treatment as part of a general plan to prove that African-Americans within the

department weren’t working. Mr. Jackson never saw or heard any of his white counterparts being

subjected to such treatment. This hostile working environment eventually led him to quit and seek

employment elsewhere.

57. Plaintiff Thomas Johnson has been employed at Lilly since 2003, and is currently a Level 30

Production Technician. Mr. Johnson has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. In June 2008, Mr. Johnson applied for a line leader position, yet he was passed

over in favor of a white male colleague with lesser qualifications. Mr. Johnson’s current supervisor

informed Mr. Johnson that he should have been selected for this position, but was overruled by the

team leader.

58. Plaintiff Maria Jones has worked at Lilly since 1978. She is currently a level 56 Associate

Information Consultant. Ms. Jones has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. Her last promotion was in July 2002. Her 2005 review states that she had "a

69

very successful year," with an outstanding rating on implementation with quality, speed and value.

Her resulting merit increase brought her from 9% to 25% of the pay range. Since 1996, she has

consistently been paid less than 25% of the pay range, averaging about 18%. Ms. Jones is paid about

30% less than a level 56 white male, reporting to the same manager, who has been at Lilly four years

less than her. There are two additional white non-team-leader level 56 employees reporting to her

manager. Ms. Jones believes that she is paid less than either of them, despite having several years

more seniority.

Ms. Jones has consistently received average to outstanding ratings except for a 2 (on a scale

of 1-5) for 9 months in 2003 when a new manager took over the unit. In less than 2 years this

manager fired two African-American contract employees, caused two other African-Americans to

leave the company, and caused Ms. Jones to seek a transfer (after the manager threatened her with

demotion or termination). This removed all African-Americans from this manager's unit. When Ms.

Jones had complained about this manager's racism, the company did nothing to help except for

allowing her to transfer to a new area.

59. Plaintiff Walter Jones was employed at Lilly from 1982 through 2004. He was the only

African-American Production Technician 3 (grade 40) among twelve white peers. He had received

many awards for outstanding performance. Mr. Jones was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. Prior to the arrival of a new department head, in late 2002 or early 2003, his

performance ratings were always above "satisfactory" and were often "commendable" or "superior."

After the new Department Head's arrival, Mr. Jones was subject to verbal abuse, putdowns, stares

and glares, and falsely accused of mistakes. After Mr. Jones complained in 2003 to Human

Resources about this manager's favoritism in promotions and merit increases and unequal work loads

70

for the night shift, which Mr. Jones supervised, the situation worsened. Mr. Jones was fired in

November 2004 due to allegations that he falsified a water flushing log. This was not true.

Moreover, many white workers made similar mistakes as the one Mr. Jones was accused of, but they

were not terminated.

60. Plaintiff Della Jules was employed by Lilly beginning in 2000 on a contract basis, and then

from 2002 to June 2003 on a permanent basis as a Scientific Communications Assistant. Ms. Jules

was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Although she continued to get

good feedback from her customers, her managers began to give her negative feedback. Ms. Jules

requested a development plan, but did not receive one. She then raised the issue of unfair treatment

to her manager and to HR that she did not receive a bonus like her white counterparts who had all

did similar work for a product team. Ms. Jules also raised the issue of what had become a hostile

work environment. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Jules was terminated without notice in retaliation for

reporting her discriminatory treatment..

61. Plaintiff Cynthia Keough was hired as a grade 52 Systems Analyst in May 2000. She was

promoted to a grade 56 Team Leadership position in June 2001. However Lilly did not provide her

the training and mentoring required for success as a Team Leader. Ms. Keough has been adversely

impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Caucasians hired after her were given

significantly more coaching and mentoring for success in leadership roles. In February 2004, Ms.

Keough agreed to transfer to a Team Leadership position in Greenfield,Indiana. When several

members of the Greenfield team complained to Human Resources about her team leadership, Ms.

Keough was not supported. In March 2005, she was demoted to a grade 54 Senior Systems Analyst

position, back in Indianapolis. She received a highly successful rating for her performance in 2005.

71

However, she and the other African-American female on the team were the only team members not

to receive year end gift checks for their hard work during the year. Ms. Keough and the other

African-American female received merit increases of only 4%, which they believe were the lowest

merit percentages on the team.

62. Plaintiff Darlean King was employed by Lilly as a Hospital Account Executive from April

2001-December 2003. Thereafter, Lilly has employed her as a Sales Representative. She has a

Master of Science degree in nursing. Ms. King has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. In 2003 she and the other African-Americans on the ten person team were the

only team members not to receive merit increases, while her sales record exceeded many of those

who received increases. (A Caucasian sales representative in the team, during his exit interview at

Lilly, complained to Human Resources about the "good ole boy" network being supported by

management and pointed specifically to the unfairness of he and other Caucasian sales

representatives receiving merit increases, while Ms. King, whose sales performance was better than

theirs, did not.)

There used to be two Hospital Account Executive positions in St. Louis, one for St. Louis

East and one for St. Louis West. When the St. Louis East position became vacant in May 2002, Ms.

King covered most of that area, in addition to her own St. Louis West, for a five month period. A

white female was hired in November 2002, to cover St. Louis East. This assignment was made in

spite of a hiring freeze and in spite of a study then under way of the possibilities of consolidating the

two divisions. No other vacancies in the Business to Business division were filled during this period.

When the downsizing of the Business to Business division occurred at the end of 2003, the

recently-hired white female was given responsibility for the full St. Louis area, while the

72

more-experienced Ms. King was given the choice of relocating out of St. Louis or accepting a

lower-ranking position. Defendant justified the selection of the recently-hired white female over Ms.

King on the grounds that it had selected the Hospital Account Executive with the "highest

cumulative value of customer accounts." Although these words appear to be an objective

race-neutral criterion, the decision to hire the white female in November 2002, in spite of the hiring

freeze, and the allocation of accounts between her and Ms. King, led directly to the white female

having the higher cumulative value of customer accounts in December 2003.

Ms. King filed an EEOC complaint in April 2004. Since Ms. King filed the EEOC

complaint, she has attempted on three occasions to compete for a position in Missouri at her former

grade level. In each case someone else (not African-American) was selected. This included her

attempt to regain her former St. Louis Hospital Account Executive position, which became vacant

in mid-2005. The non-African-American person selected for the position was on medical leave and

was approached to consider being interviewed for the position. She was interviewed for a short time

and was offered the position on the spot.

In June 2006, when Ms. King applied for another Missouri position in her former Business

to Business Division, a Hispanic male, who had voluntarily accepted a lower level position two

months earlier to be able to return to Missouri, was allowed to compete for the position. The rule

prohibiting posting for new positions until after two years in position was waived to permit him to

compete. This Hispanic male was selected for the position. Ms. King's former manager, Jaime

Tinnin, did not speak to the hiring manager on Ms. King's behalf for this position, even though Ms.

Tinnin said she would. Ms. King continues to receive different treatment in the form of not being

showcased like her white counterparts. For example, her District Manager does not forward her "best

73

practice" voicemails to his regional manager as he does with her white counterparts. In addition,

there have been several occasions where a person outside Ms. King's team recognized her for her

achievements, yet her District Manager deliberately disparaged these achievements before her peers.

63. Plaintiff Shawna King has been employed at Lilly since 2001, and is a Level 34 Senior

Computer Systems Technician. Ms. King’s starting pay at Lilly was not in line with her fifteen years

of IT experience. Ms. King has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management

process. She has always performed well above her job description and has done the same work as

her white colleagues, yet she is paid less. In her present job, Ms. King shares the same role as two

of her white co-worker (EIS Portfolio Manager), yet they are salaried employees while she is not.

64. Plaintiff Mildred Ledford was employed at Lilly between June 2002 and April 2007 as a

Senior Administrative Assistant. Ms. Ledford was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

management process. A white counterpart with less experience was promoted to a team leader

position over her. Ms. Ledford also earned less than white administrative assistants, despite the fact

that she had won several awards and had more experience.

Ms. Ledford was also given a disproportionately large workload which led to such stress that

she eventually had to see a therapist. She was required to send an email when she got to work and

another one announcing when she was leaving. None of her white counterparts were required to do

this.

Ms. Ledford complained about her treatment in 2006 and was subsequently retaliated

against. She was degraded until she was not given the opportunity to be interviewed. She was even

required to withdraw from consideration for some positions. Ms. Ledford was terminated in April

2007.

74

65. Plaintiff Serena Macklin has been employed at Lilly since 2003, and is a currently a Level

54 senior process engineer grade working in the Research and Development area. Ms. Macklin came

to Lilly with an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering and an MBA, along with nine years

of related experience, yet she was hired in as a pay grade 52, which is lower than her white

counterparts with less education and experience than she.

Ms. Macklin has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She

has repeatedly been rated high successful in her performance plan, but did not receive even an in-line

promotion to Level 54 until March 2008, a year after she transferred out of her current manager’s

area of manufacturing to research and development under new management.

In her previous position of Level 52 Quality Engineer in Manufacturing, Ms. Macklin

received less merit pay than her white counterparts for greater work in those same assignments. Ms

Macklin’s supervisor admitted that she outperformed her white colleagues, and he needed her

expertise to ensure he received promotion to team leader; for which she was not considered. Ms.

Macklin performed the work for projects but her white counterpart received the visibility for the

assignment of the projects. Ms. Macklin approached her manager to request the same visibility on

her projects as her white counterparts, but was repeatedly denied.

Ms. Macklin was often not given clear feedback and direction in terms of her own personal

development, yet she was advised she did not “model the Lilly values” if she did not do the work to

support her white counterpart’s readiness for promotion. Ms. Macklin asked for support from her

supervisor to post for other positions that would better utilize her abilities so she could get

recognized for her own work, but was denied the support for the stated reason that they needed her

expertise in that area. However, Ms. Macklin’s white counterpart was supported by management for

75

similar moves, receiving promotions to Level 56 team leader roles.

Ms. Macklin complained about unfair treatment as she observed her white counterparts with

less experience and education moving ahead of her. Ms. Mcklin was told she needed to focus on her

Lilly behaviors and model Lilly values by not questioning management decisions. After Ms. Macklin

continued to support the promotion of the two white counterparts to Level 56, she was finally

allowed to take a lateral move out of the area.

66. Plaintiff Joy Mason has been employed at Lilly since 1989, and is currently a Level 56

Associate Quality Consultant as part of the Quality and Control function. Ms. Mason has been

adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She has been passed over for

promotions in favor of white counterparts with less experience than she. Ms. Mason has expressed

interest in moving to Human Resources and away from a technical career track. However, she has

not received grooming to position herself for HR positions.

Ms. Mason has been deemed as not having manager potential during recent succession

management discussions, even though her performance has been successful over the past 18 years,

and exceptional during a recent team leader assignment in which she received an exception grant.

Ms. Mason has been outspoken about the opportunities for promotion and advancement

denied to herself and other African-American employees in the Quality and Manufacturing division.

In January 2008, Ms. Mason sent a letter to the Executive Director of HR for Quality and

Manufacturing expressing her continued frustration at the lack of career development for herself and

other African-American employees, and the negative impact on her career opportunities. In 3rd

quarter 2007, Ms. Mason posted for an open team leader position in HR Recruiting and Staffing and

hoped her supervisor would convey positive feedback. Instead, Ms. Mason was deemed as not being

76

a “good fit” for the job by the HR director. When Ms. Mason confronted her HR director in writing,

she admitted that she had been criticized by her own supervisor due to her lack of response regarding

Ms. Mason’s escalation of concerns on behalf of African-American employees throughout 2005 and

2006.

67. Plaintiff John McFarlin was employed at Lilly between 1973 and October 2003, and retired

as a Level 30 Facilities Services Technician. Mr. McFarlin was adversely impacted by Lilly’s

Performance Management process. He was consistently paid less than his white colleagues for

performing similar work. Shortly before his retirement, Mr. McFarlin was informed he would be

promoted to a senior operator position, but was instead made a junior operator, with the senior

position given to a white male with far less experience. Mr. McFarlin complained to his HR

representative and management with respect to unequal pay and promotions, but nothing was done.

Mr. McFarlin was also subject to a hostile work environment at Lilly. When he transferred

to Indianapolis, an employee put a KKK badge on his desk. He was also subjected to racial slurs by

his white colleagues; his first supervisor in Indianapolis called him the “n” word, and told him he

would never receive a pay raise. Mr. McFarlin complained to management about this racial

harassment, but nothing was done.

68. Plaintiff JaNell McSween-Hicks, who holds an MBA degree, has been employed at Lilly

since 2003, and is a Senior Sales Representative. Ms. McSween-Hicks has been adversely impacted

by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She is paid less in base pay and merit pay than her

white peers despite her similar performance. Despite having always reached her quota since

becoming a member of supervisor Kevin Krambeer’s team, she has never received a merit increase.

A white peer received a merit increase despite being kicked out of three hospital accounts for

77

disobeying access rules and being placed on "special projects" because he had no accounts to call

whatsoever. Ms. McSween-Hicks has been passed over for promotions in favor of white peers with

similar qualifications.

