CAR_Public/990423.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, April 23, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 56

                            Headlines

ADVANCE STORES: Tennessee Battery Case in Discovery Stage
AETNA INC.: Consumers Group Claims HMO is Running a Racket
CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Stull Stull Files Suit in Massachusetts
CHROMATICS COLOR: New York Cases Consolidated, Expenses Rising
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Disclosure and Repo Notice Cases Resolved

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Residents of "Colony" Want to Vote
EASTERN UTILITIES: Massachusetts Energy Fund Charge Case Pending
EMPIRE STATE: Old Complaint Returns as New Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Updates Air Bag, Lease, and Windstar Litigation
GARMENT CAPITOL: Cases Partially Dismissed, No Relief Sought

INDUSTRIAL BANK: Shareholders Fault NCB Capital Injection
NATIONAL TECHTEAM: Settles Securities Case for $11 Million
NICE SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Files Complaint in New Jersey
ORBITAL SCIENCES: Sirota & Sirota File Complaint in Virginia
REMEC, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California

SOCIAL SECURITY: Race Discrimination Hearing Set for May 10
WARNER LAMBERT: Consumers, Pharmacies, and Employees Sue


                            *********


ADVANCE STORES: Tennessee Battery Case in Discovery Stage
---------------------------------------------------------
Advance Holding Corp. and Advance Stores Co. Inc. reported on a
class action complaint against the Company in the circuit court
for Jefferson County, Tennessee, alleging the sale by the
Company of used, old or out-of-warranty automotive batteries as
new. The case, filed on November 5, 1997 by Joe C. Proffitt,
Jr., is prosecuted on behalf of all persons in the States of
Alabama, California, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North
Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and
West Virginia who purchased batteries from the Company from
November 1, 1991 to November 5, 1997. The complaint seeks
compensatory and punitive damages.

The case is in the discovery stage and management plans a
vigorous defense.


AETNA INC.: Consumers Group Claims HMO is Running a Racket
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that three Aetna Inc. members and
a consumer group on Monday sued the giant health maintenance
organization for false advertising. It was the first lawsuit
against an HMO under a federal anti-racketeering law. The
lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, claims Aetna attracted
potential customers by saying it was dedicated to quality
medical care. Instead, the company encourages system-wide cost-
cutting that undermines medical care, the lawsuit alleges.

According to the AP, the lawsuit was filed by Joseph and Jo Ann
Maio of Philadelphia and Gary Bender of suburban Philadelphia on
behalf of nearly 6 million people who enrolled or renewed HMO
membership in Aetna from July 1996 to the present. The
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica,
Calif., consumer group, is representing the HMO members. "Aetna
should no longer be able to advertise and represent that they
are primarily committed to quality, when in fact they have
systems in place that eviscerate quality medical care," the
advocacy director for the consumer group, Jamie Court, told AP.

AP said officials with Aetna, based in Hartford, Conn., refused
to comment on the lawsuit.

The Associated Press wrote that the lawsuit, filed in U.S.
District Court in Philadelphia, is believed to be the first
filed against an HMO under the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act. A series of Supreme Court rulings in
the past year has permitted broad use of RICO, a law originally
aimed at mobsters, and allowed lawsuits by anyone allegedly
harmed by a pattern of illegal activities. The law has been
invoked to accuse numerous huge corporations of racketeering.
According to AP, the lawsuit accused Aetna of undermining
medical care, in part, by offering financial incentives to
doctors who see more patients and penalizing doctors who do not.


CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Stull Stull Files Suit in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a securities class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc.
(NASDAQ: CATP) and certain of its officers and directors on
behalf of all persons who purchased Cambridge shares at
artificially inflated prices between November 25, 1998 and March
18, 1999. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws through a series of false and misleading
statements. As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements, prices of Cambridge shares were artificially
inflated.

To learn more, call Tzivia Brody, Esq. at 800-337-4983 or write
to SSBNY@aol.com via email.


