IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU~VUL 13 AMII: 08
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXIC~:;;f,:,,;,:});S{~
CLEf"'·! •.. ..;'I,ClUE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,

)

d/b/a LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSION

)

SYSTEMS,

)

)

Defendant.

)

---------------------------)

CIV CIV- 01 815 1
LORm~ 8, @ARCIA'

COMPLAINT

Karen B. Malzen

JURy TRIAL DEMANDED

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of tbe Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of tbe Civil

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide

appropriate relief to Janna Roberts and Jeanette Wolfe who were subjected to sex discrimination

while employed by defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, d/b/a Lockheed Martin Mission

Systems ("Lockheed" or "Defendant"). The Commission alleges that Janna Roberts and Jeanette

Wolfe were subjected to a hostile work environment when tbey were victims of both verbal and

physical sexual harassment by tbeir immediate supervisor. The Commission also alleges Jeanette

Wolfe was subjected to harassment based upon her gender and that she was forced to resign as a

result of Lockheed's failure to effectively remedy her work environment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(t)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5 (t)(1) and(3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981A. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
PARTIES 3. The Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission "), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(t)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(t)(I) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation was a Maryland corporation, which continuously did and is now doing business in the State of New Mexico and the metropolitan Albuquerque, New Mexico area as Lockheed Martin Mission Systems. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, the Defendant has continuously been and is now an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U .S.C. §2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Janna Roberts filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions
2

precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least May 1998, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices
at its Albuquerque, New Mexico Lockheed Martin Mission Systems facility in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a). These practices include:
a) the sexual harassment of Jeanette Wolfe and Janna Roberts; b) the gender harassment of Jeanette Wolfe; and c) the constructive discharge of Jeanette Wolfe as a result of Defendant's failure to effectively remedy her work environment. 8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Jeanette Wolfe of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her sex and/or gender. 9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Janna Roberts of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her sex. 10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional. 11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Janna Roberts and Jeanette Wolfe.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns
3

and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex or gender, including sexual harassment and/or gender harassment or discrimination.
B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant to pay Jeanette Wolfe appropriate back wages with prejudgment interest and front pay, in amounts to be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement of Jeanette Wolfe.
D. Order Defendant to make whole Jeanette Wolfe, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, job search expenses and medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to make whole Janna Roberts, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, medical and psychological care expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant to make whole Jeanette Wolfe, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, loss of sleep, loss of health, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation and damage to her character and reputation, in amounts to be
4

determined at trial.

G. Order Defendant to make whole Janna Roberts, by providing compensation for past

and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph

7 above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, anxiety, loss of sleep, loss of

health, martial strain, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation and damage to her character and

reputation in amounts to be determined at trial.

H. Order Defendant to pay Janna Roberts and Jeanette Wolfe punitive damages for its

malicious and/or reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined

at trial.

I. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest.

J. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

JURy TRIAL DEMANDED

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.

DATED this\3i:teIay of ) ,.. 2...1-'1 t' <t""

,2001. Respectfully submitted,

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Acting General Counsel

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20507

~k~~/~ C. EMANUEL SMITH

1

Acting Regional Attorney

5

~1Jttttn~M;1- Ihn SANDRA PADEGIMAS' 7 Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Phoenix District Office 3300 N. Central Ave. Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
LORETTA MEDINA Senior Trial Attorney VERONICA A. MOLINA Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Albuquerque District Office 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 (505) 248-5230 Attorneys for Plaintiff
6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIV 01-815 WJ/KBM

LCOKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION d/b/a LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSION SYSTEMS,

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion For Protective Order, Doc. 29, which I deny in part and grant in part for the following reasons.
I. Background In April 2000, Janna Roberts complained to the EEOC that her supervisor Robert Wilhelm was sexually harassing her and that Defendant had not responded appropriately since it was asking her to attend classes and counseling. See Doc. 16, Exh. A. During the course of its investigation, the EEOC discovered that Ms. Roberts’predecessor, Jeanette Wolfe also claimed to have been harassed in the same manner by Mr. Wilhelm and had resigned her employment as a result. Following unsuccessful conciliation efforts, the EEOC filed this action on behalf of Ms. Wolfe and Ms. Roberts seeking, among other things, compensation on their behalf. Ms. Roberts continues to work for Defendant but Mr. Wilhelm and Ms. Wolfe do not. See Doc. 32, at 5 n.2.

Defendant’s Answer contains a number of affirmative defenses, two of which are the subject of a pending motion to strike. Among the affirmative defenses not subject to that motion are Defendant’s assertions that it took prompt remedial action to the womens’complaints about Wilhelm and acted with reasonable care to prevent any discriminatory conduct. See generally Docs. 1,5, 14 and tendered IPTR.
In its FED. R. CIV. P. 26 initial disclosures (the tendered IPTR has not yet been entered), Defendant identified the personnel files of Ms. Roberts, Ms. Wolfe and Mr. Wilhelm as well as files that document their complaints about one another and the subsequent company investigation into the situation. I will label the two categories of files as “personnel” and “investigation.” Defendant takes a narrow position with regard to a protective order in that it (1) agrees that these files contain relevant material, (2) is not claiming that the materials are privileged, even though some are described as containing attorney work product material, and (3) will produce the files to Plaintiff. See Doc. 29 at 3-5; Doc. 32 at 1, 2, 5, 9.
On the other hand, Defendant, asserts the personnel files contain “home addresses and telephone numbers, performance evaluations, and salary and benefit information” and the investigation files contain “potentially embarrassing” information as Ms. Roberts, Ms. Wolfe and Mr. Wilhelm made disparaging comments about one another. Defendant has confidentiality policies for employee data and communications of employees who report complaints or raise concerns.1 Due to the nature of the information, Defendant is concerned about its “potential
1 These policies specifically provide that employee communications of ethics concerns “will be protected to the greatest extent possible,” Doc. 29, Exh. A (Attachment 1,); the “Open Door procedure is a confidential communication channel designed for employees to appeal to higher levels of management when concerns are not resolve dot their satisfaction by the employee’s immediate manager,” id. (Attachment 2, ¶ 3,); and the company “protects individual
2