After Ms. McSween-Hicks relocated to Community Mental Health Center ("CMHC") in the

Neurosciences Division, Lilly reduced the amount of coverage from five representatives to one. Mr.

Krambeer, Ms. McSween-Hicks’s supervisor, threatened her with termination or transfer in March

2006 for not meeting her frequency numbers and told her she could never make the frequency by

herself, without considering the recent reduction in sales representatives covering the territory. Mr.

Krambeer threatened her with termination on other occasions, and put Ms. McSween-Hicks on a

written warning. However, Ms. McSween’s white colleagues were not disciplined despite engaging

in the same conduct that for which she was written up.

Ms. McSween-Hicks went on maternity leave from October 2006 to March 2007. When she

returned, the hostile work environment on the part of Mr. Krambeer continued. Ms. McSween-Hicks

asked to be transferred to another division, but Mr. Krambeer refused. Finally, Ms. McSween-Hicks

filed an EEO complaint on June 8, 2007, and provided specific examples, with written

documentation, of discrimination on her team.

69. Plaintiff Nichelle “Nikki” Miles was hired by Lilly in August 2002 in production. Ms. Miles

was hired at the same time as six white males on the second shift, yet was paid less for performing

similar work, despite Ms. Miles’s superior education and training. Ms. Miles has been adversely

impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She is paid less than her white colleagues

for performing comparable work.

In August 2004, after moving to the day shift, Ms. Miles asked her supervisor to come in late

78

one day a week so she could make up the time in order to attend school at night. This request was

denied. However, a white male colleagues from the second shift was allowed to come in late two

days a week in order to attend college.

Ms. Miles took time off from work in early 2006 due to a medical condition. When she

returned to work in April 2006, her position had been given to a white female. Ms. Miles’s new

white supervisor claimed that the job fit her better. However, the white female colleague had to be

trained for Ms. Miles’s position. Ms. Miles was instead given “clean up work” that no one else

would do, and that would not put her in position for promotions.

70. Plaintiff AJ Miller was employed at Lilly between 1999 and 2008. Mr. Miller had been a

District Sales Manager in Cincinnati between February 2003 and December 2005, where he had won

awards for the top 25% portfolio, and was Rookie Manager of the Year, as well as a District

Achievement Trip. Mr. Miller was realigned as the District Sales Manager in Dayton, Ohio in

January 2006 as a Level 60, where he was responsible for coaching, training and supporting 13 sales

representatives.

Mr. Miller was singled out for discrimination by his supervisor, Sherry Korczynski based on

his race. A white female who reported to Mr. Miller, Sara Gribbins, had reported to HR compliance

that a black female, Dana Davis, was engaging in behavior Ms. Gribbins deemed unethical. Ms.

Gribbins asked Mr. Miller not to let Ms. Davis to know that she was the source of the complaint. Mr.

Miller, however, refused to lie for her. After a conference call between the three, Ms. Gribbins

apologized to Ms. Davis. Nonetheless, Ms. Gribbins went to HR accusing Mr. Miller of yelling at

her for reporting the situation to HR. Ms. Korczynski had sent him a written performance warning

of unacceptable work, which stated that Mr. Miller tried to block Ms. Gribbins from reporting Red

79

Book compliance issues to HR. Although Ms. Korczynski conceded to Mr. Miller that the facts

underlying the written warning were inaccurate, she did not change the warning despite promising

to do so.

In September 2007, a new supervisor, Bridget Franz, was appointed. Ms. Franz, like her

predecessor, treated Mr. Miller unfairly based on his race. Ms. Franz was argumentative with Mr.

Miller at their very first meeting, and told Mr. Miller to step down as District Sales Manager at this

meeting despite his superior performance. Mr. Miller was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. When Mr. Miller put in for an assignment in compliance, Ms. Franz said that

he would not be supported for that or other positions. Yet she supported his white colleagues with

similar qualifications for other positions. Mr. Miller was also paid less than his white colleagues for

performing the same work; Mr. Miller heard them discussing their salary package and realized they

were making more than he.

Mr. Miller went on medical leave as a result the hostile work environment created by Ms.

Franz. Mr. Miller finally decided to resign from Lilly in January 2008.

71. Plaintiff Nathaniel Milton has been employed at Lilly since 1989, and is currently a

Level 62 Research Advisor and Group Leader. He obtained a PhD in 1995 from Purdue University,

majoring in Industrial Physical Pharmacy. Mr. Milton us currently a Level 62 Research Advisor and

Group Leader, and is regarded as an exemplary performer and leader at Lilly with direct leadership

roles with the African-American community.

Mr Milton first experienced discrimination working in a hostile environment as the Manager

of Technical Services (Level 60) in 2000-2002 and as a Principle Research Scientist (Level 60)

between 2002-2005, where he was denied promotion. Mr. Milton notes that the technical promotion

80

process is 100% subjective, based largely on the advocate one has in the room at the time. Moreover,

the business processes are broken, because there is little oversight by HR and leadership to ensure

there is proper balance. There is no alignment between individual performance and meeting business

objectives, and one’s performance rating and development plans because of the “forced rating”

system. This process is inconsistent, and adds another layer of subjectivity because it compares one’s

performance to that of peers. As a result, perception and opinion (subjective information) is not

balanced with actual performance deliverables.

In 2004, Mr. Milton sought a promotion, and received written feedback in reference to his

Performance Management behaviors. As an initial matter, the written feedback identified the wrong

person in reference to an argument. The feedback also stated that Mr. Milton offended someone for

bringing up the Lilly Red Book. The promotion Mr. Milton was seeking was denied, but no feedback

for development was provided. The feedback Mr. Milton did receive was not connected with job

content, and was merely “touchy feely” with no measurables. Mr. Milton’s HR Manager called a

“timeout” because his management was trying to justify their decisions with data they were making

up in the session, and not applicable to written feedback.

Mr. Milton was also subject to a hostile work environment at the hands of his supervisor and

HR representative. He shared his experiences in manufacturing with the Director of Workforce

Diversity when they attended a workshop together to demonstrate why he had no further interest in

management. He also shared this information with Lilly’s Manager of EEOC with respect to the

hostile work environment. The response was merely that Mr. Milton had a “tough boss.”

72. Plaintiff Eleanor Mitchell has been employed at Lilly since 1990, and was a Packaging

Technician. Ms. Mitchell was the first African-American employed in her area. Ms. Mitchell has

81

been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Despite consistently

receiving positive performance reviews, Ms. Mitchell was paid less than her white colleagues who

performed similar work. Ms. Mitchell was on Extended Disability Leave (EDL) beginning in 2004,

and as of April 2008 is receiving a pension, though she is not officially retired.

73. Plaintiff Ruby Moaney holds a BA in Journalism and an MA in Communications, and

worked as a writer and editor in the Information Technology function for four years, when she

transferred to the Quality Assurance function as a technical writer. From February 2006 to

September 2006, Ms. Moaney worked in the Training Associate in the Manufacturing function. She

remained a Level 52 throughout her tenure at Lilly.

Ms. Moaney was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She was

paid less than white colleagues who performed similar work. A white female colleague with similar

education and who started the same time as Ms. Moaney came in as a “senior associate” at a higher

pay level than Ms. Moaney. Ms. Moaney was not provided the training while a Training Associate

that would have positioned her for advancement and promotion. Ms. Moaney took her concerns to

HR, yet nothing was done. Ms. Moaney left Lilly in September 2006.

74. Plaintiff Latoya Neal was employed at Lilly between July 2003 and October 2005, and was

a Pharmaceutical Sales Representative. Ms. Neal received excellent performance reviews, and had

never been progressively disciplined. However, she was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. Her raises were significantly less than what her white coworkers received

performing similar work. Ms. Neal was terminated from Lilly for allegedly falsifying customer calls.

Ms. Neal recorded as “detail only” her visits to the office of a doctor who was otherwise very

difficult to reach. Ms. Neal eventually discovered the protocol of the doctor’s office, which showed

82

that he was very difficult to reach. Thus, if Ms. Neal violated the protocol, then white sales

representatives did as well. However, white sales representatives that treated such visits similarly

were not terminated. Ms. Neal filed a charge with the EEOC as a result of the discriminatory

treatment she experienced at Lilly.

75. Plaintiff Greg Newland was employed at Lilly between May 1999 and October 2004, where

he was a Specialty Training Manager in Sales Training. Mr. Newland was adversely impacted by

Lilly’s Performance Management process, and earned less than his white counterparts performing

comparable work. Mr. Newland was also subject to a hostile environment while at Lilly. On one

occasion, Mr. Newland’s director wanted to meet everyone's families, and scheduled a week-long

meeting at an off-site hotel in southern Indiana approximately three hours away. This area of Indiana

made Mr. Newland uncomfortable and concerned due to the racist history and past racial tension in

the area. Due to these concerns, he did not allow his family to come. After this week-long meeting,

Mr. Newland and another African-American male who also did not let his family come were treated

differently from those in the Company who had brought their families.

76. Plaintiff Rene Norman has been a production worker at Lilly since 2000. He has received

one promotion, from Operator to Process Operator in 2002. While at Lilly, Mr. Norman earned an

Associate Degree in Business Administration in 2002 and a Bachelors Degree in Business and

Information Systems in 2005. However, he has been denied opportunities to put this training to use

at Lilly.

Mr. Norman has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process.

Several Lilly managers have requested that Mr. Norman apply for professional positions under their

supervision. However, Mr. Norman has been refused permission to post for these positions, on the

83

grounds that "business needs" required him to stay in his current position as a process operator.

Caucasian staff doing similar work have been permitted to post for positions outside his unit. Several

Caucasian production workers hired with or after Mr. Norman, and who have no degrees beyond

high school, have been promoted to positions higher than Mr. Norman. At least one Caucasian

production worker hired after Mr. Norman, who obtained a degree after he was hired, was promoted

to be an Engineering Technician after obtaining his degree.

77. Plaintiff Chris Norris holds BS and MBA degrees, and was employed by Lilly between 2003

and March 2007, where he ended up a Level 52 Systems Analyst in the Information Technology

function. Mr. Norris was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. He was

denied promotions in favor of similarly qualified white counterparts. Mr. Norris also had to take on

the workload of a white female colleague while she was groomed for larger assignments. When Mr.

Norris would ask for training opportunities outside his group, he would be consistently denied, while

a white female colleague with less education was able to obtain such opportunities.

In March 2006, Mr. Norris was brought into a new group as a Systems analyst, and was

subject to constant threats, intimidation, and cursing by his white Team Leader between March and

December of that year, while his white counterparts were not treated similarly. Mr. Norris also

received a negative Performance Management review in 2006 for the first time at Lilly. As a result

of this hostile environment, Mr. Norris’s physical and mental health were affected. Mr. Norris left

Lilly in March 2007 as a result of the hostile environment and denial of opportunities to advance his

career.

78. Plaintiff Anita Nowlen was employed at Lilly beginning in 1974, and retired in 2004 as a

Level 32 Purchasing Assistant in Procurement. Ms. Nowlen earned a BA degree in 1992, and

84

requested to obtain a Masters of Science Management (MSM), yet was repeatedly denied by her

management over the course of three years. The MS degree would have provided the opportunity to

move from Procurement to Human Resources, which is what the test scores from her Strong

Inventory Test stated was one of her strong test points. However, Ms. Nowlen was informed by three

different department heads that they would not pay for her studies, claiming her job did not require

a master’s degree.

Ms. Nowlen served on behalf of Lilly as a United Way Torchbearer, Lilly Panel member, Site

Coordinator, and Loan Associate. Lilly employees who served in these leadership roles are generally

promoted shortly afterward as a result of their assignments, but Ms. Nowlen did not receive any

promotions.

Ms. Nowlen was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She was

paid less than her white counterparts that performed similar work; moreover, her salary had to be

adjusted upward just so that she would remain in the minimum of her percent in range. Ms. Nowlen

applied for several Senior Purchasing jobs due to her years of purchasing experience, but was not

even granted interviews; a white female colleague that was hired from a temporary placement

agency was promoted to Senior Purchasing Assistant after only two years of experience as

Purchasing Assistant- the position Ms. Nowlen held. On another occasion, Ms. Nowlen had the

support of her Department Head to move through the Targeted Selection process so that she could

move from non-exempt to exempt status, yet her manager did not support her.

Ms. Nowlen was also subject to hostile treatment by her supervisors, and was consistently

belittled. Between January and March 2003, Ms. Nowlen was given the menial task of opening

thousands of pieces of mail and to log in the data. As a result of the discriminatory treatment she

85

experienced, particularly between 2000 and 2004, Ms. Nowlen took early retirement the first day she

was eligible in 2004.

79. Plaintiff Robert O'Neal has been with Lilly since 1968. He is currently a Senior Bio-process

Operator (grade 34) and is the Safety Coordinator for his shift. Mr. O'Neal has been adversely

impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. He received his last promotion in 1981.

Similarly situated Caucasians have been provided preference in promotion opportunities. In 2004

the time in grade requirement for promotion to the upper grade positions for production staff was

increased from 1 year to 3 years. Four Caucasians were promoted before the time in grade

requirement changed. The opportunity to apply for such promotions was announced with the

deadline only a few weeks away, while applicants would normally have 2 months to prepare the

required paper work. At least one Caucasian production worker received assistance from a Human

Resources Department staff member in preparing his application. None of the African-American

production workers were given such assistance.

