Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 1 of 15

No. 01-495C (Judge Bruggink)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

KENT CHRISTOFFERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF PURSUANT TO COURT'S JULY 1, 2008 ORDER AND EXHIBITS

GREGORY G. KATSAS Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM Assistant Director Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit, 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Attorneys for Defendant July 24, 2008

OF COUNSEL: RAYNA ELLER Office of the General Counsel Bureau of the Census Suitland, MD 20746-24

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 2 of 15

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S) DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF PURSUANT TO COURT'S JULY 1, 2008 ORDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. Plaintiffs' Focus Upon The Assistance Of Counsel And Associated Privileges Is Irrelevant Because They Have Had The Assistance Of Counsel And The Court Already Has Ruled That The Notes At Are Not Privileged . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Attorney-Client Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. Work-Product Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 II. The Right To Amend Is Not At Issue. Either Plaintiffs Certified Their Responses Timely Or They Did Not. At Issue Is The Content Of Their Alleged Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

INDEX TO THE EXHIBITS Communication between Plaintiff's Attorney and Defendant's Attorney, dated March 24, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit A Sharon West Claim Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit B Toni-Ann Jewell Claim Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit C Laura Mae Workman Claim Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit D Field Nonsupervisory Census Employee Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit E Field Supervisory Census Employee Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit F Carol Siemons Statement Regarding Overtime Worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit G

-i-

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 3 of 15

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE(S)

Barton v. U.S. District Court for Central Dist. Of Cal., 410 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Christofferson v. United States, No. 01-495C (Fed. Cl. July 6, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim Christofferson v. United States, No. 01-495C (Fed. Cl. July 6, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 EEOC v. Int'l Profit Assocs., Inc., 206 F.R.D. 215 (N.D. Ill. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Upjohn Company v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 STATUTES and RULES 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 RCFC 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 RCFC 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 9, 10

-ii-

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 4 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS KENT CHRISTOFFERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 01-495C (Senior Judge Bruggink)

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF PURSUANT TO COURT'S JULY 1, 2008 ORDER Defendant, the United States, respectfully submits this reply to plaintiffs' brief opposing our motion to compel notes of plaintiffs' responses to the claim questionnaire ("Questionnaire"). The Questionnaire was established by the parties' Court-approved Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). The flaw in plaintiffs' argument is its failure to acknowledge the Court's previous resolution of plaintiffs' privilege claims, the inadequacy of plaintiffs' attorneycreated "database" as a substitute for compliance with the MOU, and plaintiffs' inapt analogy of the Questionnaire to an interrogatory. In the end, plaintiffs' position does nothing but tear down the painstakingly-crafted dispute resolution procedure that has guided this case successfully for two years. I. Plaintiffs' Focus Upon The Assistance Of Counsel And Associated Privileges Is Irrelevant Because They Have Had The Assistance Of Counsel And The Court Already Has Ruled That The Notes At Are Not Privileged Plaintiffs' brief demonstrates either their misunderstanding or refusal to acknowledge this Court's October 25, 2007 decision. There, the Court held that the answers to the Questionnaire were not privileged, noting that its purpose was not to facilitate plaintiffs' internal investigation and legal positioning, but to identify to the Government the factual underpinning and amount

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 5 of 15

claimed by each plaintiffs. Christofferson v. U.S., No. 01-495, slip op. at 11.1 A. Attorney-Client Privilege In rejecting plaintiffs' last claim of attorney-client privilege, the Court explained that in order to qualify for the privilege, a plaintiff must have sought legal advice by "including communications outside of the questions posed in the Questionnaire . . . ." Id. n. 4 (emphasis added). The Court found that completing a Questionnaire response did not amount to a request for legal advice. Id. at 9. Emphasizing that the Questionnaire was designed jointly, the Court rejected the very argument plaintiffs make here, that cases such as Upjohn Company v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), Barton v. U.S. District Court for Central Dist. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2005), and EEOC v. Int'l Profit Assocs., Inc., 206 F.R.D. 215 (N.D. Ill. 2002), require the protection of the notes. Christofferson, slip op. at 8-11. In doing so, the Court distinguished the questionnaires in those cases, which were developed by the parties' attorneys to investigate the cases and provide legal advice, from the Questionnaire here, which was jointly developed, induced no expectation of confidentiality, and was intended to elicit responses for the Government's analysis. Id. Other than arguing the general sanctity of the privilege and asserting that the notes at issue were created in the course of conversations between plaintiffs and attorneys, plaintiffs offer no new argument concerning the notes we seek, other than to assert that, generally, the attorney notes are in the form of a chart and include "legal analysis and advice . . . and impressions and

Plaintiffs' argument that "liability is still hotly contested" (Pl. Br. 5) and that, therefore, the notes are privileged misses this point and is self-defeating. The point of the Questionnaire, which addresses liability and quantum, is to achieve a settlement. Without complete responses, settlement cannot be achieved. -2-

1

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 6 of 15

legal strategy for the future." Pl. Br. 6. Plaintiffs also assert that "sometimes a client would impart information that was not relevant to this litigation, but would disclose it to counsel seeking their advice and opinion." Id. However, we do not seek information about a plaintiff's legal problems "not relevant to this litigation" or their attorneys' legal advice.2 But, the fact that attorneys or clerks might have memorialized a plaintiff's response to the questionnaire makes no difference, if in fact, plaintiffs intended to communicate their sworn responses in that manner.3 At best, those notes represent the attorneys' work as scriveners ­ not attorneys. The fact that they might have provided legal advice before plaintiffs arrived at their answers is of no moment. And, to the extent that the attorneys' or clerks' note-taking practices mingled evidence of any such advice with a plaintiffs' Questionnaire responses is a difficulty of plaintiffs' own making ­ a difficulty to be addressed, if at all, by a proper redaction and privilege log concerning the alleged advice or request for advice, not a withholding of the Questionnaire response.4

For the same reasons, plaintiffs' reliance upon the Court's distinction between "`counsel's notes from conversations with clients'" and "`answers to a jointly drafted questionnaire,'" (Pl. Br. 11 (quoting Christofferson at slip op. at 10)) is misplaced. We do not seek notes of unrelated conversations, we seek the notes of the responses themselves ­ or to strike any response written by an attorney on the questionnaire response form.
3

2

If they did not, the attorney's notes are irrelevant and should not be considered.