exposure,” although it also generally argues that the information is confidential and should be treated as such. See Doc. 31, Exh. B; see also Doc. 29 at 4. Defendant therefore asks that the Court require Plaintiff to agree that the information will not be “used or disseminated outside” the context of this action,” Doc. 29, at 6, and to have the Court enter a confidentiality order “in the form [Defendant attached to its motion] as Exhibit B.,” id. at 2. It appears that the parties were unable to reach an agreement because the EEOC generally does not agree to confidentiality orders, wanted a more detailed description of the contents of the files before considering the request, and finds the terms of Defendant’s proposed confidentiality order onerous. See Doc. 32, Exh. A.; Doc. 31, Exh C; Doc. 30, at 14-15.
II. Analysis Under Rule 26, for good cause shown, this Court may order discovery be had under specific conditions “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, [or] oppression.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c). Both parties cite decisions that at bottom hold that the inquiry here is a balancing one – balancing the need for discovery against harm of “uncontrolled” disclosure. The principal cases Defendant relies on are Province v. The Pep Boys – Manny, Moe and Jack, 2000 WL 420626 (E.D. Pa. 2000) and Dahdal v. Thorn Americas, Inc., 1997 WL 599614 (D. Kan. 1997). One factor common to both of these decisions is the privacy interest at stake. In a different context, the Tenth Circuit has discussed the nature of the privacy interests in personnel and investigatory files, noting that
privacy with respect to employee data. We comply with data requests from authorizes sources to meet government security or other legal requirements,” id. (Attachment 3 at 4).
3

[o]ur cases provide no absolute right to privacy in the contents of personnel files. Only highly personal information is protected. In [Denver Policement’s Protective Ass’n v. Lichtenstein 660 F.2d 432 (10th Cir. 1981)] this court held that police internal investigation files were not protected by the right to privacy when the “documents related simply to the officers’work as police officers.” Lichtenstein, 660 F.2d at 435. Flanagan v. Munger, 890 F.2d 1557, 1570 (10th Cir. 1989). I find Defendant’s investigation files indistinguishable from the police internal investigation files in Flanagan and that any privacy or confidentiality interest at stake is minimal under the circumstances of this case. The general allegations stemming from those events are already part of the record. The details will become part of the record as well if the matter proceeds to trial. Nonetheless, there is no suggestion by Defendant that the entire matter and proceedings be sealed because the subject of the suit could prove embarrassing for Wilhelm/Roberts/Wolfe or to Defendant, for that matter. Likewise, do not find home addresses, telephone numbers and performance evaluations of Mr. Wilhelm, Ms. Roberts and Ms. Wolfe “highly personal” in the context of this case. These three individuals are the principal witnesses and their work performance could be critically relevant to Plaintiff’s claims as well as Defendant’s affirmative defenses. The Court cannot disregard that salary and benefit information in the personnel files is generally highly confidential. To the extent salary/benefit information is relevant (for example, calculating the women’s damages), it would appear the parties could acquire the specific information needed by interrogatory or deposition. Thus, I would permit redaction of salary and benefit information from the personnel files at this juncture. There is no suggestion on the record before me that the EEOC plans to use the personnel
4

and investigation files to obtain irrelevant nonparty employee information or to drum up more suits against Defendant for its own purposes. For example, it is only the three personnel files of the main participants and not all of Defendant’s employee records that will be produced. Moreover, there is no allegation by Defendants that the investigation files reveal any wrongdoing on the part of, or anything embarrassing about, other employees. Rather, according to Defendant, information about other employees in the investigation files merely identifies those who were questioned about what they had observed going on between Wilhelm and Roberts/Wolfe.2 Elsewhere the record suggests indicates that during the EEOC’s investigation it was provided with at least part of the investigation files and the women’s personnel files. It discovered alleged harassment of only Ms. Roberts and Ms. Wolfe by Mr. Wilhelm and conciliated only on their behalf. See Doc. 18 at 6. The Complaint is not styled as a class action and is directed only toward Ms. Wolfe and Ms. Roberts.
On the other hand, the EEOC’s response does not plainly assure Defendant or the Court that it will not share the personnel and investigation file information with someone outside of this case. In fact, the EEOC’s response says it will do so “properly.” The specific instance it mentions is sharing information with Ms. Roberts’counsel for “settlement purposes.” I find that Defendant’s request that the EEOC not use or disseminate the personnel and investigation information outside this action is generally reasonable. However, Defendant’s request that the Court require the EEOC to enter into Defendant’s proposed confidentiality agreement is unreasonable because the broad agreement is inconsistent with the relief Defendant argues it is
2 As such, I find no need to redact the names of these nonparty employees who are witnesses only as I did in another decision requiring disclosure of investigation files. See Bauer v. City of Albuquerque, CIV 00-110 JC/KBM – ACE (Doc. 44).
5

seeking. Throughout its memorandum and reply Defendant emphasizes that it is only requesting that the EEOC keep the personnel and investigation files in this suit. Yet, the proposed agreement is drafted in sweeping terms that grant Defendant the ability to designate any discovery material as confidential thereby putting the burden on Plaintiff to motion the Court to undo that designation. See Doc. 29, Exh. B. at ¶¶3, 5.
Accordingly, I deny the motion in part and grant it in part. Although Defendant shall produce the personnel and investigation files, the EEOC cannot share the contents of those files with anyone outside this suit absent a confidentiality agreement and any necessary waivers or releases3 from Ms. Roberts, Ms. Wolfe, or Mr. Wilhelm. I believe this limited restriction strikes the proper balance as it will not interfere with production of discovery to the EEOC and will protect the interests identified in Dahdal and Province – keeping relevant personnel file information within the confines of the suit and preventing discovery in one suit from being employed as a means to find other potential clients.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant’s motion (Doc. 29) is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART, as follows: Defendant will produce the personnel and investigation files and may redact the salary and benefit information from the personnel files. The EEOC is precluded from using the information from these files beyond this litigation.
____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3 Presumably Defendant “fears exposure” in the form of a claim against it by Ms. Roberts, Ms. Wolfe or Mr. Wilhelm for disclosing the information without limiting its use. Defendant mentions that presently, neither Ms. Roberts, Ms. Wolfe, nor Mr. Wilhelm have provided a release authorizing Defendant to turn over their personnel files. On the other hand, it is unclear what steps have been taken by whom to secure any necessary releases.
6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil No. 01-815 WJ/KBM