80. Plaintiff Melissa Orosco holds an MBA degree from Duke, and was employed as a Sales

Representative in the Neuroscience Division between June 2001 and July 2004. Ms. Orosco was

adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process; her ratings were inconsistent with

her sales results. Despite being ranked number one in her area, Ms. Orosco was passed over for a

promotion in favor of a white male counterpart with an inferior sales performance. Ms. Orosco was

also harassed by her manager, who claimed that she was “paid too much,” and she was eventually

forced out of Lilly in 2004.

81. Plaintiff Carolyn Owsley began working for Lilly in 1964, and was a Senior Administrative

Assistant in the Legal function between June 2002 and her retirement in December 2004. The work

86

Ms. Owsley was given was not the same as it was presented in the interview for the Senior

Administrative Assistant position, and there was no opportunity for advancement. The tasks for the

position were instead given to a white counterpart.

Ms. Owsley was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She

approached management about being given more substantive tasks, but was ignored. Ms. Owsley

asked for another job, but was told she needed to stay on for two years. Yet when a specialist

position became available, Ms. Owsley’s white counterpart was promoted over her despite having

similar education and far less experience at Lilly than she. Ms. Owsley received less in bonuses than

her white peers for performing the same work; in 2004, she received no bonus check at all for the

first time in her forty years at Lilly.

Ms. Owsley was also singled out for discipline by her supervisor, who gave Ms. Owsley an

oral warning for not deleting cancelled meetings on his electronic calendar. The electronic

calendaring system had been revised by Lilly but he refused to change to the revised version, despite

being advised to do so. Ms. Owsley’s HR representative informed him that Ms. Owsley was not at

fault, but the verbal warning was not lifted. Ms. Owsley’s white counterpart engaged in similar

conduct but was not disciplined.

82. Plaintiff Karemma Parker was employed as a sales representative with Lilly’s Neuroscience

area until late 2007. Ms. Parker was the only African American in her area, and was immediately

treated differently than her white counterparts. She was distanced from the group and made to feel

like an outsider. Ms. Parker was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process.

She was rated successful on her performance plan, but this did not improve her merit pay or

advancement opportunities, in contrast to her white counterparts. In addition, Ms. Parker’s District

87

Manager set her up for failure by denying her the same opportunities for advancement offered to her

white counterparts. Ms. Parker was put under stress from working in a hostile environment, and left

Lilly in 2007.

83. Plaintiff Darrieux Peterson has been with Lilly since February 2000. She is currently a grade

54 Senior Systems Analyst. She has never been promoted at Lilly. Ms Peterson has an MBA (with

a B+ average) from Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management and fifteen years of

experience prior to joining Lilly.

Ms. Peterson has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She

was ostracized by one of her managers, excluded from meetings, and encouraged to leave the

Department and the Company. During a seven-month period, this manager took away all of her

duties and she had to scavenge for work by volunteering her services to co-workers. While her

situation has improved since she transferred in November 2002 to Discovery Information

Technology, she still has had unequal opportunities for promotion and for demonstrating her

abilities. In 2004, a previously scheduled promotion interview was cancelled following a change of

managers.

84. Plaintiff Laurie Pierce holds BBA and MBA degrees, and was employed at Lilly from

February 2003 to January 2005 as a Level 54 Senior Neuroscience Sales Representative. Ms. Pierce

was a two-time Performance Achievement award winner for being in the top 10% of the nation.

Ms. Pierce was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She was

hired at the same time as a white female colleague who was groomed by management and other team

members to perform leadership activities, while Ms. Pierce was not provided the same opportunity.

Ms. Pierce was also paid less than this white colleague despite performing similar work. Ms.

88

Pierce’s manager did not spend as much time with her in the field as he did with her white

colleagues. He oftentimes arrived late for ride-alongs, wanted to have extended lunches, and left

early. In addition, he would praise Ms. Pierce during “ride alongs,” but would then write up negative

performances.

Ms. Pierce was also subject to a hostile environment by her white peers, and was followed

home from work, while another colleague asked physicians not to converse with her. Ms. Pierce’s

team would met without her, would cancel meetings when she was at the meeting location, and

would laugh/taunt her during various Point of Action meetings. Ms. Pierce was never given the

opportunity to present or train during POA meetings, and even when she asked to she was always

told no without any reason given.

Ms. Pierce presented these issues to HR in October 2004. In retaliation, she was terminated

in January 2005.

85. Plaintiff Sandra Pierce was in the Human Resources Department at Lilly from August 2000

to February 2006. She has an MBA and ten years of experience prior to joining Lilly. She was hired

at grade 54 and promoted to grade 56 in April 2002.

Ms. Pierce was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. When a

new manager was appointed in March 2003, he began giving her poor performance reviews and low

ratings for leadership potential. Based on these ratings, she could not compete for Team Leader

openings. Others with less education and human resources experience received promotions. Since

there was no interest in positioning her for promotion or leadership roles, Ms. Pierce resigned to

become Director of Human Resources at another company.

86. Plaintiff Margie Reliford worked at Lilly from 1990 through 2004. She took three years

89

education leave from 1997-2000 and earned an Associates degree. (She was denied permission for

the additional year of leave required for her Bachelors degree.) Ms. Reliford was adversely impacted

by Lilly’s Performance Management process. When she returned to work in 2000 with her

Associates degree, the only positions she could find was as a data entry clerk. She was paid the last

salary she had earned in 1997, which was below the minimum for her grade. She transferred to a

position as file clerk in 2001. Caucasian staff with less education and seniority were paid more and

promoted. Ms Reliford could not get interviews for any position graded higher than file clerk.

When she resigned in 2004 she was at 15% of the salary range for her grade.

87. Plaintiff Julie Robinson has been employed at Lilly since 1977; from 1993 to 2006, Ms.

Robinson was a security guard, and since May 2006 she been a Level 32 Production Technician in

the Manufacturing function. Ms. Robinson has been adversely affected by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. In 2002, she was reallocated, but did not receive any proper training in her

new position. Ms. Robinson was also subjected to a hostile environment by her supervisor in this

position, who would often make racial remarks in front of her and other African-American

employees. Ms. Robinson and other African-Americans in her area received smaller raises than white

counterparts performing similar work.

88. Plaintiff Rita Rogers has been a Lilly employee for over 24 years. She has earned three

degrees during this period, including an MBA in 1996 with a 3.9 grade point average. Ms. Rogers

has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. In 1999, three years after

earning her MBA, Ms. Rogers was promoted from Accounting Specialist (non-exempt) to

Management Reporting Analyst (exempt). Prior to this promotion, Ms. Rogers had always received

very good performance ratings. Three months after the promotion her manager told Ms. Rogers that

90

he was not going to “develop” her. He then proceeded to exclude her from work activities and would

not give her any substantive work which she could report as accomplishments at the time of

performance appraisal. Other members of the “project team” had to ask the managers permission

before including Ms. Rogers in specific project work.

When Ms. Rogers complained to the area Director, the Director instructed the manager to

put all Ms. Roger’s assignments in writing. She was given as little help as possible. When Finance

executives came to the area to see the team’s work they asked who Ms. Rogers was, since the

manager had never mentioned her name and they only knew of the two white employees working

on the project. When the project was over, the manager gave her a very low rating. He told Ms.

Rogers “If I were a manager and there were you and your two white colleagues in a room, I wouldn’t

choose you. Look at you and look at them.”

Ms. Rogers was transferred to International Finance. The Executive Director there gave her

a very high rating and said that she was “management material.” He also said that he didn’t see how

her prior manager could have given her such low ratings.

Ms. Rogers’s responsibilities were transferred to the Corporate Finance Reporting Group.

The manager there gave her low ratings. Ms. Rogers was not given a raise for two years. Her

manager threatened to put her on reallocation, meaning that if she didn’t get a new job within a

certain time she would be fired. Ms. Rogers complained to senior management and, was allowed to

seek positions in other areas. Ms. Rogers was allowed to transfer to Information Technology. She

has received good ratings since the transfer.

89. Plaintiff Linda Rodgers has been employed at Lilly since 1999, beginning as a machine

operator, and is currently a Level 30 Production Technician 2. Ms. Rodgers has been adversely

91

impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She is paid less than her white colleagues

who perform similar work. Although her official title is Line Assistant, Ms. Rodgers is running the

line as a supervisor (telling people what machines run, how to run it, filling out paperwork), but she

is not being paid comparably. Ms. Rodgers began complaining about her unequal pay in November

2002, but nothing came of it. Ms. Rodgers’s HR manager told her that there was no discrimination,

and that she can always go somewhere else if she does not like it at Lilly. Ms. Rodgers was retaliated

against for her complaints by not receiving a raise in 2003.

Ms. Rodgers’s white colleagues who started at Lilly at the same time as she have been

promoted to Level 40-42 positions, while Ms. Rodgers is currently a Level 30. In 2002, Ms. Rodgers

applied for a Line Leader position, but was turned down in favor of a white female employee whom

she had trained.

In 2004, Ms. Rodgers earned a BS in Business degree from Indiana University, but this has

not helped her ability to be promoted. Moreover, the fact that she now has more education than her

supervisor has made the retaliation greater. Ms. Rodgers has rarely been able to even obtain

interviews for positions using her degree.

90. Plaintiff Johnny Rucker was employed at Lilly between 1972 and December 2004, when he

retired as a Level 28 security guard at Lilly Technology Center. Mr. Rucker was adversely impacted

by Lilly’s Performance Management process. He was paid less than his white counterparts

performing similar work. He was also denied promotions in favor of white colleagues with similar

qualifications; Mr. Rucker was denied six times for a Security position in Lilly Technology Center

between 2001 and 2003.

91. Plaintiff Gloria Russell has been employed at Lilly since 1989, and since 1999 has a been a

92

Level 34 Senior Operator in animal health. Ms. Russell has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s

Performance Management process. She earns less than her white counterparts that perform the same

work. Ms. Russell has not been promoted in her nearly 20 years at Lilly. Ms Russell started in a

group with 15 employees; they have obtained Senior Operator positions before her, while others have

transferred to better jobs.

92. Plaintiff Lawanda Rutledge has been employed at Lilly since September 2003. She has an

MBA in healthcare administration, as well as being a registered dietician and a licensed nutritionist.

She was originally hired to be a sales representative to long-term care institutions. Ms. Rutledge has

been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She is currently a sales

representative to doctors (grade 52) and has never been promoted. Several Caucasian employees

who were hired with her have been promoted or have received higher pay increases. While Ms.

Rutledge has always received good or excellent performance reviews, she has never been above 15%

of the pay range for her grade. She has been denied permission to post for positions involving a

promotion, since she has not been in her current position for three years. However, a Caucasian male

with two years of employment at Lilly as a sales representative was selected for promotion in spite

of the three-year rule.

As of May 2006, Ms. Rutledge was forced by Richard Williams (District Manager) to leave

her position as a Neuroscience Representative. Mr. Williams told Ms. Rutledge that Lilly no longer

had a position for her and she needed to look outside of the organization for a position. Ms Rutledge

accepted a position in Chicago, IL as an Acute Care Representative with an effective date of October

1, 2006, which allowed her to be promoted to a tier 3 representative (grade 52). Via Grady Grants'

request, HR contacted Ms. Rutledge about Mr. Williams's retaliation. Mr. Williams is no longer a

93

District Manager with Eli Lilly; he works in the B2B organization with Lilly. Ms. Rutledge received

a $2400 raise and was expected to manage her Nashville salary with the increased cost of living in

Chicago. Ms. Rutledge requested to be promoted to a grade 54 representative due to her outstanding

sales performance during 2006 (108% to quota) and to aid in adjusting to the increased cost of living

in Chicago. Over 90% of the representatives in the Acute Care Division are Senior or Executive

Reps (54-56). On April 1, 2007 Ms. Rutledge was promoted to Senior Representative (grade 54).

Her salary range is 0%. Although Ms. Rutledge's education and work experience far exceeds many

representatives in the Acute Care Division, she is the lowest paid Senior Sales Representative in the

Acute Care Division (grade 54). On June 21, 2007 Ms. Rutledge was reallocated. While interviewing

for an Intervention Consult job, Terry Ayers (hiring manager), told her that as a Registered Dietitian

that she was not a clinician and customers would not see her as being credible, although Ms.

Rutledge has a MBA and over 8 years of clinical experience. Terry Ayers also stated that he did not

want to interview Ms. Rutledge for this job, however, HR required him to and this is why he

interviewed her. Ms. Rutledge expressed her concerns with Mark Urban, and HR about Terry Ayers

behavior during the interviewing process. Within 24 hours Terry Ayers contacted Ms. Rutledge and

requested forgiveness for his unprofessional behavior.

On October 1, 2007, Ms. Rutledge accepted the Program Specialist position with the new

Lilly Hospital Group. She is currently a grade 54 and 0% of her salary range. Ms. Rutledge has just

completed her Ph D in Leadership and Organizational Change. Ms. Rutledge is the lowest paid grade

54 member of the Lilly Hospital Group, and the only field employee with a Ph D. During her last

sales quarter, Ms. Rutledge was 123% to quota. However, she continues to be underpaid and

discriminated against regardless of her skills, education, and performance.