As we have previously explained, we requested such a proper log and received only a list of 4,000 names and a letter asserting that plaintiffs' attorneys spoke with them some time between August and February 2007. Def. Ex. 14. The list did not specify the dates of individual conversations, the individual participants, the subject matter or any details that would allow us or the Court to determine whether any privilege was applicable in any particular case. Id. We brought this to Plaintiffs' attention in a letter dated March 23, 2008. Def. Ex. A (attached to this brief). Having failed to provide a proper privilege log pursuant to RCFC 26(b)(5)(A), plaintiffs' reliance upon its broad assertion of privilege, untestable even by the Court, fails. -3-

4

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 7 of 15

In any event, claims that attorneys and "Law Grads" were involved in refining responses to the Questionnaire and that "sometimes" a client might disclose something irrelevant cannot possibly support the blanket denial of the relevant notes we seek ­ notes made relevant by the attorneys themselves having referred to the disclosures in the Questionnaire responses, which plaintiffs were obliged to supply the Government under oath. B. Work-Product Privilege Plaintiffs' claim of privilege pursuant to the work product doctrine also ignores the Courts earlier resolution and lacks a proper privilege log, let alone a proven factual predicate. Again, plaintiffs' argument dwells upon the general nature of the work product doctrine and its salutary purpose. What the argument fails to do is establish that the doctrine applies here. Plaintiffs' concern over the admixture of attorney and "Law Grad" notes concerning "impressions of the individual," "conclusions about what the client expressed to them about their hours," and theories and strategies for deposition of that individual and for trial" is no answer to the Court's holding that the documents are not protected ­ nor a substitute for the plaintiffs' obligation to supply, to the Government, responses under oath ­ not a Law Grad's conclusion about the responses. Plaintiffs' argument that the notes were prepared "in anticipation of litigation," one of the predicates of a work product claim, also is of little moment. As the Court noted, the Questionnaire response process was intended to settle the case. To the extent that, in 2006 and 2007, plaintiffs' attorneys still had to interview plaintiffs concerning the basis and amount of their claim, the privileged component of any such interview could have been recorded in another column on their "chart." But, those columns that comprise a plaintiff's actual responses should

-4-

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 8 of 15

be disclosed. At bottom, those plaintiffs who wish to proceed with a claim in this lawsuit either supplied Questionnaire responses for the Government's analysis or they did not. If all they supplied was extraneous information concerning this or some other litigation, intended for their attorneys' ears only, then they have not timely responded to the Questionnaire, and as the MOU provides, their claims should be dismissed.5 Assuming without having demonstrated that the privilege applies, plaintiffs also assert that the absence of notes does not prejudice the Government, because it "has been provided with Plaintiffs' database of information." Pl. Br. 10. Setting aside the apparent anomaly between plaintiffs' willingness to disclose their attorneys' conclusions about plaintiffs's responses, and not plaintiffs responses themselves, our opening brief demonstrated our need for the notes at issue and why depositions of the "many" plaintiffs whose forms are incomplete without those notes will not do. Suffice it to say the "database" is not accurate, attorney interpretations are not what the parties negotiated, and the Court already has rejected this argument. See Christofferson, slip op. (Oct. 25, 2007) at 10-11.

Indeed, it is clear that at least some missed the deadline and the changes, i.e., the complete responses, were not supplied until after the November 30, 2006 deadline. In addition to the changes made to the Questionnaire responses of Carla Smith, which were noted in our moving brief, changes were made to Sharon West's Questionnaire response on January 16, 2007 (Exh. B at 17761); changes were made to Toni-Ann Jewell's Questionnaire response February 2, 2007 (Exh. C at 8089); and changes were made to Laura Workman's Questionnaire response on March 8, 2007 (Exh. D at 18339). The changes to Ms. Workman's response are dated outside the dates of plaintiffs' privilege log and after plaintiffs had sent defendant the `database" purporting to contain all the information from the Questionnaires. Many other changes on the Questionnaires, and all the changes purportedly made directly on the spreadsheet, are undated. Accordingly, any changes made after the November 30, 2007, deadline should be disregarded. By that deadline, plaintiffs were expected to have submitted a complete and accurate Questionnaire response, and the parties had agreed that the claims of plaintiffs who failed to do so would be dismissed, and had so informed the Court. A select few should not be able to take advantage of a procedure not agreed upon and presumably not made known to other plaintiffs. -5-

5

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 9 of 15

Finally, plaintiffs contend that the MOU does not require them to waive any privilege. While that may be, they have not shown that any privilege applies here. The MOU's bottom line is this: plaintiffs either provide certified responses to all required questions or not. If they wish not to, because they consider the responses privileged, their complaints should be dismissed. But, as we demonstrated in our moving brief, what they cannot do is selectively disclose that which suits them and conceal that which does not. See Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2003) ("The principle is often expressed in terms of preventing a party from using the privilege as both a shield and a sword"). II. The Right To Amend Is Not At Issue. Either Plaintiffs Certified Their Responses Timely Or They Did Not. At Issue Is The Content Of Their Alleged Amendments Plaintiffs focus upon their purported right to "amend" is no more than a restatement of their argument that we should be required to accept the attorneys' report of Questionnaire responses (the "database"), and not the responses themselves. In our moving brief and in multiple conferences, reports and briefs, we have explained why we cannot do so. In its October 25, 2007 decision, the Court agreed. Christofferson, slip op. at 11. Consequently, the claims of any plaintiffs whose Questionnaires are incomplete should be dismissed, regardless of what information plaintiffs' attorneys' placed on the spreadsheet.6 The Plaintiffs' "amendment" twist

In its October 25, 2007 opinion, the Court stated that it had "no reason to doubt the veracity and accuracy of plaintiffs' database (particularly its summary of questions #14 and #17)" (Christofferson, slip op., Oct. 25, 2007, at 11). However, since then, defendant has been provided ample reason to doubt the accuracy of plaintiffs' "database." The information on the spreadsheet is inconsistent with information on the Questionnaire responses. See Defendant's Motion To Compel Production of Notes of Responses to Questionnaires at 6-8. Moreover, plaintiffs' attorney admits that it filled in responses to questions # 14 and # 17 on the spreadsheet even when narrative responses were not supplied on the Questionnaire responses and kept no written memorialization of the actual responses plaintiffs gave them. Def. Ex. 1 at 10. -6-