CHROMATICS COLOR: New York Cases Consolidated, Expenses Rising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chromatics Color Sciences reported on three putative class
actions that were commenced against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors in the Southern District of New York.
The first two actions were commenced in June 1998 and are
captioned L.F. Monk v. Chromatics Color Sciences International,
Inc., Darby S. Macfarlane, Arthur Guiry, David K. Macfarlane and
Leslie Foglesong, C.A. No. 98 CV 4111 (S.D.N.Y.) and Daniel R.
Marquis v. Chromatics Color Sciences International, Inc., Darby
S. Macfarlane, Arthur Guiry and Leslie Foglesong, C.A. No. 98 CV
4335 (S.D.N.Y.). The third action was commenced in August 1998
and is captioned Joseph Grunberg v. Chromatics Color Sciences
International, Inc., Darby S. Macfarlane, Arthur Guiry, David K.
Macfarlane and Leslie Foglesong, C.A. No. 98 CIV. 5646
(S.D.N.Y.).

The complaints were consolidated pursuant to the Consolidation
Order entered by the Court in December 1998. A consolidated
amended complaint in the matter now captioned In re Chromatics
Color Sciences International, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Consolidated Matter File No. 98 Civ. 4111 (SHS), was filed and
served in January 1999.

Plaintiffs purport to bring the Action on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of the Company, between July 30,
1997 and June 9, 1998, seeking damages for the alleged violation
by defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. ss.78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. ss.240.10b-
5, and pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, 15 U.S.C. ss.78t(a), with respect to the individual
named defendants as "controlling persons." The complaint alleges
that the Company "embarked upon a scheme" to inflate the price
of the Company's Common Stock by making false and misleading
statements concerning: (i) the new and innovative nature of the
Company's ColorMate(Registered) TLc BiliTest(Trademark) System;
(ii) the market size and revenue potential of the
ColorMate(Registered) TLc BiliTest(Trademark) System; and (iii)
the existence and status of negotiations with potential
distributors of the ColorMate(Registered) TLc
BiliTest(Trademark) System. The allegations of the complaint
arise principally from a "report" prepared by Manuel I. Asensio
of Asensio & Company, Inc. that was disseminated at the close of
the putative class period.

Defendants have moved to dismiss them Action. Defendants believe
that the claims asserted against them are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the Action. The Company has
directors and officers insurance which may cover a portion of
the liability asserted in the Action. The Company is exploring
its legal remedies in respect of what it believes to be false
allegations against the Company made by short sellers of its
stock; the Company expects to incur significant expenses in this
regard.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Disclosure and Repo Notice Cases Resolved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services Inc. reported on two class action
cases involving the company.

CPS is involved in actions against automobile purchasers to
collect amounts due on purchased contracts or to recover
vehicles. In one such case, relating to the Chapter 13
bankruptcy of obligors Madeline and Darryl Brownlee, of Chicago,
Illinois, the obligors counterclaimed against CPS on June 30,
1997 in the bankruptcy court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The obligors seek class-action treatment of their
allegation that the cost of an extended service contract on the
automobile they purchased was inadequately disclosed by the
automobile dealer, Joe Cotton Ford of Carol Stream, Illinois.
The disclosure allegedly violated the federal Truth in Lending
Act and Illinois consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs
amended their complaint in September 1998, dropping all Truth in
Lending allegations against CPS. The court in February 1999,
dismissed all remaining claims against CPS. The case remains
pending against the dealer, and there is a remote chance that a
possible appeal could result in a reinstatement of claims
against the Company.

In another proceeding, arising out of efforts to collect a
deficiency balance from Joseph Barrios of Chicago, Illinois, the
debtor has brought suit against CPS alleging defects in the
notice given upon repossession of the vehicle. This lawsuit was
filed on February 18, 1998, in the circuit court of Cook County,
Illinois and sought relief for a punitive class of persons who
have received such notice. A settlement of this litigation has
been reached on a class basis, which does not involve material
expense.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Residents of "Colony" Want to Vote
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that residents of the nation's
capital are looking to a panel of federal judges to provide them
with voting rights that many Americans take for granted. "It's
time that Congress stopped treating the District of Columbia
like a colony," George Laroche told AP. Larouche is an attorney
representing district residents involved in a class-action
voting rights lawsuit.

