NOTE 15 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Total rental expense included in the accompanying con- solidated statements of earnings was $147.8 million in fiscal 2003, $142.8 million in fiscal 2002 and $120.9 mil- lion in fiscal 2001. At June 30, 2003, the future minimum rental commitments under long-term operating leases are as follows:  In July 2003, the Company signed a new lease for its principal offices at the same location. Rental obligations under the new lease will commence in fiscal 2005 and expire in fiscal 2020. Obligations pursuant to the lease  in fiscal 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and thereafter are $5.9 million, $23.6 million, $23.6 million, $24.1 million and $324.2 million, respectively. In July 2003, the U.S. Magistrate Judge appointed by the U.S. District Judge, Southern District of New York, issued his report and recommendation finding in favor of the Company and its subsidiaries with respect to, among other things, their motion for summary judgment of non- infringement in the case brought against them in August 2000 by an affiliate of Revlon, Inc. Revlon claimed, among other things, that five Estée Lauder products, two Origins foundations, a La Mer concealer and a  jane foundation infringed its patent. Revlon sought, among other things, treble damages, punitive damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees. Revlon has objected to this opinion. The Companyhas responded to the objection. Revlon also may appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In July 2003, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, the other manufacturer defendants and the department store defendants in a con- solidated class action lawsuit that had been pending in the Superior Court of the State of California in Marin County since 1998. In connection with the settlement, the case has been refiled in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers of prestige cosmetics in the United States. The settlement requires Court approval and, if approved by the Court, will result in the plaintiffs’ claims being dismissed, with prejudice, in their entirety. There has been no finding or admission of any wrong- 78 THEEST{E LAUDER COMPANIES INC. The Company is involved in various routine legal pro- ceedings incident to the ordinary course of its business. In management’s opinion, the outcome of pending legal pro- ceedings, separately and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business or consolidated financial results. In June 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, on behalf of two former employees and one former temporary employee alleging race and disability discrimination, harassment and retaliation. The complaint seeks $10 million in damages for each of seven causes of action. The Company intends to defend the action vigorously. While no assurances  can be given as to the ultimate outcome, management believes that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition. In 1998, the State notified the Company and fifteen other entities that they are PRPs with respect to the Huntington/East Northport landfill. The cleanup costs are estimated at $20 million. No litigation has commenced. The Company and other PRPs are in discussions with the State regarding possible settlement of the matter. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome, management believes that the matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition. In 1998, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York (the “State”) notified the Company and ten other entities that they are potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) with respect to the Blydenburgh landfill in Islip, New York. Each PRP may be jointly and severally liable for the costs of investigation and cleanup, which the State estimates to be $16 million. While the State has sued other PRPs in connection with the site, the State has not sued the Company. The Company and certain other PRPs are in discussions with the State regarding possible settle- ment of the matter. While no assurance can be given as  to the ultimate outcome, management believes that  the matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition. doing by the Company in this lawsuit. The Company entered into the settlement agreement solely to avoid protracted and costly litigation. In connection with the settlement agreement, the defendants, including the Com- pany, will provide consumers with certain free products and pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. To meet its obliga- tions under the settlement, the Company took a special pre-tax charge of $22.0 million, or $13.5 million after-tax, equal to $.06 per diluted common share in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2003. YEAR ENDING JUNE 30 (In millions) 2004 $118.5 2005 103.7 2006 74.1 2007 61.8 2008 54.7 Thereafter 189.8 $602.6