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, d/b/a LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSION SYSTEMS,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative

Defenses, filed September 27, 2001 (Doc. 14). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC” or the “Commission”), on behalf of former employees Janna Roberts and Jeanette Wolf,

alleges that Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII, 42

U.S.C. §2000e-2(a). Ms. Roberts and Ms. Wolfe claim that they were subjected to a hostile

work environment when they were victims of both verbal and physical sexual harassment by their

immediate supervisor. Plaintiff moves the Court to strike Defendant’s Fourteenth (in part) and

Eighteenth Affirmative Defenses which state, respectively that: Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by

the doctrines of laches and unclean hands; and that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is barred

by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

Under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court “may order stricken

1

from any pleading any insufficient defense.” However, motions to strike affirmative defenses are generally disfavored. See Friends of Santa Fe County v. LAC Minerals, Inc., 892 F.Supp. 1333, 1343 (D.N.M. 1995) (citations omitted). To strike a defense, its legal insufficiency must be "clearly apparent." Id. (same). A court “must be convinced that there are no questions of fact, that any questions of law are clear and not in dispute, and that under no set of circumstances could the defenses succeed." Id. (same).
Ms. Roberts filed a charge of discrimination with EEOC in April, 2000. In April 2001, the EEOC issued an “amended determination” that discrimination had occurred against Ms. Roberts “and at least one other female employee in the form of harassment.” See Marchbanks Affidavit (Doc. 19). The federal action was filed on July 13, 2001. Laches & Unclean Hands
According to Defendant’s brief, the basis for the affirmative defenses of laches and unclean hands is that Ms. Wolfe never filed an administrative charge with the EEOC. In the face of this undisputed fact, Plaintiff contends that Ms. Wolfe’s failure to file a charge does not bar the Commission from seeking relief on her behalf.
Both equitable doctrines have been applied as proper defenses to claims of discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII. See Brown-Mitchell v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 267 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2001) (laches); Lingenfelter v. Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., 691 F.2d 339, 340 (7th Cir.1982)(laches); Carpenter v. Ford Motor Company et al, 761 F.Supp. 62, 66 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (declining to strike unclean hands where affirmative defense of "unclean hands" was not barred as a matter of law in Title VII action, but striking defense on basis that allegations of fraud were not pled with sufficient particularity). There is not much in the way
2

of the bare chronological facts to support a defense of laches with regard to the timeliness of Ms. Roberts’filing, but the same cannot be said at this stage of the litigation regarding Ms. Wolfe’s failure to file an administrative charge. See Bolden v. PRC, Inc., 43 F.3d 545, 552 (10th Cir. 1994)(plaintiff in a Title VII claim must exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing judicial remedies). Plaintiff argues that Ms. Wolfe’s failure to file a charge with EEOC does not preclude its ability to represent her in this action.
The Commission is entrusted by Congress with broad remedial powers to challenge a policy that represents ongoing discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5; §2000e-5(f)(1). This power extends to the protection of unnamed individuals where an allegedly discriminatory policy may affect unidentifiable members of a known class, e.g., persons who have never applied for a job because they were discouraged by a discriminatory practice. EEOC v. United Parcel Serv., 860 F.2d 372, 374-75 (10th Cir. 1988). This class by definition would also include persons who have never filed an administrative charge with the EEOC. However, application of this broad statutory directive to the Commission’s representation of Ms. Wolfe is misdirected because the Commission is not requesting relief that is serving a public interest in freedom from employment discrimination, but rather serving to financially compensate Ms. Wolfe. See EEOC v. North Gibson Sch. Corp., 266 F.3d 607, 615, n.7 (7th Cir. 2001) (“In cases brought under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC also is precluded from seeking monetary relief for individuals who themselves are barred from bringing the same suit because, in such circumstances, the EEOC's suit serves only a minimal public interest); (citing EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 193 F.3d 805, 812-13 (4th Cir.1999).
Moreover, it is not so clear that Defendant was fully aware of the extent and depth of
3

Plaintiff’s investigation into Ms. Robert’s claims so as to put Defendant on notice that the Commission was exploring claims made by Ms. Wolfe as well. In light of Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirements and the relief which the Commission seeks on her behalf, and because I am unable to conclude that the defenses could not succeed under any circumstance, see Unger v. US West, Inc., 889 F.Supp. 419, 422 (D.Colo. 1995) (citation omitted), I find that Defendant’s affirmative defenses of laches and unclean hands should not be stricken. Whether or not Rule 12(f) envisions a showing of prejudice by the movant,1 such a requirement would not affect the outcome here. Plaintiff’s only asserted basis for prejudice is the unnecessary expenditure of time and resources on discovery. Given that discovery is still open, see (Doc. 26), Plaintiff is hardly prejudiced by the inclusion of several discrete issues into the discovery grist mill. Punitive Damages.
Both parties concede that punitive damages may be available to a Title VII plaintiff. Punitive damages under Title VII and 41 U.S.C. § 1981a may be awarded when there is a showing that the employer intentionally discriminated with malice or reckless indifference to a plaintiff’s federally protected rights. See Kolstad v. American Dental Assn., 527 U.S. 526 (1999). There may also be situations where punitive damage awards may be excessive by constitutional standards. See, e.g., EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d 1241, 1249 (10th Cir.1999) (punitive damages in ADA claim that was below statutory maximum was “strong indicator” that award was not unconstitutional); Romano v. U-Haul Intenat’l et al, 233 F.3d 655 (1st Cir. 2000)
1 Defendant takes such a position, relying on Sierra Club v. Young Life Campaign, Inc., 2001 WL 1402568 (D.Colo. 2001). In turn, Plaintiff relies on the lack of Tenth Circuit precedent on the issue, and attaches to its Reply an unpublished District of New Mexico opinion which ignores the question completely.
4

(finding punitive damages award in Title VII case constitutionally permissible). At this point, Defendant is challenging the constitutionality of damages which have not yet been awarded. While the defense is premature, I cannot conclude at this stage of the litigation that the defense could not succeed under any set of circumstances.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 14) is DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION d/b/a LOCKHEEd MARTIN MISSION SYSTEMS,
Defendant.