According to AP, the three-judge panel is being asked to decide
the issues in a pair of cases consolidated in U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia. One of the cases seeks full
voting rights in Congress for representatives chosen by district
residents. The other case seeks an end to territorial control of
district affairs by Congress.

The AP story explained that the district is represented in
Congress only by a delegate in the House who can vote in
committee, where legislation is prepared, but not on the House
floor, where it is passed. "They're (residents) subject to the
draft, they are taxed, but they have no role in the political
life of the United States," Laroche told AP. Although the judges
could rule in a month, Laroche and other attorneys expect the
case ultimately to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. "The
constitution defines the capital as a district, separate and
apart from the states," John Tyler, a Justice Department
attorney representing the executive branch, told AP.

The AP said that the District of Columbia Board of Elections and
Ethics identified 345,199 registered voters as of last
September. The Census Bureau estimates the district's overall
population at about 529,000. Congress, in its role as national
legislature, determines how district taxes will be spent and
often attaches restrictions on how laws will be implemented.
During the past year, district issues on which Congress has had
the last word include allowing public aid for private and
religious schools and banning public funds for abortions, needle
exchanges for intravenous drug users and a referendum on medical
marijuana.


EASTERN UTILITIES: Massachusetts Energy Fund Charge Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Utilities Associates reported on a pending class action,
filed on March 2, 1998, in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court naming all Massachusetts electric distribution companies,
including Eastern Edison, and certain Massachusetts state
agencies as defendants, that seeks to invalidate certain
sections of the Electric Utility Restructuring Act of 1997.

The Act directs the Massachusetts Department of
Telecommunications and Energy to impose mandatory charges on all
electricity sold to customers, except those served by a
municipal lighting plant, to fund energy efficiency activities
and to promote renewable energy projects. In addition to
declaratory judgment, plaintiffs seek remittance of monies paid
to each distribution company by customers along with any
interest earned.

The outcome of this class action is unknown at this time
however, Eastern Edison is vigorously defending the lawsuit.


EMPIRE STATE: Old Complaint Returns as New Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Empire State Building Associates reported on the return of a
case originally brought on October 21, 1991, entitled Studley v.
Empire State Building Associates et al., in which the holder of
a $20,000 original participation in the company brought suit in
New York Supreme Court, New York County against the Agents for
the company Peter L. Malkin, Donald A. Bettex and Alvin
Silverman, in their individual capacities and Wien, Malkin &
Bettex (currently "Wien & Malkin LLP") counsel to the Empire
State Building Associates.

The suit claimed that the defendants had engaged in breaches of
fiduciary duty and acts of self-dealing in relation to the
Agents' solicitation of consents and authorizations from the
participants in the Empire State Building Associates in
September 1991 and in relation to other unrelated acts of the
Agents and the sublessee.

By order dated July 14, 1997, and entered July 29, 1997, the
Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and
dismissal of the action. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with
respect to the foregoing order. By decision and order entered
April 2, 1998, the Appellate Court unanimously affirmed the
order dismissing the action. The Plaintiff has been denied
permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

The Plaintiff has filed a further Complaint alleging similar
claims, purportedly as a class action. Defendant's counsel has
filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint based upon the
Court's prior rulings and on other grounds.


FORD MOTOR: Updates Air Bag, Lease, and Windstar Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Ford Motor Company reported on the status of three pending
class action lawsuits.

Air Bag case: Upon reconsideration of the trial court's decision
to deny defendants' motion for change of venue, the Alabama
Supreme Court would not overturn the trial court's ruling. The
company's motion to dismiss this action continues to be pending.

Lease Agreement Disclosure case: In addition to the seven cases
that have been dismissed in various state courts, the actions
pending in Florida, New Jersey and Tennessee state courts were
recently dismissed on the basis that itemization of monthly
lease charges is not required under federal or state law.