6

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 10 of 15

on its privilege argument does not demonstrate otherwise. At the outset, we note that plaintiffs were afforded more than enough to time to draft, amend, and finalize their questionnaire forms. The questionnaires were mailed two years ago, in August 2006. Although, by agreement, responses were due almost two months later on September 29, 2006, the deadline was extended another two months to November 30, 2006. According to plaintiffs' attorney's declaration in support of the motion to conceal the questionnaires, his firm began receiving completed forms as early as August 7, 2006. Declaration of Jack W. Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order ¶ 12. In addition to the questionnaire, which was carefully crafted over a year's time with the advice of both parties' survey experts and identified plaintiffs' attorney's contact information, plaintiffs received a cover letter from their attorneys offering more advice and contact information. Thus, the right or opportunity to amend, or the right to assistance is simply not at issue here. Perhaps that is why plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they need to amend. Thus, in place of any actual plaintiff's complaint, plaintiffs' argument is based upon plaintiffs' attorney's conclusory and hearsay-based declaration attesting to the helplessness of his clients ­ who presumably were interested in pursuing these claims, who were responsible for recording the work hours at issue, and who presumably were prepared to attest to their supervisor's knowledge of their overtime. See 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1).7 The declaration's principle point is to attack the comprehensability of questions 14 and

These questions are of particular importance in establishing entitlement to be paid because the facts are uniquely in possession of the plaintiffs. During the 2000 decennial census, their workstations were their residences and the thousands of neighborhoods enumerated. Def. Exs. F and G at 3-2. -7-

7

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 11 of 15

16 ­ questions that counsel and his expert helped draft and approved. In fact, there is nothing confusing about the questions, which read: 14. If any of your numbers are based on estimates, please identify on the Payroll Summary, where indicated, which numbers are estimates and describe how you arrived at those estimates. Do you believe your supervisor knew or had reason to know that you worked overtime prior to your working the overtime? _____Yes _____No

16.

Def. Ex. 2 at 7. Question 17 requested the factual basis for the response to Question 16: 17. If you answered yes to Question 16, explain why you believe your supervisor knew or had reason to know that you worked overtime prior to your working the overtime. (Please refer to pages 2 and 3, "What is Overtime?" for examples of how your supervisor knew or should have known about your working overtime.)

Id. Plaintiffs suggest that question 16 is confusing because it required plaintiffs to "speculate as to whether their supervisor had knowledge of their overtime." Pl. Br. 14. However, the question asks only for plaintiffs' belief concerning their supervisor's knowledge, and the Questionnaire itself explained that: It is not necessary for your supervisor to state directly to you that he/she knows that you are working overtime to show knowledge. Examples of how your supervisor "knew or should have know" you worked overtime would include, but are not be [sic] limited to, the following situations: (1) where your supervisor asked you to record hours worked over 40 on the next week's time sheet (rolling over hours ); (2) where your supervisor signed off on your weekly timesheets which already recorded 40 hours that week and advised your to work more hours to complete the job; (3) where your supervisor asked or ordered you to work overtime for which you have not been paid; (4) where you told your supervisor -8-

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 12 of 15

that you were or would be working overtime; and (5) where your supervisor worked overtime alongside you. Def. Ex. 2 at 3. Counsel suggests that "examples" of confusion include the case of Carol Siemons, who "claimed she could not estimate her overtime. . . " Pl. Br. 16.8 However, estimating is beyond the layman's ken; if anything, the responsive statements by Ms. Siemons and others demonstrate the comprehensability of the questions at issue. Def. Exh. G; B at 17763; C at 8091; D at 18340. To the extent it is a statement of "confusion" regarding how to estimate, even assuming that counsel's assistance was helpful, which we do not gainsay, this is why claimants were given four months. The case of Ms. Kiper, who, the brief simply asserts, "clear[ly] . . did not fully understand the question" (Pl. Br. 17) is of the same sort. Ms. Kiper's case as reported in the brief betrays no confusion concerning question 14, explaining only that her estimate required "adding lunch breaks and/or travel times." Finally, plaintiffs assert that it is proper to amend as a matter of procedural law, relying upon RCFC 15(e) (amendment of the complaint) and 26(e) (updating discovery). However, as we have noted, amendment is not the issue. Failing to provide us with the evidence of amendment is. Moreover, the analogy to the preparation of a complaint and discovery responses is particularly inapt. In the circumstances to which Rule 15 and 26 apply, presumably, a party already has: conferred with its counsel, had as many discussions as necessary, then, by the deadline, pursuant to Rule 11, filed its complaint alleging its prima facie case; then, having received a discovery request, again met with its counsel, and submitted verified responses under

Short of a deposition there is no way to know how persistent this problem is and, without a proper privilege log or interviewing plaintiffs' attorney, we have no way of knowing. -9-

8

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 13 of 15

penalty of perjury to its opponent; then, in the example given, learned that its verified allegations or responses were incorrect, and supplied its opponent with more information from which its opponent can draw its own conclusions or inquire into the reason for the changed information.9 Here, pursuant to rules established by the MOU, we expected and were entitled to receive complete, sworn responses establishing a prima facie right to recovery. If, after we received those responses, we received additional information, we would have considered it, considered its timeliness, and perhaps have identified the respondent for a deposition. Applying the analogy to Rules 15 and 26, we have not received a complaint that states a claim ­ nor we have received a discovery response by the deadline. In July 2007, the Court held that plaintiffs' effort to graft claims for regular hours regular hours on to the MOU process was not in the interests of justice, because to overcome the prejudice to the Government would require too much time and, therefore, delay the resolution of this case. Christofferson v. United States, No. 01-495C, slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cl. July 6, 2007). The same reasoning applies to plaintiffs' current effort to alter the established process by excusing plaintiffs from supplying original, authentic responses. As explained in detail in our moving brief ­ and in the four other briefs we have filed in defense of this process, there is a reason the parties agreed to the very few, pointed questions they did: the answers to those

Plaintiff actually closes with a general attack upon the negotiated procedure, an assertion that it is one of a kind in its counsel's experience, and that we have somehow stacked the deck by effectively precluding plaintiffs from talking to their lawyers. However, this is the procedure that the parties and the Court has fashioned, and is particularly apt for ensuring that those entitled to be paid are and those who are not entitled are not. Moreover, it is one in which plaintiffs have had full access to counsel ­ presumably since 2001. The fact that plaintiffs either could not make a simplified prima facie case in four months or that their counsel were investigating their claims at the same time they were preparing Questionnaire responses is a matter of poor execution, not faulty design. -10-