CIV 01-815 WJ/KBM

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion To Compel. Doc. 39. I find the motion moot in part and not well-taken in part and, therefore, deny it.
Interrogatories 1 through 3 & Requests for Production 1through 8. As illustrated by the response, reply and recent correspondence, the production aspect of these items is moot. The EEOC is willing to produce the Compliance Manual. It endeavored to do so in an electronic format but was unsuccessful.1 Even though the EEOC indicates the manual is available in legal and public libraries, it nevertheless will allow Defendant to inspect, copy and print the manual at its office in Albuquerque.
In correspondence sent to the Court after the motion pleadings, Defendant does not want

1 The Court tried to access the manual from http://emlawcneter.ban.com, which is the website the EEOC identifies as having the entire manual. The Court was unable to access the manual. The link for the “EEOC Compliance Manual” leads to an advertisement. The “help” button leads to information on how to become a subscriber.

to review the entire manual (reputed to be 5000 pages) to determine which sections comply with its requests 1 through 8. To gather evidence in support of its defense that the EEOC has no standing to bring this suit because it failed to comply with its “own guidance,” at a minimum, Defendant wants the EEOC to provide it with the “sections, paragraphs, or titles” from the manual “upon which it relied to bring this suit.”
I note that the wording of the requests for production are not narrowed to this suit. Further, the answers to these requests mention specific CFR sections, which one would imagine correlates to sections in the Compliance Manual. Nevertheless, I find the EEOC can provide a bit more guidance about the manual. It is sufficient, however, to produce a copy of the table of contents or index and identify the relied upon general chapters.
Interrogatories 5 through 6. Defendant asks the EEOC to “identify all charges with the EEOC, or with its state counterpart agency, which have been brought by or on behalf of” the two women for whom the EEOC brings suit – Janna Roberts and Janette Wolfe. Defendant wants to know whether these women “have a history of bringing claims against employers” and, if so, “whether those claims had merit.” Doc. 39 at 5.
The EEOC objected on several grounds, including relevance, burden, and the confidentiality sections of Title VII make it unlawful to make such information public. Nevertheless, without waiving the objection the EEOC also provided Ms. Robert’s and Ms. Wolfe’s answers to the interrogatories, which amount to denials of having filed other charges.
Defendant argues that: these statements are unverified; it is not required to accept the denials at face value; the EEOC must answer the question itself; and Defendant will agree to keep any such information confidential under the terms of the confidentiality order it previously secured
2

from the Court. Although the admissibility of prior complaints, if any, will be decided at a later date,
whether these women previously filed charges is arguably relevant or calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The Branch v. Phillips Petroleum Company v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 63 F.2d 87, 880 (5th Cir. 1981), case is materially indistinguishable from the case here. There the employer defendant wanted to use prior charges to impeach plaintiff, and moved to enforce a subpoena by compelling the EEOC to turn over any such documents. The Fifth Circuit found that the employer’s need for the disclosure did not “overcome the congressional policy embodied in [42 U.S.C. § 2000-e-5(b)],” id., which provides “[c]harges shall not be made public by the Commission.”
In the absence of binding authority to the contrary, I am persuaded the result in the Branch case is the appropriate result here. Consistent with its statutory confidentiality obligations, the EEOC need not search for or disclose other charges by the charging parties. That is not to say that the information is not discoverable from the women themselves. See id. at 881 n.5. Defendant can verify or further investigate the denials by other means.
Wherefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion To Compel (Doc. 39) is DENIED. However, based on subsequent correspondence, the EEOC shall produce a copy of the table of contents or index and identify those relied upon general chapters.
____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3

 
 FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~~"A"!tOl'T~'CTCOURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEX~eRQUE, New MI!XICO

MAY 2Q ZOOZ

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

And

)

)

JANNA ROBERTS,

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor )

v.

)

)

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,

)

d/b/a LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSION

)

SYSTEMS,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

~.1
btl:AA
CV 01-815 WJ/KBM

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, this Court finds

that the parties have reached a settlement of this matter resolving the claims of the EEOC,

Jeanette Wolfe and Janna Roberts against Lockheed Martin Corporation d/b/a Lockheed

Martin Mission Systems arising out to the issues in this lawsuit. The terms of the settlement

are set forth in the Settlement Agreement incorporated in this Order and attached as Exhibit A.

The Settlement Agreement is binding and enforceable at law or in equity.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over any action to enforce the Settlement

Agreement for two years following entry of this Order; provided, however, that

upon application of either party and good cause showing, in accordance with the

terms of the Settlement Agreement attached hereto, the Court may extend the

duration of its jurisdiction over any action to enforce compliance with the

Settlement Agreement. 2. This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear hers or its
own costs and attorney's fees incurred in this action as of the date of the entry ofthis Order.
fl,
ORABLE WILLIAM P. JOHNSON c.--'. ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
2

Submitted by:
MARY JO O'NEILL Acting Regional Attorney
C. EMANUEL SMITH Supervisory Trial Attorney
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3300 N. Central Ave., Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

LORETTA MEDINA Senior Trial Attorney
VERONICA A. MOLINA Trial Attorney
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Albuquerque District Office 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2189 (505) 248-5231
Attorneys for Plaintiff
U?~O~~ ~roved by:
CAROL LISA SMITH Krehbiel, Bannerman & Williams 6400 Uptown Boulevard NE Suite 200 West Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110 (505) 837-1900
y for Defendant

P

INGHAM

At orney at Law

3902 A Central SE

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

(505)266-5304

Attorney for PlaintiffIntervenor, Janna Roberts

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

Janna Roberts,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor

)

)

v

)

)

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, )

d/b/a LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSION)

SYSTEMS,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

No. CV-Ol-8l5 WJIKBM

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission" or

"EEOC") filed this action ("lawsuit") against Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Defendant") d/b/a

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems ("LMMS") to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (Title VII) and the Civil Right Act of 1991, 42 U.S.

c., §1981 a. In the Complaint, the Commission alleged that current LMMS employee Janna

Roberts and former LMMS employee Jeanette Wolfe were subjected to sexual harassment by

their immediate supervisor, a former employee of Defendant, in violation of Title VII. It was

also alleged that Ms. Wolfe was subjected to harassment based upon her gender and that she was

forced to resign as a result of LMMS' failure to effectively remedy her environment. Defendant

EXHIBIT
I A

has denied the allegations contained in the Complaint and contends that the EEOC has no authority to bring the Lawsuit because of, inter alia, lack of standing, laches, and unclean hands.
Charging Party Janna Roberts has intervened in this case. This Settlement Agreement does not constitute an admission of liability by the Defendant, nor an adjudication on the merits of the allegations of the Complaint in the lawsuit.
CLAIMS RESOLVED I. This Settlement Agreement resolves all claims of the EEOC against the Defendant, its stockholders, predecessors, officials, officers, representatives, directors, agents, employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, attorneys, and divisions, including but not limited to LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSION SYSTEMS, and all other persons and entities acting by, through, under, or in concert with any of them, for back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs arising out of the allegations in the lawsuit. 2. The EEOC agrees that it will not use Janna Roberts' Charge of discrimination, the lawsuit, or this Settlement Agreement as a basis to pursue future claims of discrimination against Defendant on behalf of any individual. 3. Within ten days of the entry of this Settlement Agreement, Defendant agrees to pay Janna Roberts the sum of $140,000.000 as compensatory damages and to pay Jeanette Wolfe the sum of $60,000.00 as compensatory damages, as well as to resolve the EEOC's claims for compensatory damages on their behalf. Defendant will make these payments directly to Ms. Roberts and her counsel and to Ms. Wolfe at her address via certified mail. Defendant will issue appropriate 1099s to each woman. Defendant makes no representation as to the propriety of the tax treatment to be given to such payments. Within ten days of issuance of the settlement funds
2

to these two women, Defendant shall submit a copy of the checks and any related correspondence to the Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Albuquerque District Office, 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900, Albuquerque, NM 87102-2189.
LMMS' POLICIES AND PRACTICES 4. In consideration for the EEOC's release of claims contained in Paragraph I above, Defendant agrees to the following provisions to be applied and limited to Defendant's Albuquerque, New Mexico facility of Lockheed Martin Mission Systems ("LMMS-Albuquerque") for the duration of this Settlement Agreement:
A. LMMS-Albuquerque reaffirms its compliance and agrees to continue to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. and the Civil Rights Act ofl991, 42 U.S.C. §198Ia.
B LMMS-Abuquerque shall not take any action to discriminate against or retaliate against Janna Roberts or Jeanette Wolfe based on the opposition to any practice made an unlawful employment practice by Title VII, or based on the filing of a charge, or testimony, assistance or participation in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII.
C. LMMS-Albuquerque shall not take any action to discriminate against or retaliate against any witness who testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in the lawsuit.
D. LMMS-Albuquerque reaffirms and agrees that it shall enforce policies and practices that provide a work environment free from sex discrimination and gender discrimination, including policies and practices to prevent sexual harassment or gender harassment of its employees and other individuals, and
3

allows employees and other individuals to raise concerns or complaints about matters made unlawful by Title VII, whether alleged, perceived or actual without retaliation, such policies and practices to include the following: (I) within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Settlement Agreement, to
review its existing policies on sex or gender discrimination, including sexual harassment and gender harassment, and make any changes thereto that LMMS-Albuquerque deems necessary in order to assure that such policies comply with Title VII and foster an environment in which employees will be encouraged to complain about alleged sex or gender discrimination and sexual or gender-based harassment. (2) Any revised policy and procedure statements that are provided to employees will be designed to present easily understood, convenient, consistent, confidential, and reliable procedures for reporting incidents of sexual harassment, gender harassment, and retaliation in LMMSAlbuquerque, and include the following: E. LMMS Human Resources Department shall designate a representative to serve as investigative officer for sexual harassment issues at LMMS-Albuquerque within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Settlement Agreement. F. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Settlement Agreement, LMMS shall also designate an appropriate individual who has executive supervisory and managerial responsibility over the above-designated investigative officer to supervise the investigative officer and/or serve as an alternate investigative officer.
4

G. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Settlement Agreemet and for the duration of this Agreement, the names, relevant responsibilities, work locations, and telephone numbers of the investigative officer and the supervisory investigative officer will routinely and continuously be posted and provided to all employees at LMMS-Albuquerque so that an employee at LMMS-Albuquerque seeking such name can enjoy anonymity and remain inconspicuous to other employees.
H. For the duration of this Settlement Agreement, complaints of sexual harassment, gender harassment, or retaliation will be accepted in writing, orally, or anonymously and will be taken seriously and investigated promptly. (I) Only those who have an immediate need to know, including the investigative officers, other LMMS executive officers, the alleged target of harassment or retaliation, the alleged harasser(s) or retaliator(s) and any witnesses, may be informed by LMMS of the identity of the complainant. (2) During an investigation of a sexual harassment or gender harassment complaint of an employee, the investigative officer(s) shall endeavor to immediately identify and interview all known affected employees and potential witnesses to the alleged harassment. (3) All parties contacted in the course of an investigation will be advised that any retaliation or reprisal against an individual who is an alleged target of harassment or retaliation, who has made a complaint, or who has provided evidence in connection with a complaint will not be tolerated and could result in disciplinary action.
5

I. Each investigative officer has or will receIve thorough training about sexual harassment and gender harassment and will have the responsibility for expeditiously investigating all complaints. This training shall be in addition to that provided to all employees under Paragraph M below.
J. The investigative officer will recommend remedial measures, if appropriate, based upon the results of the investigation. LMMS-Albuquerque will promptly consider the investigative officer's recommendation and will determine and implement the appropriate remedial measures, if any, which it deems necessary and reasonable under the circumstances.
K. The investigative officer will maintain a file on the original complaint(s) and any follow-up investigation for the duration of this Settlement Agreement.
1. LMMS managers, officials, agents, or employees who engage III sexual harassment or retaliation, who fail to cooperate with company-sponsored investigations of sexual harassment or retaliation, or who refuse to implement remedial measures will be advised that they may be sanctioned severely by suspension or dismissal.
M. LMMS-Albuquerque shall provide training for all LMMS-Albuquerque employees on sex discrimination, gender discrimination, sexual harassment, gender-based harassment, and retaliation as follows: (1) Two hours of training sessions annually for LMMS-Albuquerqueemployees shall be conducted during the term of this Settlement Agreement. All managers, supervisors and employees of LMMSAlbuquerque shall attend the training. Duplicative sessions may be held
6