Windstar Transmission case: A purported class action has been
filed in California state court alleging that 1995 Ford Windstar
vehicles are defective because they contain a 3.8 liter engine
with a defective transmission. Plaintiffs allege transmissions
in the Windstar prematurely suffered from serious shifting
problems and acceleration failures, requiring early replacement
at a substantial expense to owners and lessees. They seek
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' and experts'
fees and additional unspecified relief. Plaintiffs do not
specifically seek damages for any alleged personal injuries
suffered by purported class members. The California class action
is nationwide in scope and purports to represent all persons or
entities in the United States who own or lease any model 1995
Ford Windstar. After Ford removed the case to federal court, the
state court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case back
to Los Angeles County court. Ford plans to file a motion for
judgment on the pleadings.


GARMENT CAPITOL: Cases Partially Dismissed, No Relief Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
Garment Capitol Corp. reported on the status of pending class
action litigation involving the company.

On October 4, 1996, the alleged holder of three participation
interests in the company brought suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the New Lessee,
the Original Lessee, the partners in the company, and Counsel.
The company is a nominal defendant. The suit claims that
defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal
securities laws and committed breaches of fiduciary duty and
fraud in relation to the Solicitation. The suit is styled as a
class action, but the plaintiff has not applied for class
certification to date. The suit seeks to enjoin the allocation
of sale proceeds to the New Lessee approved by the Participants,
money damages and related relief.

Defendants responded to the complaint with a motion seeking
dismissal of the action in its entirety. The Court granted that
motion and dismissed the action by order and decision dated
December 8, 1997. Upon plaintiff's appeal of that order U.S.
Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the
dismissal of the action. The complaint does not seek any relief
against Garment Capitol, and, accordingly, the company's
litigation counsel is of the opinion that no material loss or
other unfavorable outcome of the action against the company is
anticipated.

On March 13, 1997, the alleged holder of a fractional
participation interest in the company brought suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against New
Lessee, Original Lessee, the company's Partners and Counsel.
Garment Capitol is a nominal defendant. The suit is essentially
similar to the legal action described above alleging that
defendants violated the Federal proxy rules, committed breaches
of fiduciary duty and fraud in relation to the Solicitation for
the sale and forbearance program and for liquidation of the
company. The suit seeks to enjoin the allocation of sale
proceeds to New Lessee approved by the Participants, money
damages and related relief.

Defendants responded to the complaint with a motion seeking
dismissal of the action in its entirety. The Court granted the
motion and dismissed the action by the same order and decision
dated December 8, 1997 and referred to in the preceding
paragraph. Upon plaintiff's appeal of the order, the U.S. Court
of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal
of the action. The complaint does not seek any relief against
Garment Capitol, and, accordingly, the company's litigation
counsel is of the opinion that no loss or other unfavorable
outcome of the action against the company is anticipated.


INDUSTRIAL BANK: Shareholders Fault NCB Capital Injection
---------------------------------------------------------
The Japanese publication the Jiji Press English News reported
that shareholders of Industrial Bank of Japan filed a lawsuit
against board members of the bank who in 1997 oversaw the
infusion of 17 billion yen in capital into the failed Nippon
Credit Bank, now under state control. The shareholders, a woman
living in Tokyo and a corporation, claimed that former IBJ
President Hiroshi Kurosawa and 34 directors and auditors at the
time should compensate shareholders for the losses incurred by
the bank. The Jiji Press said that this is the first class
action suit lodged over a financial institution's capital
infusion into NCB.

The plaintiffs in the suit filed with Tokyo District Court told
the Jiji Press that the IBJ board members accepted the Finance
Ministry's request for the capital injection without a proper
examination of NCB's financial condition. IBJ and 33 other
Japanese financial institutions in early 1997 put up 210 billion
yen and the Bank of Japan 80 billion yen to shore up the ailing
NCB's capital base, in response to a strong request by the
ministry. IBJ's contribution was reportedly the largest among
the private institutions. When the government decided to put NCB
under temporary state control in late 1998, however, it judged
that the bank's liabilities had surpassed assets.