9

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 14 of 15

questions establish entitlement to payment (or not) and the amounts at issue. Plaintiffs' answer is that we can get the information we require in depositions. But there remain over 1800 plaintiffs and plaintiff has conceded that "many" are affected by the substitutions at issue. Thus, before we would even contemplate such an ambitious undertaking, we would do what we already have done: endeavor to devise a substitute procedure. But, with the Court's assistance, we already have done that, and it took us over a year to do so. If plaintiffs have now changed their answers to Question No. 16 from "no" to "yes," or supplied a response where there was none, we are entitled to see whatever notes substantiate those changes ­ before deciding whether to accept any changes, additions, or deletions ­ or whether to depose a particular plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, GREGORY G. KATSAS Assistant Attorney General s/ Jeanne E. Davidson JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director OF COUNSEL: RAYNA ELLER Office of the General Counsel Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census Suitland MD 20746-24 s/ Steven J. Gillingham STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM Assistant Director Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L St. NW Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 616-2311 Attorneys for Defendant July 24, 2008 -11-

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 15 of 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on July 24, 2008, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. s/ Steven J. Gillingham

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 1 of 46

No. 01-495C (Judge Bruggink)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

KENT CHRISTOFFERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF PURSUANT TO COURT'S JULY 1, 2008 ORDER AND EXHIBITS

GREGORY G. KATSAS Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM Assistant Director Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit, 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Attorneys for Defendant July 24, 2008

OF COUNSEL: RAYNA ELLER Office of the General Counsel Bureau of the Census Suitland, MD 20746-24

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 2 of 46

INDEX TO THE EXHIBITS Communication between Plaintiff's Attorney and Defendant's Attorney, dated March 24, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit A Sharon West Claim Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit B Toni-Ann Jewell Claim Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit C Laura Mae Workman Claim Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit D Field Nonsupervisory Census Employee Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit E Field Supervisory Census Employee Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit F Carol Siemons Statement Regarding Overtime Worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibit G

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 3 of 46

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 4 of 46

A

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 5 of 46

A

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 6 of 46

A

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 7 of 46

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 8 of 46

WeAt

tk

B

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 9 of 46

CLAIM FORM

02

ZOOS

Uh
IN
Please print
clearly in

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL WASHINGTON DC

No

dark

ink

FUU
Name
First Middle Last
Social Security

Number

Street

Address

Apartment

Number

City

State

Zip Code

Do

you wish

to

continue

with

your claim against

the federal government

for unpaid

overtime

NO
If

Yes

please

complete
If

this

Payroll Please

Summary

No you

Claim Form and provide do not need
to

estimates

of your overtime

on the

complete
to

the rest of this Claim
at

Form

return this form and the Payroll

Summary

our offices
in this

the address

No

provided

means you no longer

wish

to

be

antJe aoE
Email Address if any

participant

lawsuit

Work

Phone Number

Best Times to

Call

Home

Phone Number

Best Times to

Call

Cell Phone

Number

Best Times to

Call

Phone Number of Relative

or Other Contacts

Optional

Please

list

any other names used while employed

by the

US

Census Bureau

in

the year

2000

CLAIM FORM

Page

of

B

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 10 of 46

10

While

working

for

the Census

Bureau

in

2000

did you

ever

work more
as

than

40 hours

in

work week Sunday
you
spent traveling
to

through Saturday You should and from your home time spent
breaks
if

include

work

time the time
activities at

on workrelated
those breaks

your

home

and lunch

or dinner

you worked

during

Yes

No
the Payroll

11

Review show

Summary produced
worked and hours

from the Census Bureau
in

payroll records
is

which

the days you

you submitted 40 hours

2000 What
per

of which

weeks

you worked

MORE THAN

many

hours

of overtime

you worked

each of those

40

40
hour

your best estimate

work week and how

weeks
should

There are spaces
indicate

on the

right

hand side of the Payroll you
believe

Summary where you
Please
in

how much
overtime

overtime hours
that

you worked
to

include

on the Payroll
decennial Operations
field

Summary
positions Supervisor

you claim

have worked
Assistant

the following Field

only

Enumerator
Field

Crew Leader
Operations

Crew Leader

Assistant

Supervisor and Special

Places

Operation

Supervisor

Example Assume
second week of

you worked Because

50 hours

in

the

first

week of May and 20
to

hours

in

the
in

May

you were not permitted
for

record

more

than

40 hours

week

you

only recorded

40 hours

the

first

week of May and

did not submit any

overtime

worked

Therefore
PAYROLL

you would indicate your estimate DATA
WED

of overtime

as

follows

ESTIMATE

PAY END

PERIOD DATE

TYPE

SUN

MON

TUE

THU

FRI

SAT

TOTAL

UNPAID OVERTIME

05062000 0506
05

2000
2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
06 05 13

REO

TRAIN
OT

TOTAL
RHO

000 000 000 000 400 000 000

800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800

800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800

800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000

800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000

800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000

000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

4000 000 000 4000 2000 000 000 2000

0513
05

TRAIN
OT TOTAL

132000

0513

400

12

If to

you

banked rolled
Summary
to in

or carried the space hours

over any
indicated

overtime

you worked

add those also
or carried able to

the Payroll hours

Rolledover banked
in in

over
record

refer

overtime

you worked

one one

because doing so would exceed 40 hours
told to
less

week week
to

but were

not

Some
weeks
paid

census
in

employees

were

roll

or

carry
to

over

their

overtime

hours

later

which they overtime hours

worked

than 40 hours
entitled

and therefore were
recovery

already

partially

for

their

You may

be

some

even

if

you rolled over

your overtime

13

Are

of the numbers

you wrote on the Payroll

Summary based on an estimate

4Yes
CLAIM FORM

No

Page

of

B

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 11 of 46

14

If

any of your numbers where

are based

on estimates numbers

please

identify

on the Payroll

Summary
arrived
at

indicated

which

are estimates

and describe

how

you

those estimates

15

If

you have any documents
the overtime
to this

which

existed in

2000

that

may

tend

to

show

that

you of the

worked

claimed

eg
If

datebooks

calendar

entries attach

copies

documents
originals

claim

form

you provide

documents
will

send copies only
to

No
Note that

should

be provided
is

as your documents
to

not be returned

you

documentary proof

not

required

make

claim

16

Do

you believe

your supervisor knew
the overtime

or had reason

to

know

that

you worked

overtime

priopto

your working

Yes
you answered
to

No
yes to
that

17

If

Question 16 explain you worked and
overtime
is

why

you believe

your supervisor knew
the overtime

or

had reason Please

know
to

prior to your working
for

refer

pages

What

Overtime
about

examples of how your

supervisor

knew

or should

have known

your working

overtime

tEt
4o bL
If

ouet
respond
to

o5
use separate

you need additional
Clearly

space
print

to

any of the above

questions

sheet of paper

your name and

SSN

at

the top of each additional

page

and indicate the question

number

swear or affirm under penalty
the best of

of perjury

that

the above

statements

are true

to

my knowledge

and belief

Date

Print

Name

You Must Complete Sign and Return this Claim Form and the enclosed Summary by mail postmarked no later than SEPTEMBER 29 2006
If
it