to accommodate staffing or facility needs. Employees who cannot personally attend an annual training session shall be required to view a videotape covering the topics described in Paragraph M (5) below. However, any LMMS-Albuquerque employee on approved leave at the time of such annual training session shall view such videotape within thirty (30) days of his or her return to the workplace. LMMS shall retain for the duration of this Settlement Agreement a registry of attendance and/or registry of video presentation attendance. LMMS-Albuquerque shall be responsible for all costs associated with this training. (2) The said training shall be conducted within four months of the entry of this Settlement Agreement. Additional training shall be conducted at least annually during the term of this Settlement Agreement. (3) The training described in this Paragraph M will be conducted by Maureen Liebler, LMMS Vice President for Human Resources in conjunction with Nettie Horne, LMMS Vice President and General Counsel, or their respective successors. (4) The training sessions agreed to by Paragraph M herein shall include two hours of instruction, to include time for questions and answers and the presentation described in Paragraph M (6) below. All personnel designated in Paragraph M above shall both register and attend the training. LMMS shall report in writing and in affidavit form to the Regional Attorney of the Commission's Albuquerque District Office at 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2189,
7

twice during the term of this Settlement Agreement that LMMSAlbuquerque has met the terms of Paragraph M. (5) The training sessions agreed to in Paragraph M, at a minimum shall include the subjects of: what constitutes sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, harassment based on gender, and retaliation; that sex or gender discrimination in the hiring, firing, compensation, assignment or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment and retaliation violates Title VII; how to prevent sex or gender discrimination and retaliation; how to provide a work environment free from sex or gender discrimination, sexual harassment, gender harassment and retaliation; and to whom and by what means employees may complain if they feel they have been subjected to sex or gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment, gender harassment or retaliation in the workplace. (6) Included in the training sessions, Phil Shiver, or his successor as the OnSite Program Manager at LMMS-Albuquerque shall speak to the employees about: (a) potential discipline that can be taken against supervisors, managers and employees who commit acts of sex or gender discrimination, sexual harassment, gender harassment or retaliation or who allow sex or gender discrimination, sexual harassment, gender harassment or retaliation to occur in the workplace; (b) the importance of maintaining an environment free of sex and gender discrimination, sexual harassment, gender harassment and retaliation; and (c) the employer's
8

policies regarding sex and gender discrimination, sexual harassment, gender harassment and retaliation. N. For the duration of this Settlement Agreement, within thirty (30) days of hire, all new employees at LMMS-Albuquerque shall view a video tape of the training held pursuant to paragraph M and shall be given any written material disseminated at the training. O. LMMS-Albuquerque will provide the Commission through the duration of this Settlement Agreement any video taped presentations conducted pursuant to paragraph M or N. 5. Defendant reaffirms that Robert Wilhelm is no longer employed with Defendant and it will notify EEOC within ten (10) days of his rehire ifhe is ever rehired.
REPORTS. INSPECTION AND POSTING 6. LMMS shall report in writing and in affidavit form to the Regional Attorney of the Commission's Albuquerque District Office at 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2189, twice during the term of this Settlement Agreement that LMMSAlbuquerque has met the terms of this Agreement to include forwarding the video(s) and registry of those persons attending training required by this Agreement; forwarding copies of any revisions to policies on sex or gender discrimination; reporting that LMMS policies on sex or gender discrimination have been distributed pursuant to this Agreement and the dates of such distribution; and that the posting of Exhibit A has been continuous for the reporting period. 7. The Commission retains its existing rights under federal anti-discrimination law and with reasonable notice, to enter and inspect the premises ofLMMS-Albuquerque.
9

8. LMMS shall post within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Settlement Agreement and continuously for the duration of this Settlement Agreement, in prominent places frequented by employees in all LMMS Albuquerque, New Mexico facilities, the Notice attached to this Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A. This Notice shall be the same type, style and size as in Exhibit A.
COSTS, FEES. FILING, AND DURATION OF AGREEMENT 9. Each party shall bear hers or its costs and attorneys' fees incurred as a result of the lawsuit through the filing of this Settlement Agreement and the entry of an Order of Dismissal of the lawsuit. A copy of this Settlement Agreement will be attached to the Order of Dismissal with Prejudice to be filed in this case. 10. This Settlement Agreement is enforceable for a period of two years from the date of entry of the Order of Dismissal. This Settlement Agreement shall expire by its own terms at the end of two years after the date of entry of the Order of Dismissal, without further action by the parties. II. In the event of an alleged breach of this Settlement Agreement, the parties agree that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico retains jurisdiction of this action for the duration of this Agreement and that either party may seek compliance with this Agreement by petitioning the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. In the event the Court determines that either party has failed to comply with this Agreement, the Court may order appropriate relief at law or in equity, including but not limited to, specific performance and extension of this agreement for such period as may be necessary to remedy the noncompliance. A COPY OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SHALL HAVE THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS THE ORIGINAL.
10

APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO:
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel Litigation Management Services
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20507

ARY 10 O'NEILL

I

Acting Regional Attorney

:EMANUEL SMITH ~
Supervisory Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Phoenix District Office 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-9688 (602) 640-5016

LORETTA MEDINA Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Albuquerque District Office 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2189 (505) 248-5230
Attorneys for Plaintiff

11

PAK~GHAM ....... "
Attorney at Law 3902 #A, Central Avenue SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 266-5304 Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenor
CAROL LISA SMITH Krehbiel, Bannerman & Williams 6400 Uptown Boulevard NE Suite 200 West Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110 (505) 837-1900 Attorney for Defendant
12

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSION SYSTEMS-Albuquerque, N.M.
It is unlawful under federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) and state law to discriminate against an employee on the basis of sex in hiring, firing, compensation or other terms and conditions or privileges of employment, including sexual harassment.
LMMS-Albuquerque Policy LMMS prohibits all forms of sex discrimination. including sexual harassment. Prohibited sexual harassment can include the following conduct: I. unwelcome touching of a sexual nature; 2. unwelcome discussion of sexual jokes and sexual behavior;
13. unwelcome requests for dates, sexual favors and propositions;
4. unwelcome actions or conduct that have the effect of creating an intimidating or hostile environment based on sex, such as blocking an individual's exit, entry or ability to freely move about in the workplace; and
\S. distribution in the workplace of cartoons, pictures or drawings of a sexual nature. LMMS does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sex or gender and will not retaliate against any employee who opposes a practice made unlawful under federal law, files, assists or participates in the filing of a charge of discrimination or participates in any investigation under Title VII, or who files a grievance alleging discrimination.
If you believe you are being sexually harassed, discriminated against or retaliated against you must report this to your supervisor for resolution or to (fill in designated name), LMMS' designated investigative officer who may be contacted at (fill in designated name).
If you believe you have been discriminated against by LMMS you have the right to file a charge with the EEOC or the New Mexico Department of Labor. You also have the right to contact them at:
I) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 505 Marquette N.W., Suite 900, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, (505) 248-5201 or toll free at 1-800-669-4000; or,
(2) The New Mexico Department of Labor, Human Rights Division ("HRD"), 1596 Pacheco St., Suite 103, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505, (505) 827-6838.
Exhibit A

 
 District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?321748929605148-L_3...

MTNDDL, TERMED, TRANSF
U.S. District Court District of New Mexico - Version 3.0 (Albuquerque) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01-cv-00815-WJ-KBM

EEOC v. Lockheed Martin Assigned to: District Judge William P. Johnson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen Demand: $0 Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 07/13/2001 Date Terminated: 05/20/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by C Emanuel Smith EEOC 3300 N Central Ave #690 Phoenix, AZ 85012 (602) 640-5033 Fax: 640-5009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams EEOC Legal Counsel Office 1801 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20507 (202) 663-4669 Fax: 663-4639 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Loretta F Medina EEOC 505 Marquette, NW #900 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 248-5230 Email: loretta.medina@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandra Padegimas EEOC Phoenix District Office 3300 North Central Avenue #690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848

1 of 6

6/13/2007 1:10 PM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?321748929605148-L_3...

V. Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation doing business as Lockheed Martin Mission Systems
Intervenor Jana Roberts

(602) 640-5000 Fax: 640-5009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Veronica A Molina Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal Unit 505 Marquette N.W., Suite 900 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 248-5231 Fax: (505) 248-5217 Email: veronica.molina@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Lisa Smith Bannerman & Williams, P.A. 2201 San Pedre NE Building 2, Suite 207 Albuquerque, NM 87110 505-837-1900 Fax: 505-837-1800 Email: cls@nmcounsel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patrick E Bingham PO Box 40135 Albuquerque, NM 87196-0135 (505) 400-7701 Fax: 873-8560 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/13/2001 07/13/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT re: civil rights w/jury demand (1 Summons(es) issued) (referred to Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen) (eg) (Entered: 07/13/2001)
LETTER re: consent to proceed before a US Magistrate Judge (eg) (Entered: 07/13/2001)

2 of 6

6/13/2007 1:10 PM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?321748929605148-L_3...

07/17/2001 07/19/2001
07/26/2001 08/14/2001 08/21/2001
09/06/2001 09/17/2001 09/27/2001 10/02/2001 10/09/2001
10/15/2001 10/16/2001 10/19/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001

2 NOTICE by pltf of refusal to consent to proceed before a US Magistrate Judge (vv) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
3 MINUTE ORDER: transferring case to the Santa Fe Division and reassigning case from Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia to District Judge Martha Vazquez (cc: all counsel*) (dmw) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
4 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE & ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for defendant by Carol Lisa Smith (dmw) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
5 ANSWER by deft [1-1] (vv) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
6 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen Telephonic Rule 16 scheduling conference set on 10/9/01 at 1:30 pm; provisional discovery plan & IPTR due 10/2/01 (cc: all counsel*) (dmw) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
7 MOTION by plaintiff to extend time to serve motion to strike (no date specified) (dmw) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
8 ORDER granting motion to extend time to serve motion to strike to 9/27/01 [7-1] (CLK-td) (cc: all counsel) (msm) (Entered: 09/17/2001)
14 MOTION by plaintiff to strike affirmative defenses (dmw) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
9 PROVISIONAL DISCOVERY PLAN by the parties (eg) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
10 CLERK'S MINUTES: before Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen ; Rule 16 scheduling conference held; deadlines were set; IPTR forwarded to Judge Vazquez (former employee) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
11 CERTIFICATE of Service by deft of the initial disclosures to counsel on 10/11/01 (kd) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
12 CERTIFICATE of Service by plaintiff EEOC of Initial Disclosures to deft on 10/11/01 (mlg) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
13 CERTIFICATE by defendant of service of 1st set of interrogs & request for production to counsel on 10/18/01 (eg) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
15 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to strike affirmative defenses [14-1] (dmw) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
16 AFFIDAVIT of Loretta Medina in support of pltf's motion to strike affirmative defenses [14-1] (dmw) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
17 RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to motion to strike affirmative defenses [14-1] (dmw) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
18 REPLY by plaintiff to response to motion to strike affirmative defenses [14-1] (dmw) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
19 AFFIDAVIT of Georgia M Marchbanks in support of reply to response to motion to strike affirmative defenses [14-1] (dmw) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
20 CERTIFICATE by plaintiff of service of 1st supplemental initial disclosures to counsel on 10/31/01 (eg) (Entered: 11/02/2001)

3 of 6

6/13/2007 1:10 PM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?321748929605148-L_3...