According to the Jiji Press report, in asking for the capital
infusion, the ministry said NCB could be reconstructed, having
concluded from an emergency inspection that the bank's loan
claims representing a serious collection risk totaled only 700
billion yen. But those loans later turned out to be much bigger
at 1.12 trillion yen. Informed sources said the creditor
financial institutions may file administrative suits against the
ministry for having provided assurance of NCB's reconstruction.

The IBJ shareholders reportedly also filed a suit against the
bank seeking damages worth 9.7 billion yen for losses on suspect
loans extended to a woman owner of a Japanese-style restaurant
in Osaka since 1989. IBJ's public relations officials told the
Jiji Press that the bank is not in a position to comment on the
suits.


NATIONAL TECHTEAM: Settles Securities Case for $11 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
National Techteam Inc. reported on the progress of a class
action against the company and two of its officers, William F.
Coyro Jr. and Lawrence A. Mills. The putative consolidated class
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

On January 22, 1998 four original actions, all filed between
August 27 and October 24, 1997, were consolidated into a single
action. Plaintiffs in the underlying actions purport to
represent various classes consisting of all persons who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock during certain
periods, the longest of which was from September 27, 1996
through July 18, 1997. Plaintiffs allege in their complaints
that the Company and the individual defendants engaged in a
scheme to artificially inflate the price of the Company's common
stock by improperly accelerating the recognition of revenue from
the licensing of the Company's proprietary software. Plaintiffs
assert claims against all defendants for alleged violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, as well as claims against the individual defendants for
alleged "controlling person" liability under Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act.

In December 1998, the Company and the individual defendants
reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated
class action lawsuits for the payment of $11 million to the
plaintiffs. The agreement is subject to the completion by the
plaintiffs of confirmatory discovery, the final approval of the
Court, and the possibility of appeal.


NICE SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Files Complaint in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a securities class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the American Depository Shares ("ADS") of Nice Systems,
Ltd. (NASDAQ: NICE) and certain of its officers and directors on
behalf of all persons who purchased Nice ADS at artificially
inflated prices between February 4, 1998 and September 4, 1998.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws through a series of false and misleading
statements. As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements, prices of Nice ADS were artificially inflated, such
that persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Nice ADS were
damaged by overpaying for their shares.

For more details, call Tzivia Brody, Esq. at 800-337-4983 or
write to SSBNY@aol.com by email.


ORBITAL SCIENCES: Sirota & Sirota File Complaint in Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
On April 14, 1999 a class action lawsuit was filed by Sirota &
Sirota LLP in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of persons purchasing the common
stock of Orbital Science Corp. (NYSE: ORB) for the period of
April 28, 1998 through February 16, 1999. The lawsuit asserts
claims against certain of the officers and directors of Orbital
Sciences Corp. and others for violations of the federal
securities laws and the common law and alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions concerning financial condition,
prospects and sales of Orbital Sciences Corp.

The complaint alleges that the price of Orbital Sciences Corp.
common stock was artificially inflated as a result of the
aforementioned material misrepresentations and omissions due to
the failure to disclose material issues concerning the
operations, financial condition and the sales, which caused
Orbital Sciences Corp. to restate its earnings. Additionally,
numerous defendants sold substantial holdings of Compaq stock
during this period.

To learn more, contact Saul Roffe, Esq. at 888-759-2990.