94

93. Plaintiff Delores Ryan has been employed at Lilly since 1977, and is currently a Level 36

Senior Recruiting Assistant in Human Resources. Ms. Ryan earned a BA in organizational leadership

1996, an MS in business management in 1999, and is expecting a Ph.d in organizational psychology

soon.

Ms. Ryan has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She has

not received a promotion since 1999, when she became a Level 50 career counselor. In 2001, a white

female without a college degree was accepted into a career counselor position, and has received

several promotions since then despite the fact that she still has not received a college degree.

Between 1999 and 2004, Ms. Ryan was a “master trainer” as she would train the trainers. Ms. Ryan

went around the world training Lilly employees; and was performing the work of a Level 58, but was

not paid a commensurate salary.

When Ms. Ryan took educational leave in 2004, she was earning less than two white career

counselors with the same qualifications and less experience, yet doing the same work. Ms. Ryan

spent most of her time while on educational leave in Australia, and in June 2005 accepted a position

from Lilly Australia. However, Ms. Ryan had to return to the United States and, at the end of her

educational leave, had to post to find a new position. Ms. Ryan posted for a dozen positions

beginning in October 2005, but could not obtain any interviews. She was then hired for 90 days as

an Account Leader.

Ms. Ryan posted for 20-30 jobs during this 90 day period, including trainer for the sales

division. Although she was informed by the interviewer that she was the best candidate for the job,

she was passed over for the position due to inaccurate comments made by a former supervisor. Ms.

Ryan also interviewed for three open positions as a recruiter for sales personnel, but did not obtain

95

the position. On the last day of her 90 day period, Ms. Ryan was found a position as a Level 36

recruitment assistant, where she remains.

94. Plaintiff Donald Scott was employed at Lilly between January 2001 and March 2006, when

he was a Level 54 Senior Critical Care Specialist. Mr. Scott was adversely impacted by Lilly’s

Performance Management process. He was paid less than his white counterparts performing

comparable work. He was also denied a leadership role that would have positioned him for an

Executive Sales Specialist position in favor of a white female colleague. On other occasions, Mr.

Scott’s manager promised him leadership assignments, but never followed through on these

commitments. Mr. Scott was denied a promotion in early 2006 in favor of a white colleague with an

inferior sales performance. He was also given less favorable performance evaluations than his white

colleagues with inferior sales performances.

95. Plaintiff Garry Scott was employed at Lilly between1990 and November of 2007, where he

was a Senior Chemical Operator. During his tenure at Lilly he earned a certification as a welder.

He was also able to gain proficiencies at maintenance, pipe fitting, plumbing, vessel repair and pump

repair.

Mr. Scott was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. He was

passed over numerous times for promotions in favor of white counterparts with less experience. Mr.

Scott was only able to obtain lateral positions. It took Mr. Scott ten years to become a senior

operator, whereas his white counterparts ordinarily reached the same position after only six or seven

years.

Mr. Scott worked at the Lafayette plant for 16 years and was never written up. He then

moved to Indianapolis Plant LPC south. At this facility, Mr. Scott was continually brought before

96

his manager regarding work performance issues. He was eventually terminated for failing to

properly document a chemical spill. However, white coworkers were not terminated for the same

type of incidents.

96. Plaintiff Edna Sheppard was employed at Lilly between 1973 and February 2005, where she

ended up a Level 32 receptionist in Plant Security. Ms. Sheppard was adversely impacted by Lilly’s

Performance Management process. She was paid less than her white colleagues for performing

similar work. In addition, Ms. Sheppard was demoted from her supervisor position in 2002 based

on false accusations made against her. When she posted for a different supervisor position in 2003,

she was passed over in favor of a white male colleague with similar qualifications. Ms. Sheppard

was also subject to a hostile work environment while employed at Lilly, and was called the “n” word

by one of her supervisors.

97. Plaintiff Deborah Sims has been employed by Lilly from 1968 to the present. She is

currently responsible for quality control for parenteral labeling and packaging (grade 30). Ms. Sims

has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She has not received any

promotions since 1970. On several occasions she has been denied the opportunity to interview for

a promotion. On one occasion she was told that she could not interview because she had only been

in her current position for two years, while the Caucasian who was selected had only been at Lilly

for 18 months. She is paid less than comparable Caucasians with similar or less qualifications and

seniority. Her current position was advertised at a higher grade level, but when Ms. Sims applied

Lilly down-graded the position and persuaded her to accept the position at her current grade level.

98. Plaintiff John Skelton holds BA, MS, and Ph.d. degrees in chemistry, and has been employed

at Lilly since 1993, where he is now a Level 50 Senior Analytical Chemist. Mr. Skelton has been

97

adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. He has not received the same

grooming for career advancement as his white counterparts, despite his Ph.d degree. When Mr.

Skelton obtained his Ph.d, he was moved from non-exempt to exempt status, but was still being paid

less and was given less responsibility than white counterparts who also held Ph.d.’s. Mr. Skelton has

not received a promotion since earning a Ph.d., while a white colleague who studied in the same

Ph.d. program and with the same graduate advisor as Mr. Skelton is now a Level 58.

In 2003, a new management team was brought into Mr. Skelton’s department. Mr. Skelton

noticed a change in his performance evaluations, with this new management forcing Mr. Skelton to

be demoted from a Level 54 to a Level 50. Mr. Skelton was informed by his management that he

cannot perform at the Level 54 grade, despite being one of only two employees with a Ph.d. degree.

99. Plaintiff Gerald Smith was employed by Lilly from 1977 to December 2007. His last position

was at Level 36 as a computer technician for the IT Function. Mr. Smith was adversely impacted by

Lilly’s Performance Management process. He was paid less and received less merit than those who

did comparable work. In 2007, Mr. Smith was put on redeployment, and had to find a new position

by December 10, 2007, just five days before his 30 year retirement eligibility. Mr. Smith sought to

find new employment, but did not receive the same support from management and HR as his white

counterparts in the same status.

After dedicating his entire life to Lilly, Mr. Smith was not afforded the same privilege as his

white counterparts to carry him to a temporary assignment for five days to bridge his retirement. As

a result, Mr. Smith became stressed and was subject to a hostile environment with his management

telling him no one would want him after 30 years. His long-term white counterparts were not

subjected to this same harassment from management.

98

100. Plaintiff Christopher Snipes holds a BS in computer science and an MA in Management

Information Systems, and was employed at Lilly between July 2000 and May 2004 as a Systems

Analyst in the Information Technology function. Mr. Snipes was adversely impacted by Lilly’s

Performance Management process. He never received a promotion during his tenure at Lilly, and

only received one raise at Lilly, during his final year. Mr. Snipes was also paid less than a white

female with less experience and similar education.

101. Plaintiff Michelle Sobers holds a Bachelors of Science, and was employed at Lilly from June

2002 to December 2005 as a Senior Sales Representative for Lilly’s Neuroscience Sales Function.

Ms. Sobers was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Her non-African

American peers were provided with opportunities for advancement by transfer and promotion while

she was not afforded similar opportunities: Ms. Sobers had two partners, one of whom, a white

female, started a month before her and was promoted to a District Sales Trainer, and then a District

Manager. Ms. Sobers, with similar education and experience, also sought this same kind of

advancement, but was told by management that her sales were not good enough, even though she

had the same sales results as her white counterpart who was able to advance.

102. Plaintiff Janet Stevens holds a BSIE degree from Purdue University and an MBA degree

from Depaul, and was employed at Lilly between November 2002 and November 2004 as an

Operations Consultant, and between November 2004 and April 2005 as a Quality Systems Manager

in the Quality Control function. Ms. Stevens was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. She was hired in at a managerial level, but was not given any challenging

assignments, and was given tasks that employees several levels below her do not have time to

perform. She was told that her pay grade level of manager should be kept confidential, and that only

99

herself and HR was allowed to know. Ms. Stevens was responsible for training employees on the

renovation of a facility, a job that was not taken seriously within her department.

Ms. Stevens was repeatedly informed that she was one of five African-American managers

in the Manufacturing and Quality organization within Lilly. Ms. Stevens was even asked by

executive recruitment at Lilly where could they find talented African Americans. When she told

them there were some in the company as well as numerous places they already used as recruitment,

Ms. Stevens was told that those avenues did not have what they were looking for.

Ms. Stevens voiced her frustrations about her position to management, and was moved to the

corporate quality group in 2004, where she reported to the Executive Director for Corporate Quality.

Ms. Stevens was the only African-American female in this group, and was asked to participate in a

program for Lilly management because she was on an unwritten “list” of favored African-American

employees. Ms. Stevens participated in a meeting with HR representative concerning Lilly’s

recruitment and retention of women and minorities. Although the numbers Ms. Stevens was shown

were favorable for women, that was not the case for minorities.

Ms. Stevens was asked her opinion on a matter by her colleagues near the end of 2004.

However, Ms. Stevens’s opinion did not match that of the Executive Director, and as a result Ms.

Stevens was taken off the list of favored African-American employees for the duration of her

employment at Lilly. Around this time, there were discussions as to whether Ms. Stevens would

attend a management training in London. Ms. Stevens’s new supervisor stated that she could attend,

but questioned her technical skills for the position of Quality Director of a plant. Ms. Stevens was

upset, given her experience in the pharmaceutical industry, with her technical ability never

challenged previously.

100

Ms. Stevens attended the training in London, but when she returned after the Christmas

holiday in 2004 her situation became progressively worse. Ms. Stevens’s supervisor would sit in on

teleconferences that she would handle herself, and was oftentimes rude to her. Ms. Steven had not

witnessed this same treatment to any of her white manager colleagues. Ms. Stevens soon attended

a conference on African-American leadership; while she was at the conference, Ms. Stevens’s white

supervisor and another white colleague redid the work on a project of hers, and took credit for it.

When Ms. Stevens returned from this conference, she had a new African-American

supervisor, but was no longer part of the corporate quality group. Ms. Stevens’s work became

increasingly scrutinized by her previous supervisor, as well as the Vice President of Quality. In one

meeting, she was not allowed to speak, and her white supervisor took all the credit for the new

information and blamed her for the items he still wanted corrected. Ms. Stevens was informed that

a document she was preparing was deficient because one of the tables was a print view of a

landscape, not a portrait. Ms. Stevens was told that her document still had issues, and they wanted

her to make it like that of her white colleague. Ms. Stevens was insulted by this critique.

Ms. Stevens’s previous white supervisor was still responsible for her raise and performance

review for 2005. Ms. Stevens received a 2% raise - the lowest of her career. Ms. Stevens decided to

resign from Lilly in March 2005.

103. Plaintiff Calvin Stewart was employed at Lilly between 2003 and September 2006. As a

Senior Instrument Technician in 2003, Mr. Stewart’s position was contracted out, and so he moved

to an Instrument Engineering Technician for Bulk Human Insulin. Mr. Stewart’s new position was

made intolerable by his colleagues. As a result, Mr. Stewart moved to a Reliability Engineering

Position, which he performed successfully.

101

Mr. Stewart was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. One year

into the Reliability Engineering position, Mr. Stewart decided to post for a promotion. Upon

becoming aware of this, Mr. Stewart’s supervisor became upset, and stated Mr. Stewart was

unqualified for this position as he did not have a four-year engineering degree. Yet the white

engineer that Mr. Stewart supported in this group did not have such a degree.

Mr. Stewart was then informed by a colleague that his supervisor had informed him that Mr.

Stewart had been put on Disciplinary Action Hold making him ineligible for any kind of move. This

accusation was untrue however, and from this point on, Mr. Stewart was not treated the same by his

supervisor. Mr. Stewart was rated as the lowest performer in his group at his year end review, even

though he had consistently been rated as the top performer throughout the year within the group. This

rating made Mr. Stewart ineligible for a merit increase. Mr. Stewart arranged a meeting with his

supervisor and his HR Representative, in which the HR representative pointed out to Mr. Stewart’s

supervisor the errors made on the performance review.

Although Mr. Stewart’s HR representative ensured him that he would not be retaliated

against, Mr. Stewart decided to seek a new position, and was hired into the Scales and Balance

Department as a Senior Instrument Technician in February 2004, despite his supervisor’s negative

remarks about his performance.

Mr. Stewart’s white colleagues were hostile to him in this new position, and tried on a

number of occasions to get him disciplined and terminated. Mr. Stewart’s department required

Second Person Verification on all paperwork before the work goes to a supervisor. The custom in

Mr. Stewart’s department was to send any errors back for correction, yet Mr. Stewart’s white

colleagues would routinely send his reports to the owner of the equipment when they suspected an

102

error, rather than sending it back to him for correction.

In September 2006, Mr. Stewart was using an old balance, and called in one of his white

colleagues for help. Mr. Stewart made a minor error by writing 199.9998g on one blank but wrote

200.0002g on another blank. Although Mr. Stewart’s colleague had seen this error, he once again

sent the write-up to the owner of the equipment instead of returning it to Mr. Stewart for correction.

Mr. Stewart was called into a meeting with his supervisor and HR representative, and was informed

he was being terminated for allegedly falsifying documents.

104. Plaintiff Cheri Stewart started with Lilly in 2001 with a BS in Business, and prior to her

separation in August 2007 was a Level 34 Senior Financial Assistant in the Finance and

Procurement area. Ms. Stewart was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process.

Ms. Stewart observed her white counterparts receive raises and promotions for similar work, while

she was not afforded the same opportunities for advancement.

Ms. Stewart accepted a position as a Senior Financial Assistant position in February 2003

for which the duties had been diminished two years prior. Ms. Stewart escalated her concerns

regarding her lack of utilization, and was given a temporary one-year assignment at Indy Dry

Finance, and then moved to Parenteral Finance. Ms. Stewart was busy while at Indy Dry, but

disputed her move to Parenteral, as she would be underutilized once more. After she raised these

concerns, Ms. Stewart’s manager became belligerent toward her, and continued this behavior until

Ms. Stewart left the area.

In July 2007, that same manager rated Ms. Stewart less than successful regarding

Communication and Integrity, in retaliation for Ms. Stewart informing his boss that she wasn't being

utilized to capacity. The manager unfairly accused Ms. Stewart of not being honest with him

103

regarding her workload, although he is the one who identified the tasks for her to perform. Although

Ms. Stewart’s experience and education qualified her for a Level 40-42 position, she was

discouraged from posting for positions in this pay level.

Ms. Stewart’s position was reallocated in June 2008. However, she did not receive any

support from her manager in finding a new position. Ms. Stewart left Lilly in August 2008.

105. Plaintiff William DeAngelo Tabor was employed by Lilly from August 2000 to

September 2005. He was one of a very few African-Americans employed in the Quality

Control/Manufacturing organization. Mr. Tabor was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. While he was rated at a grade 50 level, he continually performed the same

types of assignments as performed by a level 54 staff member. All of his Caucasian co-workers were

paid at a salary grade of 52-54-56 for the same type of work. Even within the 50 grade level, Mr.

Tabor was paid at less than 15% of the salary range. In March 2005, Mr. Tabor was finally

promoted to grade 52, being paid at 10% of the salary range. He left Lilly in September 2005 when

another pharmaceutical manufacturer offered him a promotion to be manager of its commercial

quality assurance operations.

106. Plaintiff Dorothea Talley was employed at Lilly between 2000 and 2008, when she was a

Level 52 Regulatory Associate. Ms. Talley was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. The high profile assignments and training opportunities in Ms. Talley’s

department were given to white employees. Ms. Talley asked to go to DIA training in 2003 and was

scheduled to attend, but management asked only a select few to attend, and her trip was canceled.

Ms. Talley consistently asked for training outside her current responsibilities and for special

assignments, but to no avail. Ms. Talley was only assigned case entry tasks, while her white

104

counterparts were assigned administrative tasks that better position them for advancement.

Ms. Talley worked on eDM ClinTrial project in 2003-04. The white counterparts who were

also on team were promoted to Senior and Team Leader positions, despite the fact that they had

similar education yet less experience than she. In 2005, Ms. Talley was denied a merit increase, and

was told she “performed well, but not well enough.” When she asked for detail from her team leader,

he was rude to her in response. Ms. Talley left Lilly in July 2008.

107. Plaintiff Loretta Taylor holds BA and MS degrees in Nursing, and was a Therapeutic

Associate between June 2002 and September 2005, when she assumed her position as Team Leader

in Clinical Operations. Ms. Taylor has been adversely impacted by Defendant’s Performance

Management process. She was denied a promotion to Senior Therapeutic Associate in favor of a

white female colleague with less experience and education. In her later position as Team Leader,

another white female colleague who started at the same time period as Ms. Taylor in the team leader

role was provided with leadership opportunities that prepared her for entry into the Six Sigma

organization.

When Ms. Taylor became a Team Leader, her manager did not support her, and brought up

issues in Ms. Taylor’s Performance Management reviews that could have been rectified with proper

coaching. Ms. Taylor went to the Director of Clinical Operations in the fall of 2006 to explain that

she was not being set up for success. Only then was Ms. Taylor assigned a coach after one year of

being treated differently in her role. When Ms. Taylor’s manager found out she had gone to the

director, she stopped returning Ms. Taylor’s phone calls. Ms. Taylor’s supervisor spent the majority

of her “one-on-one” time with Ms. Taylor’s white colleagues, who were thus better situated for

advancement and promotion.

105

Ms. Taylor created a Diversity teambuilder that had been successfully implemented as part

of the US Affiliate diversity month in August 2007. Ms. Taylor attempted to conduct the diversity

teambuilder at the National Clinical Operations Meeting in April 2008, yet her manager cancelled

the teambuilder stating there was not enough time to cover it. Previously, when Ms. Taylor was

working on the planning committee for the 2006 National Clinical Operations Meeting, her present

manager had stated that she didn't see the value of the existing Vice President of Diversity coming

to speak to the organization and feared “it was a waste of time” to have her come speak.

Ms. Taylor was out on medical leave between March and April 2008. During medical leave,

Ms. Taylor's manager did not check on the Lead Clinical Research Associate on a regular basis and

supporting staff to ensure success of the “Proclaim” lung trial. The manager knew that Proclaim was

the second highest priority trial for the entire company. Upon return from medical leave, Ms. Taylor

was scolded and blamed for the staff not accomplishing the first metric. In addition, Ms. Taylor's

manager refused additional resource help from the medical liaison staff during this critical period

to ensure trial success.

Ms. Taylor did not receive manager support and attendance for her August 2008 regional

staff conference and site training sessions for the Proclaim trial. Additionally, she is not registered

to attend the September 2008 Proclaim conference for training staff, sites, and providing support.

After not being provided any leadership and guidance for a separate breast cancer trial on

September 5th, 2008, Ms. Taylor was admonished regarding the condition of the trial on a

teleconference in front of her internal team leader peers and external vendors management present.

Ms. Taylor's manager threatened to take the trial away as a punitive measure. This trial was not

removed from Ms. Taylor's workload initially in March. The removal of additional work off was the

106

intent of a "focus" team to set Ms. Taylor up for success and the ability to focus on the company's

number two priority Proclaim trial.

108. Plaintiff Oscar Taylor holds B.S. and M.S. degrees, and was employed by Lilly between 2001

and 2004 as Corrections Specialist in the Neuroscience Division, a Business-to-Business (B2B)

Account Executive in the Corrections group between December 2004 and July 2006, and as a Senior

Sales Representative in the Neuroscience Division between July 2006 and August 2007.

Mr. Taylor was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Mr. Taylor

received good reviews in his first four months as a B2B Account Executive, but when he was put

under a new supervisor, his reviews began to worsen despite his proven sales performance. Mr.

Taylor did not receive a merit increase at Lilly between December 2004 and his departure in August

2007, while his white counterparts received raises performing similar work.

In April 2006, Mr. Taylor’s supervisor suggested in an email that he return to Field Sales,

a demotion from his then-position as a B2B Account Executive for eight states, despite Mr. Taylor’s

good performance reviews under his previous supervisor and positive customer feedback. Mr.

Taylor’s supervisor continued to contact him to insist on his demotion to Field Sales. Despite being

ranked number one in the nation in his B2B team, Mr. Taylor’s supervisor issued him a written

warning in June 2006.

In July 2006, Mr. Taylor’s position was dissolved, and he was forced to accept a demotion

to Senior Sales Representative. However, all previous B2B Account Executives were automatically

qualified for Executive Sales Representative positions, a higher grade position than Senior Sales

Representative position, when they had gone back to “field sales.” It was understood that Mr. Taylor

would be given the same opportunity when he was demoted back to field sales, but this did not

107

occur. Even after his demotion, Mr. Taylor received emails from white employees asking for advice

on his old accounts at B2B.

Mr. Taylor’s demotion made him ineligible for a pay raise when he applied for a position in

endocrinology. He contacted HR personnel regarding the circumstances of his demotion and

discrepancy in pay grades between himself and others from the dissolved B2B Account Executive

positions. However, Mr. Taylor’s inquiries were dismissed by HR, and he was informed that nothing

could be done.

When Mr. Taylor left Lilly in August 2007, he had not received any pay raises because he

was moved to a group with a lower "pay grade scale" than B2B. Mr. Taylor had to be promoted to

Executive Sales Representative to get a promotion. This should not have been the case, since being

an Executive Sales Representative had already been earned through Mr. Taylor’s tenure in B2B.

109. Plaintiff Rhonda Taylor has been employed at Lilly since 1987, and works in Packaging,

where she is a Level 28. Ms. Taylor has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. She has not received a promotion since 1996. Ms. Taylor has also received

smaller raises than her white colleagues that perform the same work. Ms. Taylor filed a charge with

the EEOC in January 2006. Ms. Taylor only received a bonus for working the night shift after going

to the EEOC, which informed her that she had the right to a bonus.

110. Plaintiff William Taylor holds a master’s degree in hospital administration, and was

employed at Lilly between 2000 and 2005 as a Sales Representative in the Neuroscience division.

Mr. Taylor’s starting salary was less than that earned by white counterparts without a health care

background or advanced degree. Mr. Taylor was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. It took Mr. Taylor five years to receive a promotion, while his white

108

counterparts were promoted more quickly. On one occasion, he was informed that his manager was

directed to not provide additional funds to equalize his salary. Mr. Taylor left Lilly in 2005.

111. Plaintiff Janeen Thomas has been working at Lilly since 1977. Ms. Thomas has been

adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She earned a paralegal

certificate from Indiana University in 1987 but was not selected when she applied for positions in

which she could use this training. Ms. Thomas is currently employed as a Quality Control Assistant

(grade 32) in Pharmaceutical Delivery Systems. She has not been promoted since 1996. Promotions

were given to Caucasian employees who were added to the department one year after her, with

similar job descriptions and the same job title. She has received fewer opportunities than her

Caucasian co-workers for training or for demonstrating her abilities with additional products.

112. Plaintiff Lavern Reliford Thomas has been employed at Lilly since 1986. Ms. Thomas was

an Infrastructure Support Technician between January 2003 and October 2004, a Computer Systems

Technician between October and November 2004, a Data/Method Integrator between November

2004 and March 2006, a Senior Computer Systems Technician in March and April 2006, and a

Senior Project Management Assistant from April 2006 to the present. Ms. Reliford Thomas has been

a nonexempt Level 32 in all these positions.

Ms. Thomas has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She

has been paid less than white counterparts that performed the same work. In 2003, when Ms.

Reliford Thomas and her colleagues were redeployed, she was denied a promotion in favor of three

white female colleagues with less experience than she. Ms. Reliford Thomas has also requested

assignments that would help her move to a higher position, but she did not receive any guidance.

She has also seen white employees whom she has trained pass her in pay grade or level.

109

113. Plaintiff Samuel Thomas was employed by Lilly between 1998 and November 2006, when

he was a Level 30 Process Operator. Mr. Thomas became a process operator in 2002 in bulk

operations. Mr. Thomas was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process.

Although he gained experience and knowledge, he did not receive any salary increases. Although

Mr. Thomas’s Performance Management reviews were always satisfactory, he was denied

promotions in favor of white colleagues with less experience. Mr. Thomas spoke with his Team

Leader about moving up, but did not receive any encouragement. Mr. Thomas resigned from Lilly

in November 2006.

114. Plaintiff Dexter Thompson holds a BS in Chemical Engineering, and was employed at Lilly

between January 2000 and October 2003, where he was a Level 52 Sales Representative in the Alpha

Sales division. Mr. Thompson was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process.

Both he and his white counterpart achieved the same results, yet Mr. Thompson was informed that

his colleague was placed on the “fast track” by management one year after he began at Lilly, and this

white counterpart was eventually promoted to District Manager in 2002. Mr. Thompson was still

performing well, but was not even promoted to Senior Sales Representative, which he requested at

every review. Instead, Mr. Thompson’s white colleagues were promoted to Senior Sales

Representative positions with inferior sales performances.

In May 2003, Mr. Thompson sought to post for an Oncology sales position in Indianapolis,

his hometown. Although the hiring manager expressed interest, Mr. Thompson’s manager stated that

he wasn’t ready to advance. Mr. Thompson left Lilly in October 2003.

115. Plaintiff Richard Thurman has been employed by Lilly since 1983, and is a Level 28

Production Technician 2 in Indy Dry Manufacturing. Mr. Thurman has been adversely impacted by

110

Lilly’s Performance Management process. He has not received the same training opportunities as

his white counterparts, despite his requests. Mr. Thurman has not received a raise or bonus in the

past three years. Mr. Thurman has also been disciplined for conduct such as putting in literature

backwards, while his white counterparts have not been disciplined for similar conduct.

116. Plaintiff Dealtra Tillman has been employed by Lilly since 2002, and is a Level 54 Senior

Analytical Chemist who was promoted for the first time since her initial employment in March 2008.

Ms. Tillman was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Before this year,

Ms. Tillman dis not receive any support or development from her team leaders and supervisors, who

have less education than she until recently. It was only recently that a supervisor was appointed who

also has a MS degree.

In late 2004, a new team leader was brought into Ms. Tillman’s group. Before this time Ms.

Tillman had functioned as a lab bench analyst, moved the role of lab scheduler planner, and finally

moved to the role of vendor representative (all while still officially under the title of Analytical

Chemist). Due to a reorganization six months later, a white female with was put into the schedule

planning role that Ms. Tillman had previously held while Ms. Tillman was put back on the "lab

bench" to function as an analyst after the white analyst was groomed for the schedule planner

position. The lab bench was the same position she was hired into by Lilly back in 2002. Ms.

Tillman told her team leader she wanted to be trained in chromatography (“HPLC”), which is a more

technical assignment when put back on the lab bench. However, the team leader informed her that

two other white analysts had already been asked to be trained. Ms. Tillman was upset, as she had

been asking for this training all along and both of these analysts had less seniority than she did.

Ms. Tillman scheduled a meeting with her HR representative, and explained her lack of

111

grooming and training. During this meeting, Ms. Tillman informed her HR representative that she

felt she was being discriminated against. Although Ms. Tillman’s situation improved slightly,

management still became uncomfortable when she discussed being promoted, Ms. Tillman’s

African-American mentor suggested she write a Performance Gap Analysis to leverage herself. Ms.

Tillman’s supervisor filled it out, yet she still did not receive a promotion. Ms. Tillman soon realized

that this colleague had copied and pasted her PGA to get himself promoted.

117. Plaintiff Joseph Touchstone was employed at Lilly between January 2003 and October 2005,

where he was a Specialty Sales Representative. Mr. Touchstone was recruited from the Mayo Clinic,

where he was a Regional Sales Manager. Mr. Touchstone was the number one sales representative

in the Detroit metropolitan area in 2003, 2004, and the first quarter of 2005. Despite his proven

success, Mr. Touchstone’s colleagues created a hostile working environment, and would often make

remarks with racial overtones. If Mr. Touchstone responded in an authoritative manner, he was

considered as not being a “team player.”

Mr. Touchstone was terminated in October 2005 based on a false accusation made by his

District Manager regarding Mr. Touchstone allegedly threatening a customer with his job. However,

the District Manger would turn a blind eye to white employees engaging in conduct similar to what

Mr. Touchstone was accused of. When Mr. Touchstone applied for unemployment, Defendant never

stated in response that Mr. Touchstone had violated any company policy or rule.

118. Plaintiff Edward Trammell was employed at Lilly between 1973 and 2007, when he was a

Level 40 Engineering Technician. Mr. Trammell was adversely impacted by Defendant’s

Performance Management process. Mr. Trammell’s white colleagues with less experience and

training received promotions and significant raises over him. Although Mr. Trammell’s experience

112

and performance were equal to a Level 42, he was denied promotion to this pay grade during his last

five years with the Company.

119. Plaintiff Susan Trammell was employed at Lilly between 1974 and October 2007, retired

as a Level 34 computer specialist. Ms. Tramell was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. She did not receive a raise during her final five years at Lilly, and was told she

had reached the ceiling for her level, although this is not true for her white counterparts. Ms. Tramell

retired from Lilly in October 2007.

120. Plaintiff Ray Tyson was an excellent sales representative who specialized in sales to

hospitals. He did well under three different managers from November 1999 until July 2003. In July

2003, however, he came under the supervision of a fourth manager.

In March 2004, his fourth manager gave Mr. Tyson "needs development" ratings on three out

of the seven categories. The same manager rated a younger white female sales representative whom

Tyson had trained with fewer "needs development" ratings. Mr. Tyson and co-plaintiff Melissa

Orosco were passed over for a District Manager position in favor of a white male with inferior sales

performance.

At the time of the interim review, Lilly maintained a record in the form of an EXCEL

spreadsheet called "Dashboard." The Dashboard for the first three months of 2004 showed that Mr.

Tyson had reached 123% of his sales quota. Nevertheless his manager told Mr. Tyson that he didn't

care what the Dashboard said, it was a mistake, and he lowered Mr. Tyson to 99% of quota. With

that percentage, a sales person is given a "miss" instead of a "hit." Mr. Tyson told his manager that

with such an evaluations "if I were on the Board of Directors, I wouldn't promote myself" and the

manager responded "Yeah, I know" and added: "If that is going to affect your morale" you need "to

113

find another job."

On August 17, 2004, Mr. Tyson filed an informal complaint with Human Resources alleging

that the manager's actions "were discriminatory based upon my race." Within 24 hours Human

Resources contacted Tyson and advised him that a "thorough investigation had been conducted"

which found no discrimination against him. No one interviewed Tyson or attempted to do so during

the 24 hour period of the investigation.

After he filed an internal complaint, Mr. Tyson's manager became verbally abusive to him

and discriminated against him further. Plaintiff Tyson left the employment of Eli Lilly & Co. on

December 31, 2004. He was ranked sixth or so out of 178 sales representatives during that period.

121. Plaintiff Kenneth Van Horn was employed by Lilly between 1990 and December 2006, and

was a Senior Instrument Technician. Mr. Van Horn was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. He was paid less than his white peers that performed similar work. Mr. Van

Horn would ask for special assignments from his supervisor that would better position him for

advancement, but never received any assignments. Mr. Van Horn was terminated in December 2006

due to issues with his documentation, yet his white supervisor that reviews and approves his

documents was not subject to the same discipline.

122. Plaintiff Derrick Vaughn has been employed at Lilly since 1998, and is a Level 30 Process

Operator in the Manufacturing function.. Mr. Vaughn was paired with a white male who was

supposed to train him; instead, Mr. Vaughn’s colleague purposely withheld information, slowed his

training, and set him up to fail. When Mr. Vaughn would ask questions during training, his

colleague would evade his questions. Mr. Vaughn informed his team leader that the training was not

going well, but she was not helpful. A number of white counterparts that were hired alongside Mr.

114

Vaughn, and received better training, advanced quicklier in their careers than he.

Mr. Vaughn has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. He

was passed over for a instrument technician positions in favor of two white employees that had less

industry experience and seniority at Lilly than he. Mr. Vaughn was doing everything asked, and

worked overtime, but was still not considered for promotions.

Mr. Vaughn received minimal raises, while the rest of the white trainees who started after

him have higher salaries and receive higher raises. Mr. Vaughn is earning less in pay than his white

colleagues for performing similar work.

Mr. Vaughn has shared an interest in posting out; and has let management know he wants

to get into the telecommunications process analytics department. Yet when he tried to post out, the

rebuttal was that business needs for him to stay put. When Mr. Vaughn finally posted and

interviewed for this position, he was not selected. When Mr. Vaughn asked why he was not selected,

the response was that the position was given to another employee due to reallocation. The second

time he posted and interviewed for this position, the response this time was that he did not have

enough experience. Mr. Vaughn has expressed concerns over his pay and promotion issues to his HR

representative and his supervisor, yet they have not given him any guidance.

123. Plaintiff Doresa Walton-Mack was employed at Lilly between 1995 and August 2002 as a

Senior Packaging Engineer. Ms. Walton-Mack was paid less than her white colleagues for

performing comparable work, and was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management

process. Despite coming to Lilly with 16 years of packaging experience, Ms. Walton-Mack was

consistently given assignments that were the most difficult and least organized, while her white

colleagues were given simple and organized tasks. Ms. Walton-Mack did not receive the same

115

support from management as her white colleagues in performing her tasks. Two white male

colleagues received superior Performance Management reviews despite making costly mistakes on

projects that Ms. Walton-Mack pointed out to her management. However, when Ms. Walton-Mack

took the lead in successfully submitting to the FDA a New Drug Application (NDA) in 2002 for

Cialis, she was still nonetheless given an unsuccessful rating. Ms. Walton-Mack was terminated in

August 2002.

124. Plaintiff Clara Walker has been employed at Lilly since 1988, beginning as a nonexempt

technician, and in 2004 moving to an exempt Level 50 Associate Analytical Chemist position in the

Quality Control function. Ms. Walker has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. In November 2005, an exempt Scheduling Planner position became open. Ms.

Walker inquired about the position and found out it was never posted. A few weeks later it was

announced in a staff meeting that a nonexempt white female colleague of Ms. Walker’s would be

the scheduler, even though Ms. Walker had better experience, and her white counterpart had severe

attendance problems, which Ms. Walker does not. Ms. Walker approached her team leader after this

meeting and asked about the promotion, and was told they did not have to post the position because

they were already training Ms. Walker’s white colleague for the position and Ms. Walker could serve

as her back-up.

Ms. Walker has asked for training on a number of occasions, but no training has been done,

other than login sample computer training. Ms. Walker’s team leader and colleague were doing

training for the Scheduling Planner position; when Ms. Walker found out, she asked why she was

not invited if she was supposed to serve as back-up. The response was simply that they would train

Ms. Walker later.

116

In March of 2005 one of Ms. Walker's white counterparts was given an exemplary rating;

150% of bonus and top tier for merit compensation, because she had completed the most essays for

the year than any other analyst for 2004. She did not work on any projects. Yet when Ms. Walker

was the analyst who completed the most essays for 2005, trained several analysts, and completed

several projects, she was given a successful rating, average bonus and average merit compensation

for comparable work, despite exceeding her white counterpart’s work performance. Finally, in April

2006, Ms. Walker informed her team leader that her area was not conducive to success for African-

American employees.

Ms. Walker has been the top performer for 2005, 2006, and 2007, yet has still not received

an exemplary rating. Ms. Walker received a promotion to Level 52 in 2008, but did not receive the

exemplary rating given to her white counterparts when they are promoted. In May 2008, Ms.

Walker’s department was “rebalanced” due to Lilly’s Voluntary Exit Program (VEP); Ms. Walker’s

white counterparts were informed by the Team Leader of new positions being opening, even though

these positions were not posted. Ms. Walker and her fellow African-American employees, however,

were not informed of these openings.

125. Plaintiff Cassandra Welch was hired by Defendant on August 17, 1992 as a nonexempt

worker for the Parenteral Manufacturing area. From 1992 through 1999, Defendant promoted

Plaintiff Welch repeatedly to positions within the corporate headquarters area. During the same

time, she obtained education and experience equivalents of a bachelor’s degree and training in

accounting and information technology. Her last nonexempt position was in the finance area of

corporate headquarters.

In January 2000, Defendant promoted Welch to an exempt level described as “Business

1After this lawsuit was filed in 2006, Defendant implemented 40,000 “Stories,” arendition of Welch’s 2002 proposal, as a mandatory training program for all employees andcurrently uses it today.

117

Consultant” with business integrator duties in the Corporate Information Technology area. She

performed well initially, but was assigned to a supervisor who did not provide Ms. Welch with

assignments commensurate with her position or of similar quality to those provided to her white

counterparts with the same or similar role.

In early 2002, Ms. Welch raised the issues of unequal pay and discrimination to senior

management and HR. Ms. Welch presented that corporate strategies at the top for diversity and equal

treatment of employees were not being passed down and appropriately implemented through

management to employees. Ms. Welch designed an approach for resolution she called the “Story”

(Strategy Through Operations Results and Yield). Welch made a formal presentation of the “Story”

process that outlined that the high level corporate strategies may be better understood and

implemented if they were told in the “story” format, citing the example used by an airline company

in 1980 where they explained their financial strategy in a story format, that resulted in positive

results for both management and employees. Ms. Welch suggested that Defendant’s diversity

policies could be presented in that same manner; a story.

Ms. Welch took her hard work, in the form of a high-tech executive level presentation, to at

least three members of executive management, HR, and multiple Directors including the then-CFO

and CIO. Senior management and CIO written responded in writing that it was an excellent concept,

and directed management to develop plans around Ms. Welch’s approach.1 However Ms. Welch’s

management did not agree, and forwarded an angry response to Welch, stating “just because senior

management has an open door policy for employees and may support your idea, does not mean you

118

should use it or will we use your idea”. This response was given by Rebecca Perez, white female,

then-Director of Portfolio Management, and now in executive management for corporate IT.

Ms. Welch returned to an even more hostile environment, and was labeled by Corporate IT

management as a “troublemaker”. Ms. Welch was advised by her HR representative, Christopher

Gunn, an African-American, to discontinue all equal rights challenges to management because such

efforts had the potential to severely damage and destroy her career opportunities. Mr. Gunn told her

that discrimination would be impossible to prove and change at Lilly. He strongly advised Ms.

Welch to give up this quest.

During the summer of 2002, immediately following these events, Defendant informed Ms.

Welch that her position would be eliminated and that she would have to bid for a job in another area

in order to stay on her career path, despite her being second in seniority in her corporate IT group.

Ms. Welch’s white counterparts with less seniority performing similar work were able to maintain

their career paths while remaining in that same corporate IT area. Ms. Welch was denied

opportunities in corporate IT for positions for which she was qualified because of negative feedback

provided by her management that she was a troublemaker in terms of raising discrimination issues.

In September 2002, based on Ms. Welch’s specific expertise in the Parenteral Manufacturing

and Quality area, Defendant invited Welch to join a high level team of white male project managers

and business integrators that was assigned to respond to an FDA warning and to correct any

problems underlying it. Her job was described as Senior Project Administrator in the Parenteral

Manufacturing, Quality, Informatics (PMQI) Group, with business integrator duties. Her

performance on the team was excellent, and Ms. Welch’s contributions were well documented by

both IT and Parenteral Manufacturing management. The project was very successful, but her white

119

male counterpart and other white male employees received substantial bonuses, merit awards, and

promotions while she did not.

Although Plaintiff Welch posted and was selected for a pay level 56-58 position in 2000 and

again in 2002 and performed duties consistent with those postings, Defendant paid her at Level 50.

White employees with similar duties and qualifications that were no better than Welch’s were paid

more than Welch during the time from 2000 forward.

Shortly after joining the group in the PMQI Department, plaintiff Welch was the only African

American employee in a salaried position in her work area. Racist comments by and among white

employees against black employees and other blacks were common in that department. On one

occasion, Welch found a dark colored doll with a noose around its neck on her desk. She believes

the doll was placed there by one or more white employees.

In 2001 and again in March 2003, Plaintiff Welch filed internal complaints of race

discrimination that included the equal pay issues for herself and other similarly situated African-

Americans. She also raised the issue with her supervisors during the annual ratings for Performance

Management reviews in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Defendant did not provide her with equal pay and

merit compensation.

In early 2004, Plaintiff Welch brought her complaints about racially discriminatory remarks

and conduct and her comparatively low rate of pay to the attention of management officials,

including Jim Telford. When she complained of discrimination, James Stefanek, one of Welch’s

managers told her that manufacturing managers view upper level managers who write diversity

policies as “yahoos . . . [they] will not tell manufacturing how to manage these people. ”

She then discussed the discrimination issue and reported Mr. Stefanek’s comments to Mike

120

Roesner, her Human Resources representative. He told her that manufacturing management consider

some Lilly corporate management to be “nigger lovers.” He later told Welch that “you are not in

corporate IT any more” - meaning that management would not address her concerns.

In early 2004, Welch also advised a higher level executive, that African- American

employees of the Defendant were not receiving equal compensation in the Parenteral IT department

under his jurisdiction. After Plaintiff Welch’s informal complaints in 2004, Mr. Elliott took away

her assignments.

In March 2004, Welch was advised that Bryan A. Mitchell (who had been Welch’s partner

in a non-Lilly real estate venture), complained to the Human Resources Office of Defendant that

Plaintiff was engaged in “office harassment” against him. On or about June 8, 2004, the Defendant,

acting through two representatives of its Human Resources department and Plaintiff’s manager and

team leader, discharged Plaintiff Welch for alleged misconduct. Defendant’s four officials asserted

that Plaintiff had engaged in misconduct by falsifying one or more e-mails using the company e-mail

system. The subject e-mails were part of the Bryan A. Mitchell investigation.

The allegation that Plaintiff Welch had falsified one or more e-mails was false. She did not

engage in any misconduct. Upon information and belief, Defendant has never discharged or punished

a non-African-American employee for the kind of conduct it used to discharge Welch.

126. Plaintiff Helen West was employed at Lilly between January 2002 and June 2003, where

she was a Senior Sales Representative covering Madison, WI. Ms. West came in with twenty years

of industry experience, yet a white female hired in the same time period was hired in as a manager

despite having less experience.

Ms. West was the only African-American on her team. Her white female “territory partner”

121

did not want to work with her. Ms. West reported her colleague’s falsification of doctor visits, but

management did nothing. Ms. West was told that she would not receive a raise because she did not

meet expectations, but was being held responsible for her territory partner’s performance.

Ms. West was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process, and was

denied opportunities by her manager to be put on the “fast track” to management. On one occasion,

Ms. West was the only employee to volunteer for a Humalog team leader position; her manager said

he would “get back to her,” but never did. Instead, he gave the team leader position to a white female

colleague. Ms. West’s manager would consistently give her bad ratings after “ride-alongs.” Ms. West

filed a complaint with HR based on the discrimination she was experiencing, but nothing was done.

Ms. West resigned from Lilly in June 2003.

127. Plaintiff Michael Westmoreland has been employed by Lilly since May 1991. Between 2002

and 2004, Mr. Westmoreland was a Level 42 nonexempt supervisor in ELANCO, a Lilly affiliate

that develops animal health products. Mr. Westmoreland’s group was assigned to a project being

sponsored by Dow Chemical. If certain test parameters were met, Dow would award (Lilly)

ELANCO an additional $3 million bonus. Michael's group persevered and exceeded expected goals,

yet the bonus that Mr. Westmoreland received was the same as those employees under his direction.

Mr. Westmoreland was also paid less salary than his white supervisory counterparts performing

similar work. Less-tenured white exempt and non-exempt counterparts received significantly more.

Mr. Westmoreland complained to his supervisor about these disparities, but did not receive any

support, and he soon left ELANCO.

Mr. Westmoreland has been an exempt Level 50 Quality Control Lab Leader since 2004. Mr.

Westmoreland is currently earning less than at least one of his white subordinates, despite Mr.

122

Westmoreland’s superior education.

Mr. Westmoreland has nine subordinates and performs work comparable to that of the white

Department Heads for the same function. When the position of Department Head became open for

his area, Mr Westmoreland was assigned by his management to the position temporarily. He

successful fulfilled the position for months, yet he was denied an opportunity to apply for the job

opening. Mr. Westmoreland’s management did not support his application for the job, yet they asked

him to take over the duties without the pay. In fact, they hired a white employee with less tenure in

the Company and less experience in that area, and told Mr. Westmoreland to train her for the job.

Mr. Westmoreland has also been subjected to numerous racial epithets from his colleagues

in his current position (e.g. “Buckwheat” comments), yet his complaints to human resources have

not led to any action.

128. Plaintiff Donna Williams holds a BS in Computer Technology and a Masters in Health

Administration (MHA) from Indiana University, and was employed at Lilly beginning in 1998, and

was a Level 54 Senior Systems Analyst in Pharmaceutical Delivery Systems between 2003 and 2005.

Ms. Williams was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Ms. Williams

was assigned to a white female supervisor in January 2003. During this time, she was stuck retiring

computer systems that were no longer in a validated state, while her white colleagues were given

better projects that prepared them for advancement. Ms. Williams was also witness to continual

harassment against African-American employees in her department. Ms. Williams and another

African-American employee were even warned by a white colleague not to talk to a fellow African-

American employee, Stephanie Young. Ms. Williams complained to internal HR about her

supervisor’s treatment of Ms. Young, yet nothing happened. Ms. Williams went on leave in 2005,

123

and due to the racial harassment that was pervasive in her area, she decided not to return to Lilly in

April 2006.

129. Plaintiff Katherine “Kitty” Williams was employed at Lilly between January 2004 and June

2007, beginning as a Senior Quality Representative, and ending as a Level 54 Senior Quality

Engineer. Ms. Williams was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process; a

narrow band of her white colleagues was selected for Defendant’s Succession Management process,

while Ms. Williams and other African-Americans were not given the same opportunity. As a result,

Ms. Williams’s opportunities for advancement were set back.

Ms. Williams’s position was reallocated in early 2005; she soon posted for an Engineering

Consultant position in Prince William County, VA, and was hired. When she called an HR

representative about the position, she was informed that the position posting was a “mistake.”

However, a white female colleague who inquired about this same posting was not given this same

explanation. Ms. Williams came back to the Prince William facility as a Senior Project Engineer.

However, after the facility was shut down in early 2007, Ms. Williams was not offered any

promotions, only laterals. Ms. Williams resigned from Lilly in June 2007.

130. Plaintiff Albert Wilson was employed as an engineer at Lilly between1995 to 2003.Mr.

Wilson was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. While he consistently

met and exceeded his performance objectives in the Performance Management process, he received

less merit pay and promotion opportunities than his white counterparts doing the same job

Mr. Wilson was a victim of a racially hostile work environment, including the use of racist

slurs and epithets. At one point Mr. Wilson observed the “N” word had been written on the men’s

bathroom wall. When he reported this to management and HR there was no action taken. In 2003,

124

Mr. Wilson took an education leave of absence, and in 2007 resigned from the Company.

131. Plaintiff Darryl Wilson has been employed by Lilly since 1986, and is currently a Level 36

Senior Process Operator in the Manufacturing function. Mr. Wilson has been adversely impacted by

Lilly’s Performance Management process. Mr. Wilson’s white counterparts are paid more and

receive better bonuses for performing similar work. There are several instances when he posted for

positions that were subsequently given to less qualified white employees, sometimes without him

even getting an interview.

Mr. Wilson has been subjected to several racist remarks and slurs by white colleagues who

have subsequently became supervisors. He has also been retaliated against in pay and promotions

for voicing his concerns to HR, and has earned a reputation for 'not being a team player' because he

will speak out against the discrimination he has experienced. As a result, it is hard for him to secure

interviews for jobs he posts for. Although Mr. Wilson has complained to HR, there has been no

follow-up.

132. Plaintiff Angela Wright was employed by Lilly between 1972 and December 2004, where

she ended up an Analytical Assistant in the Manufacturing function. Ms. Wright was adversely

impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. Her non-African American peers were

groomed for advancement while she was not afforded similar opportunities; when a new system was

implemented she was the last to be trained. Ms. Wright’s non-African American counterparts were

provided with job assignments that she was denied, and which positioned them for advancement

while she was not given comparable opportunities: Ms. Wright created a new system for auditing,

which a white female counterpart was credited for. Ms. Wright’s management in turn had her train

another white female colleague to take over the task.

125

Ms. Wright’s employment was terminated in retaliation for her discrimination complaints

at Lilly.

133. Plaintiff James Wright was employed at Lilly between 1969 and December 2003, where he

retired as an Assistant Senior Pharmaceutical Chemist. Mr. Wright was adversely impacted by

Lilly’s Performance Management process; the ratings his supervisors gave him were overly

subjective, which affected his ability to advance. Mr. Wright was passed over for assignments that

would lead to promotions in favor of white colleagues with similar qualifications. He was also paid

less than his white colleagues for performing similar work. Mr. Wright retired early in December

2003 as a result of the lack of promotions.

134. Plaintiff Tom Wright has been employed at Lilly since 1974, and is a Level 34 Senior Lab

Operator at the Tippi Plant. Mr. Wright has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. He has not been promoted since the early 1990s, and has been denied

promotions in favor of white counterparts with less experience. Mr. Wright is also paid less than his

white colleagues that perform similar work. Mr. Wright has expressed his concerns to human

resources personnel, but was simply told that he already makes good money. In the mid-1990s, Mr.

Wright witnessed pictures of Klan hoods on his locker, yet no action was taken.

135. Plaintiff Darin Wrinch was employed at Lilly between June 2002 and January 2006 as a

Systems Analyst in Financial IT. Mr. Wrinch was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. He was denied the proper training needed for advancement and promotion.

Mr. Wrinch was also disciplined for problems with Lilly’s computer systems, while his white

counterparts were not subject to similar discipline. Mr. Wrinch left Lilly in January 2006.

136. Plaintiff Emerson Wynne was employed at Lilly between 1967 and 2004, working in

126

production. Mr.Wynne was adversely affected by Defendant’s Performance Management process.

His last promotion at Lilly was in the early 1980s. Mr. Wynne did not receive a raise during hist last

five years of employment at Lilly, while his white colleagues with lesser experience were paid more

than he.

137. Plaintiff Stephanie Young holds BA, MS, and MBA degrees, and was a Process Engineer

between 2001 and August 2004 at Indy Dry, a Process Engineer at Pharmaceutical Delivery Systems

between August 2004 and June 2007. Ms. Young has remained a Level 52 since beginning at Lilly,

and has not received any promotions. In 2002, Ms. Young’s HR manager went on vacation, and the

plant manager decided to promote a number of Ms. Young’s white colleagues without posting these

positions, or allowing anyone else to apply.

A white male was hired as a Process Engineer in the PDS Device Investigations unit a year

after Ms. Young began there. Ms. Young took time out of her schedule to mentor him, as his product

was the next generation of her current product, yet he was promoted to a Level 54 or 56 only six

months after starting the job. Ms. Young’s Team Leader was placed as her supervisor when she was

a Process Engineer at Indy Dry despite his lack of validation experience. Although Ms. Young had

been providing direction both to her peers and contractors for six months, she was never asked to

interview for the position and it was never posted.

Ms. Young was subject to repeated harassment by her Team Leader in the PDS Test group,

including telling her peers in another work group her salary, and telling her colleagues that her

projects were behind, even though he had never assigned a deadline for any of her projects or

notified her of any missed deadlines. Ms. Young’s Team Leader did not behave in a similar fashion

in front of her white colleagues. Ms. Young was not allowed to undertake any training to learn

127

software, but was simply told to work with her supervisor.

Ms. Young complained to HR about the hostile environment her supervisor in PDS created,

and was allowed to assume another position, yet her new Team Leader was claiming she could not

complete her projects on time. Although Ms. Young would send him weekly status reports, he would

never open them, and any time she discussed promotions with him, he would simply say she was not

ready.

138. Plaintiff Rosalind Young-Perry has been employed at Lilly since1989, and is currently a

Level 40, Analytical Instrumentation Specialist. Ms. Young-Perry has been adversely impacted by

Lilly’s Performance Management process. She continued to perform as well or better than her white

counterparts for similar jobs; yet has been rated lower than the other whites doing similar work. Ms.

Young-Perry complained that the Performance Management process was subjective, and that “Lilly

behaviors” that could not be measured because they were not related to actual job performance.

Ms. Young-Perry also received lower merit pay and was not supported for promotions in

contrast to her white counterparts. She complained to her supervisor and HR about this

discrimination yet no actions to resolve her complaint were taken. Ms. Young-Perry tried to post out

to a new area, but did not receive any support from her supervisors.

128

APPENDIX B

1. Karen Applewhite holds a BA in Science and Business Administration. She was

employed by Lilly from 2001 to February 2008 in the position of Senior Systems Analyst at Level

54. Ms. Applewhite worked for Manufacturing IT in the Information Technology function at Lilly

corporate center (LCC). Ms. Applewhite was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. She was never promoted during her tenure at Lilly, and was repeatedly passed

over by her Team Leader for promotion and grooming, while her white counterparts received such

opportunities. She also earned less than her white counterparts that performed similar work. Ms.

Applewhite resigned from Lilly in February 2008.

2. Annita Bailey was employed at Lilly for a period of nine months between 2006 and 2007

as a Sales Representative. Shortly after she was hired, Ms. Bailey was subject to racial harassment

by a coworker which she immediately reported to her District Manager and up through a Diversity

Team Meeting. Ms. Bailey quickly because subject to a hostile work environment which resulted in

stress-related illness. This racial harassment was retaliation for her raising the issue of race

discrimination to her superior. Ms. Bailey was forced to resign because of the stress and hostility

toward her.

3. Delida Batiste was employed at Lilly between 1995 and 2008 as a Senior Sales

Representative. Ms. Batiste was an exceptional performer, and in 2007 she was in the top 11% in

national performance, while also winning contests and receiving recognition from her manager.

However, Ms. Batiste was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process;

she received her last promotion in 1997, and was passed over for promotions in favor of white

counterparts with less tenure and experience. When Ms. Batiste had discussions concerning a

129

promotion to Executive Sales Representative, she was given "moving target" goals, and realized that

she would never be given the same opportunity as her white colleagues for promotion to this

position. Ms. Batiste was also among the lowest paid sales representatives in her district with similar

or less tenure. Ms. Batiste was terminated in June 2008.

4. Tina Catron has been employed at Lilly since 1999, and is currently a Senior Sales

Representative. Ms. Catron has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management

process. In 2003, she was offered the opportunity by HR to be responsible for the EEO-1 reporting

for sales in the neuroscience therapeutic area. Ms. Catron met and exceeded the Performance

Management objectives as defined in her performance process for this role, and told this was a

stepping stone to her move to management after two to four years of development in HR and

successfully completing a management assessment test.

Ms. Catron began to question the EEO-1 data from Lilly as not compliant in terms of African

Americans. She was told it was her responsibility to make sure African Americans were being

recruited for the open positions. Ms. Catron informed her manager that, although African Americans

with similar or greater education and experience were being recruited and interviewed, they were not

being selected by the all-white hiring teams. Ms. Catron raised this issue after being in her role for

only about one year. Immediately after bringing these issues to the attention of management she was

told that rather than wait at least two years, she would be given her management assessment test

immediately.

Ms. Catron challenged this decision, as her white counterparts doing similar work were being

allowed to complete at least two years of development and training in the role before being given

the test. Ms. Catron’s concerns were not addressed and she was quickly moved into the test arena.

130

Ms. Catron she was being set up for failure in retaliation for raising the noncompliance issues

regarding the hiring of African Americans via the EEO-1 data. Ms. Catron’s manager told her that

if she did not pass the test she would have to move back to the field as a sales representative

immediately for more development. Ms. Catron did not have the same opportunities for training and

mentoring as her white counterparts before taking the test.

As expected, Ms. Catron did not succeed in passing the test, and was moved out of the EEO-

1 office immediately back into the field. Since that incident Ms. Catron has been “blackballed”

internally from advancing to a management role.

5. Sandra Combs was hired by Lilly in June 1989. She currently works as a Senior Clinical Data

Management Assistant Level 34 for the US Diagnostic organization in Science and Regulatory

Function. Ms. Combs has been adversely impacted by Defendant’s Performance Management

process. She has not received a promotion in more than 10 years. She has been denied training and

grooming assignments opportunities that are given to her white counterparts. She is also paid less

than her white counterparts for the same work.

6. Chandra Elam(Wilburn) holds a Ph.d. in Chemistry, and was employed by Eli Lilly from

June 1998 to August 2004 as a Quality Control Representative in the Quality Control function. She

also held positions in the Quality Assurance function and as an Analytical Chemist for Parenteral

products in the Manufacturing function.

Ms. Elam was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. During her

tenure at Lilly she was never promoted. Although her performance was higher than that her white

counterparts in the same position with similar duties, Ms. Wilburn was always told she needed to

do more work in order to get promoted. However, two white counterparts with lesser performance

131

than her and with less education and experience were promoted within two and a half years.

Ms. Wilburn became victim of a hostile work environment. On one occasions, items were

taken from her desk without her permission. She was also asked harassing questions about her job

requirements.

Ms. Elam was adversely impacted by Defendant’s Performance Management process. While

out on FMLA leave for foot surgery, Ms. Elam received a call from Lilly about a new assignment

she was appointed to that did not involve a promotion. Ms. Elam was one of forty people selected

companywide for a specific FDA inspection project. Although Ms. Elam received her bonus for the

assignment, she was denied the stock options that were given to her non African American

counterparts.

Ms. Elam sat down with her department head and mapped her performance management plan

and agreed it was to be in line with a promotion for year end. Ms. Elam followed the plan, but was

surprised at the end of the year when the promotion went to her white counterpart instead. Ms. Elam

was told she would have to take over the white counterpart’s assignments because of the promotion.

As a result of being passed over for promotions, Ms. Elam decided to go on educational leave in

2004 to complete her Ph.d. degree.

7. Monica Gillison holds an MBA Degree, and is a currently employed by Lilly as a sales

representative in Ohio with a speciality in the Neuroscience therapeutic area. Ms. Gillison is

adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She earns less than her white

colleagues performing comparable work. She has been told that it would take her between twelve

fifteen years to attain an executive sales level position, while her white counterparts attain such a

position after five to seven years.

132

Ms. Gillison has also been subject to a hostile work environment by her manager. On one

occasion at a business planning session, after he asked for Ms. Gillison’s opinion differed from his,

he told Ms. Gillison if she had nothing positive to say then she should not speak in front of her white

colleagues. On another occasion, he told Ms. Gillison that she should use different verbiage less

becoming of an African American trying to influence others, and used the analogy of a ship and a

tag that steers the ship. He used the same language against an African-American colleague of Ms.

Gillison prior to terminating her.

Ms. Gillison wrote a complaint to the executive management team for Sales to voice her

opinion on the discrimination she and other African-Americans were experiencing. Ms. Gillison

received a visit from the Executive Director of Sales, and afterward her management changed her

performance rating to “need improvement.”

8. Carnell Hayes was employed by Lilly between May 2002 and June 2003 as a Sales

Representative, and began as the only African-American employee in his department. Mr. Hayes was

adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. After four months in his position,

he was informed that he wasn’t the “right fit” for Lilly, even though he had won two awards. Mr.

Hayes was forced to submit reports to his manager every Friday about the previous week, though his

white counterparts were not required to do likewise. Mr. Hayes continued to be subjected to a hostile

environment by his white supervisor, and resigned from Lilly in June 2003.

9. Jesse Ladd has been employed at Lilly since 1978, and is currently a Level 36 Senior Process

and Steam Operator. Ms. Ladd has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management

process. She has trained a number of white employees who have advanced ahead of her, and is paid

less than her white counterparts. Ms. Ladd had received good performance reviews, but in 2006, a

133

white male supervisor came in, giving Ms. Ladd a critical performance review and a lower raise than

she had previously earned. Ms. Ladd complained about her pay level to her supervisor and HR, yet

nothing was done. Ms. Ladd took stress leave in order to get off this shift. Ms. Ladd has trained for

improvement in her grade, yet has still not received a pay increase.

10. James McDuffie holds BA and MBA degrees, and was employed by Lilly as a Sales

Representative between 1999 and 2006. Despite being the #1 Sales Representative in the U.S. for

three years, Mr. McDuffie never received a promotion. When Mr. McDuffie asked his supervisor

why he had not been promoted, she responded that he lacked “leadership skills,” despite his proven

performance and his tenure as a Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves. Mr. McDuffie’s supervisor

would also take doctors in his territory and give them to his white counterparts in order to deflate

his numbers. Mr. McDuffie was eventually terminated in 2006.

11. Victoria Nelson is a employed by Lilly in manufacturing at the Lafayette plant. Ms. Nelson

has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She has been successful

in her performance plan, but receives less merit pay than her white counterparts. Ms. Nelson

complained about her unequal pay, and was put on redeployment assignment immediately thereafter.

While she was able to secure a new position in one of the Indianapolis plants, her lack of equal pay

continues.

12. Emily Nichols holds an MBA degree, and was employed at Lilly between August 2004 and

April 2007. Ms. Nichols was hired into Lilly as an account leader in HR, and believed she was

coming into a higher-level position. Instead, she was brought into an entry level position. .

Ms. Nichols was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She

received nominal performance reviews while white counterparts received better reviews for

134

comparable performance. Ms. Nichols was not promoted in the three years at the Company, and in

her last year did not receive a raise, in contrast to her white counterparts.

Ms. Nichols was also denied training and testing that white counterparts received. In one

instance, she was kept out of riding in cars with white counterparts during certain outside recruiting

visits. On another occasion, two white managers said they could not live in a certain neighborhood

because their “grill” would be stolen by certain (African-American) people. Ms. Nichols complained

about these comments, yet nothing was done.

Ms. Nichols was also subject to a hostile working environment. The atmosphere in Ms.

Nichols’s work environment was poisonous to African-Americans. Ms. Nichols’s white colleagues

would not talk to her, and would not invite her to meetings. Ms. Nichols would get hives and get sick

just from going into work.

13. Debra Smith was employed at Lilly between May 2002 and July 2004 as a Senior

Administrative Assistant in Parenteral Systems IT (Manufacturing), and since July 2004 has held the

same position in Indy Parenteral Engineering. Ms. Smith’s duties from October 2002 until June 2004

included administrative assistant for plaintiff Cassandra Welch. She is currently a Level 34.

During her employment in the same area as Ms. Welch, Ms. Smith witnessed the hostile

work environment Ms. Welch was subjected to because of her race, including racial jokes and emails

from Ms. Welch's white counterparts. Ms. Smith was quickly separated from the group after Ms.

Welch was terminated in June 2004, and was moved to a different group.

Ms. Smith has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. She

received successful performance ratings in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and received recognition

and awards for her job performance. After this lawsuit was filed in 2006, Ms. Smith was summoned

135

by Lilly’s counsel, without legal representation, to a meeting to answer questions regarding Ms.

Welch’s allegations. Since then, Ms. Smith’s performance ratings have worsened, and she has

received minimal pay increases.

14. Rhonda Stovall was employed at Eli Lilly Lafayette Plant as a Lab Technician for Elanco

Animal health. Ms. Stovall repeatedly met and exceed her PM objectives in terms of project

assignments and tasks as annually defined. Yet, as the third senior person in her group she

consistently received less merit pay and opportunities for advancement than her white counterparts

for similar work. When she complained about discrimination she was told that because her low

merits were due to Lilly’s performance behaviors not being met. Ms. Stovall asked repeatedly that

those be explained and development assigned to her to meet these “behaviors” because all her work

was agreed to be performed well. No such examples could be given for “Lilly behaviors” and Ms.

Stovall’s white counterparts doing similar work had performance less or equal to her yet they were

still receiving high merit and promotions. Ms. Stovall indicated that successful performance had

nothing to do with Lilly behaviors. Out of frustration for her ability to succeed based on these

discriminatory processes Ms. Stovall left the company.

15. Michael Taylor was employed at Lilly between February 2004 and August 2005 as a District

Sales Specialist, Neuroscience Division, where he was ranked in the top 5% of his district for 3rd

quarter 2004. Mr. Taylor was adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance Management process. In

spite of his success, Mr. Taylor did not receive a raise, while his white partner received a raise with

the same numbers. Mr. Taylor was also passed over for a promotion to the Marketing Department

in Indianapolis in favor of a white counterpart with less experience.

Mr. Taylor’s manager continued to cancel “ride alongs” with him throughout the spring and

136

summer of 2005, and was traveling throughout his territory trying to solicit negative feedback. As

a result of this hostile behavior by his manager, Mr. Taylor left Lilly in August 2005.

16. Gary Webb was hired by Lilly in 2001 as a production technician trainee in the Bulk

Manufacturing function. Mr. Webb has been adversely impacted by Lilly’s Performance

Management process. Despite his successful performance, he was paid less than his white

counterparts for comparable work. When he complained to his supervisor, he was told he should just

continue to do his job and not concern himself with promotion.