11/14/2001 11/19/2001 11/20/2001 11/29/2001 11/29/2001
12/07/2001 12/10/2001 12/13/2001 12/13/2001 12/20/2001 12/28/2001 12/28/2001 12/28/2001 01/02/2002 01/08/2002

29 MOTION & memorandum in support by defendant for protective order to maintain confidentiality of sensitive & private personnel information (dmw) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
21 MOTION & memorandum in support by defendant for leave to file surreply in opposition to motion to strike affirmative defenses (dmw) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
22 CERTIFICATE by plaintiff of service of answers & objections to 1st set of interrogs & request for production to counsel on 11/20/01 (eg) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
23 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen setting settlement conference on 2/20/02 @ 1:30 pm in Albuquerque, NM; statements due 2/13/02 (cc: all counsel*) (dmw) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
24 CLERK'S MINUTES: Telephonic Status Conference before Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen; parties to submit unopposed motion & order to extend deadlines; settlement conference set for 2/20/02 @ 1:30 pm in Albuquerque, NM (js) (Entered: 12/05/2001)
25 ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez granting deft's motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to motion to affirmative defenses [21-1] (cc: all counsel) (mjr) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
39 MOTION & memorandum in support by deft to compel responses to discovery requests (dmw) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
26 STIPULATED ORDER extending pretrial deadlines by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen Discovery cutoff 6/11/02; Motion Filing cutoff 7/15/02; Pretrial order ddl 9/7/02 (cc: all counsel) (js) (Entered: 12/13/2001)
27 SURREPLY by defendant in opposition to motion to strike affirmative defenses [14-1] (dmw) (Entered: 12/14/2001)
28 MOTION for Extension by plaintiff to respond to surreply in opposition to motion to strike affirmative defenses until 1/8/02 [14-1] (dmw) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
30 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for protective order to maintain confidentiality of sensitive & private personnel information [29-1] (dmw) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
31 AFFIDAVIT of Loretta Medina in support of response to motion for protective order [30-1] (dmw) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
32 REPLY by defendant in support of motion for protective order to maintain confidentiality of sensitive & private personnel information [29-1] (dmw) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
33 MINUTE ORDER: transferring case to the Albuquerque Division and reassigning case from Judge Martha Vazquez to District Judge William P. Johnson (cc: all counsel*) (dmw) Modified on 02/04/2002 (Entered: 01/03/2002)
35 RESPONSE by plaintiff to surreply in opposition to motion to strike affirmative defenses [14-1] (dmw) (Entered: 01/09/2002)

4 of 6

6/13/2007 1:10 PM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?321748929605148-L_3...

01/09/2002 01/11/2002
01/25/2002 02/06/2002 02/11/2002 02/11/2002 02/19/2002 02/19/2002 02/20/2002 02/20/2002 02/26/2002 03/07/2002
03/12/2002 03/25/2002 03/27/2002

34 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen granting pltf's mtn for an extension until 1/8/02 to respond to deft's surreply [28-1] (cc: all counsel) (mjr) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
36 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen granting & denying in part deft's motion for protective order to maintain confidentiality of sensitive & private personnel information, as described herein [29-1] (cc: all counsel*) (dmw) (Entered: 01/11/2002)
37 CERTIFICATE by plaintiff of service of 1st Supplemental answers, objections to 1st set of interrogs & requests for production (mlk) (Entered: 01/28/2002)
38 CERTIFICATE by defendant of service of supplemental Rule 26 (a)(1) initial disclosures to counsel on 2/5/02 (eg) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
40 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to compel responses to discovery requests [39-1] (dmw) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
41 REPLY by defendant in support of motion to compel responses to discovery requests [39-1] (dmw) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
42 MOTION by Jana Roberts to intervene (dmw) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
44 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for intervenor Jana Roberts by Patrick E. Bingham (eg) (Entered: 02/21/2002)
43 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia granting Jana Roberts' motion to intervene as party pltf [42-1] (cc: all counsel) (dmw) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen; case did not settle (vd) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
45 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by District Judge William P. Johnson denying pltf's motion to strike affirmative defenses [14-1] (cc: all counsel*) (dmw) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
46 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen denying deft's motion to compel responses to discovery requests, however, pltf shall produce copy of table of contents/index of compliance manual [39-1] (cc: all counsel*) (dmw) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
47 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen extending discovery deadlines for two months Discovery cutoff 8/12/02; Motion Filing cutoff 10/23/02; Pretrial order ddl 11/7/02 (cc: all counsel*) (dmw) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
48 NOTICE of hearing Jury trial set for 6/2/03 at 9:00 am in Albuquerque, NM before Judge William Johnson (cc: all counsel*) (kd) Modified on 03/27/2002 (Entered: 03/25/2002)
49 INITIAL PRE-TRIAL REPORT by District Judge William P. Johnson and Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen; Discovery set for 8/12/02; mtn filing ddl set for 10/23/02; proposed pretrial order due 11/7/02; pretrial conference set for 9:00 am on 5/19/03; jury trial set for 9:00 am on 6/2/03; Estimated # of Trial Days: 7-10; Chances of Settlement: unknown prior to some initial discovery (cc: all counsel) (dmw) Modified on 04/04/2002 (Entered: 03/27/2002)

5 of 6

6/13/2007 1:10 PM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?321748929605148-L_3...

04/16/2002 04/16/2002 04/19/2002 04/29/2002
04/29/2002
05/06/2002 05/16/2002 05/20/2002

50 CERTIFICATE by defendant of service of notice of independent mental examination of Jeannette Wolfe to counsel on 4/15/02 (eg) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
51 CERTIFICATE by defendant of service of notice of independent mental examination of Janna Roberts to counsel on 4/15/02 (eg) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
52 CERTIFICATE by plaintiff of service of first set of interrogatories & request for production to counsel on 4/17/02 (dmw) (Entered: 04/22/2002)
53 CERTIFICATE by defendant of service of amended notice of independent mental examination for Jeannette Wolfe to counsel on 4/25/02 (eg) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
54 CERTIFICATE by defendant of service of amended notice of independent mental examination for Janna Roberts to counsel on 4/25/02 (eg) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
55 CERTIFICATE by defendant of service of 2nd amended notice of mental examination of Janna Roberts to counsel on 5/3/02 (eg) (Entered: 05/08/2002)
56 STIPULATION by the parties for dismissal of case with prejudice (dmw) (Entered: 05/16/2002)
57 ORDER by Chief Judge James A. Parker for Judge William Johnson granting joint stipulation [56-1] dismissing case with prejudice (cc: all counsel) (dmw) (Entered: 05/20/2002)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

06/13/2007 12:08:44

hs0328 Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:01-cv-00815-WJ-KBM

4

Cost:

0.32

6 of 6

6/13/2007 1:10 PM