REMEC, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss filed a class action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of REMEC, Inc. (Nasdaq: REMC) common stock during the
period between Dec. 1, 1997 and June 12, 1998. The complaint
charges REMEC, certain officers and directors, and its
underwriters with violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges that defendants' false statements about
continuing strong demand for REMEC's microwave electronic
products (especially for the commercial market), its growing
backlog of orders (especially for commercial products), the
success of REMEC's Q-bit Corp. acquisition and REMEC's prospects
for strong continuing revenue, profit margin and net income
growth for the next several years, which would result in EPS of
$.89-$.91 and $1.21-$1.22 for F99-F00 to end 1/31/99 and
1/31/00, respectively, and 30%-40% EPS growth going forward,
artificially inflated REMEC's stock to $30 on 2/17/98 from $19-
1/2 on 12/1/97. On 2/25/98, REMEC and its insiders sold
2,990,000 shares of REMEC stock, in a secondary offering at
$26.50 per share for $79.2 million. REMEC stock went on to reach
a high of $30-1/4 on 4/6/98. But then, between 5/28/98 and
6/12/98, REMEC's stock dropped on a series of adverse
revelations. First, on 5/28/98, when REMEC revealed adjustments
to orders from its largest customers, REMEC's stock plunged by
$7.72, 36%, to $13-13/16 on huge volume of over four million
shares, the largest one-day percentage price decline on the
largest one-day trading volume in REMEC's history as a public
company. Then, on 6/12/98, when REMEC revealed that its 2ndQ F99
revenues would decline from its 1stQ F99 revenues and that its
F99-F00 EPS would be much worse than earlier forecast, REMEC's
stock fell to $9 and then continued to decline to as low as $7
by 7/98.

To learn more, call William Lerach, Alan Schulman or Darren
Robbins at 800-449-4900 or write wsl@mwbhl.com via email.


SOCIAL SECURITY: Race Discrimination Hearing Set for May 10
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported on class action brought by black
male employees of the Social Security Administration that
alleged that the agency discriminates. "Black males, in general,
do not have a career at Social Security ... they have a job.
There's a difference between the two," Harry Dunbar told a news
conference. He was among scores of black men who work at Social
Security headquarters near Baltimore who traveled by bus to the
media event outside the Equal Opportunity Employment
Commission's offices here. Dunbar and two others filed a class-
action complaint with the EEOC in 1995, alleging that black men
get fewer promotions and more unsatisfactory job evaluations
than warranted by their numbers at SSA headquarters.

The Associated Press wrote that the EEOC recently ruled that the
case could move forward after a four-year delay caused by SSA's
challenges to the men's right to pursue the complaint jointly.
The commission has made no ruling yet on the merits of the
complaints. A preliminary hearing before an EEOC judge is
scheduled for May 10.

Social Security officials told AP that the agency denied that it
treats black male employees unfairly. "Social Security is one of
the most diverse, if not the most diverse agency in all of
government," SSA's deputy commissioner of human resources, Paul
Barnes, told AP. "We really do look like the America we serve."
Barnes said that at SSA headquarters, where the bias complaints
are being made, 6.7 percent of workers are black men, compared
with 5.2 percent in the civilian work force nationally. Of the
most senior executives, 10 percent are black men. And last year,
6.1 percent of SSA headquarters employees who received
promotions were black men.

The AP reports that Social Security has notified 612 current and
former black male employees of the agency's headquarters who are
potential members of the class-action complaint.

Attorneys for the three men who originated the charges Dunbar,
Gilbert A. Jefferson and Kenneth A. Burden told the Associated
Press that they have heard from more than 100 others who claim
to have had similar experiences. They are seeking monetary
compensation for the men and changes in Social Security's
personnel system to ensure fairness. "Systematic discrimination
has been going on against African Americans at the Social
Security Administration for decades," said Michael Kator of the
Washington labor-law firm Kator, Scott & Parks. However, Kator
told AP that statistics on black women's experiences at SSA
"didn't bear out as great a disparity," as for black men.
According to 1994 figures reported by Social Security, Kator
said, black men working at the agency's headquarters were twice
as likely to receive "unacceptable" job evaluations as their
numbers warranted and less than half as likely to receive
"outstanding" ratings.

In one SSA department the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for
Finance, Assessment and Management which employed 3,000 people
in 1994, black men comprised 9 percent of the work force. But,
according to the Associated Press, they received 51.9 percent of
the disciplinary actions, 75 percent of the discharges and only
6.3 of the promotions to the top three federal pay grades.