Payroll

you wish

to

confirm our receipt of MailReturn
visit

this

via Registered

Receipt
local

form we strongly recommend To obtain Registered requested
office

that

you

send

MailReturn

Receipt

form

please

your

post

or go to

wwwuspscom

You must

keep

copy

of completed

forms for your records

CLAIM FORM

Page

of

B

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 12 of 46

ID
Sharon 62

7164

West SE

CUMBERLAND GATE SMYRNA GA 300807795

B

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB
SSN

Document 319-2
PAYROLL SUNMARY

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 13 of 46
Page of

NAME

WestSharon
LOCAL CENSUS Atlanta During
West

CHANGEDATE

OFFICE NAME

POSITION Enumerator

03272000

Hours Worked

112000

11302000

Overtime can only be claimed if you worked more than 40 hours total work week Work time includes during Sunday through Saturday travel time to and from your home time you spent at home making workrelated calls or on other work activities and time you worked lunch or dinner break during PAYROLL DATA ESTIMATE PAY PERIOD OVERTIME END DATE TYPE SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT TOTAL WORICED

04012000 04012000 04012000 04012000 04082000 04082000 04082000 04082000 04292000 04292000 04292000 04292000 05062000 05062000 05062000 05062000 05132000 05132000 05132000 05132000 05202000 05202000 05202000 05202000 06032000 06032000 06032000 06032000 06102000 06102000 06102000

REG TRAIN
OT

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000 000 400 000 400 800 00 000 800 000 000 000 000 800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000

000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 500 000 500 800 000 000 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 800 000 000 800

000 000 000 000 750 000 000 750 000 400 000 400 800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000 800 000 000 800

000 000 000 000 800 000 000 800 000 400 000 400 800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000 800 000 000 800

000 000 000 000
00

650 000 000 650 800 000 000 800 000 800 000 800 800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

1450

000 000
1450 3150

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

000 000 800 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 800 000 000 800
00

000 000
3150

000
2500

000
2500 4000

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

000 000 4000
2400

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

000 000 2400
2400

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

000 000 00 000 000 000
00

000 000 2400
1600

000 000
1600 3200

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

10

TOTAL

000 800 000 000 000 600 000 1400

000 800 000 000 000 400 000 1200

00
00 00

000
1000

00

4200

B

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB
SSN

Document 319-2
PAYROLL SUMMARY

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 14 of 46
Page of

PAYROLL
PAY

DATA THU
FRI SAT

PERIOD END DATE

ESTIMATE OVERTIME TOTAL

TYPE

SUN

MON

TUE

WED

WORKED

06172000 06172000 06172000 06172000

REG TRAIN
OT

000 000
000

000

TOTAL

000

000 000 000

000 000 000 000

000 000 000 000

000 000 000 000

000 000 000 000

800 000 000 800

800 000 000 800

HOURS carried over but were worked in one week not you actually worked them and therefore
OVERTIME

ROLLEDOVER

hours refer to overtime hours that to record on the day that you later date you recorded them on Some census employees were told to roll or carry over their overtime hours to later weeks in which they worked less than 40 hours and therefore were already partially paid for their overtime
or able If If

Rolled

banked

you DID NOT

roll

over

any

overtime

hours

leave

this

section blank overtime you estimate of the
the dates on

have

rolled or carried over any of the you banked claimed above in the spaces below give your best dates those hours and also on which you actually worked hours which you recorded those on your pay form

Assume you worked 50 hours in the first week of May Because Example week you you were not permitted to record more than 40 hours in recorded only 40 for that week and then kept track of the 10 additional hours Assume you worked only 20 hours in the second week of May Instead of recording 20 hours for that week you recorded 30 the 20 actually worked that week plus the 10 carried over from the first In that Rolled week example your answer to this Question would be 10 hours from the first week of May to the second week of

May

If

you are

not

sure 20

of

exact in May

dates
to

Rolled

about

hours

June

you may estimate

For

example

la WeekDate lb
Number
of

Overtime Worked Overtime Hours
in Not

Recorded recorded

lc WeekDate 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c
WeekDate
Number
of

which

Overtime was

Overtime Worked Overtime Hours
in which Not

Recorded recorded

WeekDate WeekDate
Number
of

Overtime was

Overtime Worked Overtime Hours
in Not

Recorded recorded
as

WeekDate
on the

which

Overtime was
of qive

Continue
If any of

another
numbers

sheet

paper
for

necessary RolledOver
Hours are

you

Overtime or

B

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB
SSN

Document 319-2
PAYROLL SUNMARY

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 15 of 46
Page of

estimates to the best of your please write out below which dates and numbers are estimates and describe how you knowledge arrived at those estimates Please use the back of the Payroll Summary sheet for your description If you need additional space use separate of paper clearly labeled with your name and SSN at the top of each additional

based on

page

op

pW

B

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 16 of 46

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

'

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 17 of 46

C

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 18 of 46
AUG
ZOOS

CLAIM FORM

IN

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS WASHINGTON DC

No
Please print clearly in dark

49
Number

ink

nn
Name

CL
Address
to

First Middle Last

Social

Security

Street

Apartment

Number

Cits7

State

Zip Code

Do

you wish

continue

with your claim against the federal government

for

unpaid

overtime

ES

NO
this

If

Yes please

complete
If

Payroll

Summary

No

Claim Form and provide
to

estimates

of your overtime

on the

you do not need

complete
to

the rest of this Claim
at

Form

Please return this form and the Payroll

No means

Summary

our offices
in this

the address

provided

you no longer

wish

to

be

participant

lawsuit

Email Address if any

Work

Phone Number

Best

Times

to

Call

Home

Phone Number

Best

Times

to

Call

Cell Phone

Number

Best Times

to

Call

Phone

mber of

Relative

or Other Contacts

Optional

Please

list

any other names used while

employed

by the

US

Census Bureau

in

the year

2000

CLAIM FORM

Page

of

C

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 19 of 46

10

While

working

for

the Census

Bureau

in

2000

did you should

ever

work more
as

than 40 hours time the time
activities at

in

work week Sunday
you
sp traveling
to

through

Saturday

You

include

work

and from your
breaks
if

home

time

spent on workrelated during those breaks

your

and lunch

or dinner

you worked

Yes

No
the Payroll

11

Review show

Summary produced
and hours

from the Census
submitted
in

Bureau

payroll records
is

which

the days

you worked you worked

you

2000 What
per

your best estimate

of which weeks

MORE THAN

40 hours

work week and how

many

hours

of overtime

you worked

each of those

40

hour

weeks
should

There are spaces
indicate

on the

right

hand side of the Payroll you believe you you worked

Summary where you
Please
in

how much
overtime

overtime hours
that

include

on the Payroll
decennial Operations
field

Summary
positions Supervisor

claim to

have worked

the following Field

only

Enumerator
Field

Crew Leader Assistant
Operations

Crew Leader

Assistant

Supervisor and Special

Places

Operation

Supervisor

Example Assume
second week of

you worked Because

50 hours

in

the

first

week
to

of

May

and 20 hours

in

the
in

May

you were not permitted
for

record

more than 40
did not

hours

week

you

only recorded

40 hours

the

first

week of May and

submit any
as

overtime

worked

Therefore
PAYROLL

you would indicate your estimate DATA
WED THU FRI SAT

of overtime

follows

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PAY END

PERIOD DATE

TYPE

SUN

MON

TUE

UNPAID OVERTIME

05062000 05062000 05062000 05062000
05

EEC TRAIN OT TOTAL

000 000 000 000 400 000 000 400

800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800

800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800

800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000

800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000

800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000

000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

4000 000 000 4000 2000 000 000 2000

132000
13

05132000
05

2000

05132000

EEC TRAIN OT TOTAL

12

If to

you

banked rolled or
Summary
to in

carried over any overtime
indicated

you worked

add those also
or carried
to

the Payroll hours

the space hours

Rolledover banked
in in

over
record

refer

overtime

you worked

one one

because doing so would exceed 40 hours
told to
less

week week
to

but

were not able
census
in

Some
weeks
paid

employees
they

were

roll
than

or

carry
to

over

their

overtime

hours

later

which

worked

40 hours

and therefore were
recovery

already

partially

for

their

overtime hours

You may be

entitled

some

even

if

you

rolled over your overtime

13

Are

of the numbers

you

wrote on the Payroll

Summary based on an estimate

jYes
CLAIM FORM
Page
of

C

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 20 of 46

14

If

any of your numbers where

are based on estimates

please

identify on the Payroll

Summary
arrived
at

indicated

which

numbers

are estimates

and describe

how

you

those estimates

15

If

you have any documents
the overtime
to this

which

existed in

2000

that

may

tend

to

show

that

you
of the

worked

claimed

eg
If as

datebooks

calendar

entries attach
send copies
to

copies

documents
originals

claim

form

you provide

documents
will

only

No
Note that

should

be provided
is

your documents
to

not be returned

you

documentary proof

not

required

make

claim

i7V
to

16

Do

you believe

your supervisor knew
the overtime

or had reason

know

that

you worked

overtime

pri your working
Yes

No
yes to Question
that

17

If

you answered
to

16

explain overtime
is

why

you believe
to

your supervisor knew
the

or

had reason Please

know
to

you and

worked

prior

your working
for

overtime your

refer

supervisor

Vc
my knowledge

If

you need additional

sheet of paper

EE
knew
or should space
to

pages

What

Overtime

examples of

how

have known about

sEk

your working

overtime

respond

to

any of the above questions use
at

separate

Clearly

print your

name and SSN

the top of each additional

page

and indicate the question

number

swear or affirm under penalty
the best of

of perjury

that

the above

statements

are true

to

and belief

Date

Signature

Print

You Must Complete Summary by
If
it

Sign and Return

this

Claim Form and

the

enclosed Payroll

mail postmarked no later than

SEPTEMBER 29
strongly obtain

2006

you wish

to

confirm our receipt of MailReturn
visit

this

form we

recommend
Registered

that

you send

via Registered

Receipt
local

requested
post
office

To

MailReturn

Receipt

form

please

your

or go to

wwwuspscom

You mnst

keep

copy

of completed

forms for your records

CLAIM FORM

Page

of

C

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 21 of 46

ID
Toniann
Jewell

3304

LEWIS PL

YONKERS NY

107031612

C

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB
SSN

Document 319-2
PAYROLL SUMMARY

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 22 of 46
Page
of

NAME

llTo
LOCAL white CENSUS Plains OFFICE NAME worked During

CHANGEDATE

POSITION Enumerator

04242000
Hours

112000

11302000

Overtime can only be claimed if you worked more than 40 hours total work week work time includes during Sunday through Saturday travel time to and from your home time you spent at home making workrelated calls or on other work activities and time you worked lunch or dinner break during PAYROLL DATA ESTIMATE PAY PERIOD OVERTIME END DATE TYPE SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT TOTAL WORKED

04292000 04292000 04292000 04292000 05062000 05062000 05062000 05062000 05132000 05132000 05132000 05132000 05202000 05202000 05202000 05202000 05272000 05272000 05272000 05272000 06032000 06032000 06032000 06032000 06102000 06102000 06102000 06102000 06172000 06172000 06172000 06172000

REG TRAIN
OT

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 650 600 000 000 600 000 000 000 000 500 000 000 500

000 800 000 800 000 000 000 000 400 000 000 400 800 000 000 800 600 000 000 600 000 000 000 000 500 000 000 500 600 000 000 600

000 800 000 800 000 000 000 000 650 000 000 650 600 000 000 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

000 800 000 800 000 000 000 000 800 000 000 800 600 000 000 600 0Do 000 000 000 400 000 000

700 000 000 700 500 000 000 500 800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000 550 000 000 550 700 000 000 700 800 000 050 850

000 000 000 000 500 000 000 500 450 000 000 450 800 000 000 800 000 000 500 300 000 000 300 800 000 100 900 800 000 150 950

000 000 000 000

700 2400 000
3100 1400

400
000 000

000 000
1400 3900

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

400
800 000 000 800

000 000
3900

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

400
000

400
800 000 000 600 800 000 000 800 600 000 000 600 800 000 000 800

TOTAL REQ TRAIN
OT

4000 000 400 4400

50
000 000 2350 2650 000 000
2650 3250

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

400
650 000 000 650 000 000 000 000

000 100
3350 3500

AO

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

000 200
3700

TOTAL

C

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB
ZQ
PAY

Document 319-2
PAYROLL SUMMARY

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 23 of 46
Page
of

PAYROLL PERIOD END DATE TYPE REG TRAIN
OT

DATA THU
FRI SAT

ESTIMATE OVERTIME TOTAL

SUN

MON

TUE

WED

WORKED

06242000 06242000 06242000 06242000 07082000 07082000 07082000 07082000 07152000 07152000 07152000 07152000 07222000 07222000 07222000 07222000

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

500 000 000 500 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 800 000 000 800 600 000 000 600

000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 600 000 000 600 000 000 000 000

000 000 000 000 000

000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800

000 000 000 000 000 800 000 800 600 000 000 600 800 000 000 800

000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 400 000 000 400 750 000 000 750

500 000 000 500 000 800 000 800 4000 000 4000 2950 000 2950
of

000
000 000 800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

TOTAL

HOURS carried over hours refer to overtime hours that worked in one week but were not able to record on the day that you you later date actually worked them and therefore you recorded them on
OVERTIME

ROLLEDOVER

Rolled

banked

or

census employees were told to roll or carry over their overtime hours to later weeks in which they worked less than 40 hours and therefore were already partially paid for their overtime
Some If If

you DID NOT

roll

over any overtime

hours

leave

this

section blank

rolled or carried over any of the overtime you you banked have claimed above in the spaces below give your best estimate of the dates on which you actually worked those hours and also the dates on which you recorded those hours on your pay form
Assume you worked 50 hours in the first week of May Because week you you were not permitted to record more than 40 hours in recorded only 40 for that week and then kept track of the 10 additional hours Assume you worked only 20 hours in the second week of May Instead of recording 20 hours for that week you recorded 30 the 20 that week plus the 10 carried over from the first actually worked In that example Rolled week your answer to this Question would be 10 hours from the first week of May to the second week of

Example

May

If

you

are

Rolled

not sure of exact dates you about 20 hours in May to June Overtime Worked Overtime
in

may estimate

For

example

la WeekDate lb lc
Number
of

Iloo

Hours Not

Recorded
recorded

WeekDate

which

Overtime was

C

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB
SSN

Document 319-2
PAYROLL

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 24 of 46
Page
of

1Q

2a WeekDate 2b
Number
of

Overtime Overtime
in

Worked
Hours Not

Recorded
recorded

2c WeekDate 3a WeekDate 3b
3c
Number
of

which

Overtime was

cr
Go
tOt

Overtime Overtime
in

Worked
Hours Not

Recorded
recorded
as

WeekDate
on

which

Overtime was
of paper

Continue

another

sheet

necessary

If any of the numbers you give for Overtime or RolledOver Hours are based on estimates write out below to the best of your please which dates and numbers are estimates and describe how you knowledge arrived at those estimates Please use the back of the Payroll Summary for your description If you need additional space use separate sheet of paper clearly labeled with your name and SSN at the top of each additional

page

On

UrE

cArd

fr

C5L4 VJt

ft

LU

Qu
C

fl
Ro

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 25 of 46

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 26 of 46

D

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 27 of 46

CLAIM FORM

Uh
IN
Please print clearly in dark

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS WASHINGTON DC THE UNITED No

LJ
49
Number

ink

tb
Social Security

Name

First Middle Last

Street

Address

Apartment

Number

City

State

Zip Code

Do

you wish

to

continue

with

your claim against the federal government

for

unpaid

overtime

NO
If

Yes please

complete
If

this

Payroll

Summary

No

Claim Form and provide
to

estimates

of your overtime

on the

you do not need

complete
to

the rest of this Claim
at

Form

Please return this form and the Payroll

Summary

our offices
in this

the address provided

No

means you no longer

wish

to

be

participant

lawsuit

LOLQM4E
Email Address if any

Work

Phone Number

Uh
Phone Number

Home

oQJiQi
Best Times
to

Best Times

to

Call

Call

Cell Phone

Number

Best

Times

to

Call

Phone Number of Relative

or Other Contacts

Optional
by the

Please

list

any other names used while

employed

US

Census

Bureau

in

the year

2000

th
CLAIM FORM
Page of

D

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 28 of 46

10

While

working

for

the Census through

Bureau

in

2000

did you should

ever

work more than 40
as

hours

in

work week Sunday
you
spent traveling
to

Saturday

You

include

work

time the time
activities at

and from your
breaks
if

home

time

spent on workrelated during those breaks

your

home

and lunch

or dinner

you worked

LYes
11 Review show
the Payroll the days

No
Summary produced
from the Census
submitted
in

Bureau

payroll records
is

which

you worked

and hours you

2000 What
per

of which

weeks you worked of overtime

MORE THAN

40 hours

many

hours

you worked

each of those

40

40

your best estimate

work week and how

hour

weeks
should

There are spaces
indicate

on the

right

hand

side

of the Payroll you worked

Summary where you
Please
in

how much
overtime

overtime hours
that

you believe you

include

on the Payroll
decennial Operations
field

Summary
positions Supervisor

claim to have

worked

the following Field

only

Enumerator
Field

Crew Leader
Operations

Assistant

Crew Leader

Assistant

Supervisor and Special

Places

Operation

Supervisor

Example Assume
second week of

you worked

50 hours

in

the

first

week of May and 20
to

hours

in

the
in

May

Because you were 40 hours
for

not permitted
first

record

more than 40 hours
did not

week

you

only recorded

the

week of May and

submit any
as

overtime

worked

Therefore
PAYROLL

you would indicate your estimate DATA
WED

of overtime

follows

ESTIMATE

PAY END

PERIOD DATE

TYPE

SUN

MON

TUE

THU

FRI

SAT

TOTAL

OVERTIME

05

062000
06

05062000
05

2000

RED TRAIN OT TOTAL

05062000 0513 2000 05132000 05132000 0513 2000

000 000 000 000

800 000 000 800

800 000 000 800

800 000 000 800

800 000 000 800

800 000 000 800

000 000 000 000
00

4000 000 000 4000
20 00

10

HRS

RED

TRAIN
OT TOTAL

000 000 400

000 000 800

000 000 800

000 000 000

000 000 000

000 000 000

000 000 000

000 000 2000

12

If to

you

banked rolled or
Summary
to in

carried over any overtime
indicated

you worked

add those also
or carried
to

the Payroll hours

the space hours

Rolledover banked
in in

over
record

refer

overtime

you worked

one one

because doing so would exceed 40 hours
to

week week
to

but

were not able
census
in

Some
weeks
paid

employees

were told worked

roll

or

carry
to

over

their

overtime

hours

later

which they overtime hours

less

than 40 hours
entitled

and therefore were
recovery

already

partially

for their

You may

be

some

even

if

you

rolled over

your overtime

13

Are any of the numbers

you wrote on the Payroll

Summary based on an estimate

XYes
CLAIM FORM

No

Page

of

D

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 29 of 46

14

If

any of your numbers where

are based on estimates

please

identify on the Payroll

Summary

indicated

which numbers

are estimates

and describe

how

you

arrived at those estimates

15

If

you have any documents
the overtime
to this

which existed

in

2000

that

may tend

to

show

that

you of the

worked

claimed

eg
If as

datebooks

calendar

entries attach

copies

documents
originals

claim

form

you provide

documents

send copies only
to

No
Note
that

should

be provided
is

your documents
to

will not be returned

you

documentary proof

not required

make

claim

16

Do

you believe
to

your supervisor knew
the overtime

or had reason

to

know

that

you worked

overtime

your working

sYes
17
If

No
Question 16 explain you worked and
overtime
is

you answered
to

yes to
that

why

you believe

your supervisor knew
the overtime

or

had reason Please

know
to

prior to your working
for

refer

pages

What

Overtime
about

examples of

how

your

supervisor

knew

or should

have known

were

not

Vv

your working

overtime

any
questions use

le
separate

If

you need additional

space

to

respond

to

any of the above
at

sheet of paper

and indicate the

Clearly print your name and SSN number question

the top

of each additional

page

swear or affirm under penalty
the best of

of perjury

that

the

above

statements

are trne

to

my

knowledge

and belief

Date

Signature

Print

Name

EQ
the

You Must Complete Summary
If
it

Sign and Return

this

Claim Form and

enclosed Payroll

by mail postmarked no later than
confirm our receipt of this form MailReturn
Receipt

SEPTEMBER 29
we
strongly obtain

2006

you wish

to

recommend
Registered

that

you

send

via Registered

requested

To

MailReturn

form please visit your local post office or go to wwwuspscom You must keep copy of completed forms for your records
Receipt

CLAIM FORM

Page

of

D

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 30 of 46

73

21ve

D

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 31 of 46

ID
Laura

7417

Workman
IL 620530273

P0 BOX 273 KAMPSVILLE

D

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB
SSN

Document 319-2
PAYROLL SUMMARY

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 32 of 46
Page of

NAME

WorkmanLaura LOCAL
CENSUS OFFICE

CHANGEDATE

NAME

POSITION Crew Leader

01312000
Hours

Springfield During

Worked

112000

11302000

Overtime can only be claimed if you worked more than 40 hours total work week Work time includes Sunday through Saturday travel time at home making to and from your home time you spent workrelated calls or on other work activities and time you worked lunch or dinner break during PAYROLL DATA EST IMATE PAY PERIOD OVERTIME END DATE TYPE SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT TOTAL WORKED during

1Q

02052000 02 052 000 02 052 000 02052000

REG TRAIN
OT

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

000 000 000 000 000
00

000 800
000

800 000 000 000 000 525 000 000 525 800 000 000 800 750 000 000 750 800
000

000 800 000 800 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800

000 800 000 800 000 000 000 000 800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000

000 800 000 800 750 000 000 750 800 000 00 00 800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000

000 800 000 800 400 000 000 400 800 000 000 800 400 000 000 400 050 000 000 050 000 000 000 000

000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 800 000 000 800 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

000
4000

000
4000 1150

2620 00 02262 000 02262 000
02

02262000

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

000 000
00

000 000
1150 3725

03 042000
03042000 03 042 000

03042

000

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

000 000 000 400 000 000 400 800 000 000 800 800 000 000 800

000 000

pct

03112000 03112000

4000

000 000

TOTAL

4000
4000

03182000 03182000

REG TRAIN
OT

03182

000

000 000
4000 2400

03182000 03252000 03252000 03252000 03252000

TOTAL REG TRAIN
OT

TOTAL

000 800

000 000
2400

12V4

ROLLEDOVER

OVERTIME

HOURS
or
Ticarried

Rolled
you

banked

over

hours

worked in one week but were not able actually worked them and therefore you Some census employees were told to roll hours in which they worked to later weeks therefore were already partially paid for
If

to overtime hours that record on the day that you recorded them on later date or carry over their overtime less than 40 hours and their overtime refer to leave this

you

DID NOT

roll

over

any

overtime

hours

section

blank

D

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB
SSN If

Document 319-2
PAYROLL SUMMARY

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 33 of 46
Page of

rolled or carried over any of the you banked claimed above in the spaces below give your best dates those hours and also on which you actually worked which you recorded those hours on your pay form
have

overtime you estimate of the
the dates on

Assume you worked 50 hours in the first week of May Because Example in were not permitted to record more than 40 hours week you you recorded only 40 for that week and then kept track of the 10 additional hours Assume you worked only 20 hours in the second week of May Instead of recording 20 hours for that week you recorded 30 the 20 actually worked that week plus the 10 carried over from the first In that week Rolled example your answer to this Question would be 10 hours from the first week of May to the second week of

May

If

you are

not

sure 20

of

exact in May

dates
to

you

may estimate

For

example

Rolled

about

hours

la WeekDate lb
Number
of

Overtime Worked Overtime Hours Not
in

1cE
Recorded recorded

lc WeekDate 2a WeekDate 2b 2c
Number
of

which

Overtime was

Overtime Worked Overtime Hours Not
in

Recorded recorded

WeekDate WeekDate

which

Overtime was

Overtime worked Overtime Hours Not
in

3b 3c

Number

of

Recorded recorded
as

WeekDate
on

which

Overtime was
of

Continue

another

sheet

paper

necessary

If any of the numbers you give for Overtime or RolledOver Hours are based on estimates to the best of your please write out below which dates and numbers are estimates and describe how you knowledge arrived at those estimates Please use the back of the Payroll Summary for your description If you need additional space use separate sheet of paper clearly labeled with your name and SSN at the top of each additional page

044

uzrc O4TtS

DMtS

ts

rth

fnte

UjW
Mn
D

cto
pU
it

42e

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 34 of 46

'1
'

D

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 35 of 46

DEF. EX. E

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 36 of 46

E

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 37 of 46

E

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 38 of 46

E

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 39 of 46

DEF. EX. F

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 40 of 46

F

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 41 of 46

F

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 42 of 46

F

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 43 of 46

F

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 44 of 46

F

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 45 of 46

DEF. EX. G

Case 1:01-cv-00495-EGB

Document 319-2

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 46 of 46

G