WARNER LAMBERT: Consumers, Pharmacies, and Employees Sue
--------------------------------------------------------
In late 1993, Warner-Lambert, along with numerous other
pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers, was sued in a
number of state and federal antitrust lawsuits seeking damages
and injunctive relief. These actions arose from allegations that
the defendant drug companies engaged in differential pricing
whereby they favored institutions, managed care entities, mail
order pharmacies and other buyers with lower prices for brand
name prescription drugs than those afforded to retail
pharmacies. The federal cases, which were brought by retailers,
have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial proceedings.

In June 1996, the Court approved Warner-Lambert's agreement to
settle part of the consolidated federal cases, specifically, the
class action conspiracy lawsuit, for a total of $15.1 million.
This settlement also contains certain commitments regarding
Warner-Lambert's pricing of brand name prescription drugs.
Appeals of the District Court's approval of this settlement were
unsuccessful, and the commitments have become effective. Certain
other rulings of the judge presiding in this case were also
appealed, and the judge was reversed on all rulings. The cases
have been remanded to the District Court, and trial of the class
action conspiracy action against the non-settling defendant
pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers was concluded in
November, 1998 with a directed verdict for the defendants and
dismissal of the class plaintiffs' case. That decision has been
appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In April 1997, after execution of the federal class settlement
referred to above but prior to the formal effectiveness of its
pricing commitments, the same plaintiff-class members brought a
new purported class action relating to the time period
subsequent to the execution of the settlement. This new class
suit sought only injunctive relief. At present, Warner-Lambert
cannot predict the outcome of this and the other remaining
federal lawsuits in which it is a defendant.

In addition, the Company has settled the vast majority of the
Robinson-Patman Act lawsuits brought by those retail pharmacies
which opted out of the class action conspiracy lawsuit. The
amount of these settlements is not material.

The state cases pending in California, brought by classes of
pharmacies and consumers, have been coordinated in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Francisco. The Company, with
the majority of the other drug company defendants, has agreed to
settle the California consumer class action and this settlement
is pending court approval. The amount of this settlement is not
material.

Warner-Lambert has also been named as a defendant in actions in
state courts filed in Alabama, Minnesota, Mississippi and
Wisconsin brought by classes of pharmacies, each arising from
the same allegations of differential pricing. With its co-
defendants, the Company has settled the Minnesota and Wisconsin
actions. The Company's share of these settlements, which have
been approved, are not material.

In addition, the Company was named in class action complaints
filed in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin and
the District of Columbia, brought by classes of consumers who
purchased brand name prescription drugs at retail pharmacies.
With its co-defendants, the Company has agreed to settle these
state consumer class actions. The Company's share of these
settlements, which have been approved by all of the above courts
except Tennessee, where approval is pending, is not material.

The Company has also been made a party to another class action
in Tennessee, purportedly on behalf of consumers in Alabama,
Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New
Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee,
West Virginia and Wisconsin, who purchased brand name
prescription drugs from retail pharmacies, and in a similar
class action in North Dakota on behalf of North Dakota
consumers. Although it is not possible at this early stage to
predict the outcome of these lawsuits, it is unlikely that their
ultimate disposition will have a material adverse effect on
Warner-Lambert's financial position, liquidity, cash flows or
results of operations.

Warner-Lambert Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Warner-
Lambert, has been named as a defendant in class actions filed in
Puerto Rico Superior Court by current and former employees from
the Vega Baja, Carolina and Fajardo plants, as well as Kelly
Services temporary employees assigned to those plants. The
lawsuits seek monetary relief for alleged violations of local
statutes and decrees relating to meal period payments, minimum
wage, overtime and vacation pay. Warner-Lambert believes that
these actions are without merit and will defend these actions
vigorously.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and Beard
Group, Inc., Washington, DC. Peter A. Chapman, Editor.

Copyright 1999. All rights reserved. ISSN XXXX-XXXX.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers. Information
contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 301/951-6400.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *