-

-

L" , '

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU~T ;\,\)G 29 PH 2: 5~

4:,0 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

, ,"", ,.' /J ... ;:'j'1...,

() I ~ ..

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

; CIV-02-1090WPJDJSi

)

tlV

)

v.

)

)

COMPLAINT

BELL GAS INCORPORATED, A-X PROPANE )

INC., CORTEZ GAS COMPANY, BLACK

)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

GOLD ENERGY CORPORATION, d/b/a

)

A-X EXPRESS MART and CONOCO #155,

)

)

Defendant.

)

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

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

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

and to provide appropriate relief to Christine Romero who was adversely affected by such

practices while employed by Defendant Bell Gas Incorporated, A-X Propane Inc., Cortez Gas

Company, Black Gold Energy Corporation, d/b/a A-X Express Mart and Conoco #155

("Defendant" or the "Employer"). The Commission alleges that Christine Romero was subjected

to verbal and physical sexual harassment by her immediate supervisor, Ray Hidalgo, which created

a hostile work environment. The Commission also alleges Christine Romero was retaliated against

by the Defendant for complaining about the sexual harassment. As a result, Christine Romero was

\

-

-

either discharged or constructively discharged by the Defendant. 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(f)(1) and (3) of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5 (f)(I) 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. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is

the 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 Sections 706(f)(1) and

(3) ofTitie VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5(f)(I) and (3).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, New Mexico corporations operating as a joint employer, continuously did and is now doing business in the State of New Mexico in the City of Socorro as A-X Express Mart and Conoco #155. 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 Sections 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 of this lawsuit, Christine Romero filed

2

-
a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
7. Since at least February 2000 Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Socorro, New Mexico facility in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 V.S.C. §§2000e-2(a). These practices include subjecting Christine Romero to verbal and physical harassment because of her sex, including a sexual assault, which created a hostile work environment, and failing to correct and remedy the hostile work environment. As a result of the sexual harassment. and Defendant's failure to appropriately remedy the sexual harassment, Christine Romero was either discharged or constructively discharged by Defendant.
8. Since at least July 2000 Defendant has further engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 V.S.c. §2000e-3(a), by discriminating against Christine Romero because she opposed the Defendant's unlawful employment practices. As a result of Defendant's retaliation and/or sexual harassment, Christine Romero was either discharged or constructively discharged by Defendant.
9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above has been to deprive Christine Romero 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 paragraphs 7 and 8 above were intentional.
II. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above were done with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Christine Romero.
3

-
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment. B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice that discriminates against any of its employees or applicants for employment because she or he has opposed an unlawful employment practice, or because she or he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII. C. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women and those who oppose discrimination and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant to make whole Christine Romero by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, 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 Christine Romero and front pay. E. Order Defendant to make whole Christine Romero, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, including, but not limited to, job search expenses and medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
4

F. Order Defendant to make whole Christine Romero by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Order Defendant to pay Christine Romero punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, in an amount to be determined at trial.
H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
I. 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 29'h day of August, 2002.
Respectfully submitted, GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Acting General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20507
~~i(~U\~ ARY 10 O'NEILL Acting Regional Attorney
~r1Q ±tct.111 q k'(c:II~M . EMANUEL SMITH Supervisory Trial Attorney
5

-
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Phoenix District Office 3300 N. Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
VERONICA A. MOLINA Trial Attorney LORETTA MEDINA Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Albuquerque District Office 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 (505) 248-5231 Attorneys for Plaintiff
6

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

03 J:JI 15 Pi1 I: 58

Plaintiff,

CHRISTINE ROMERO,

Applicant in Intervention,

vs.

No. CV 02-01090 WJPIDJS

BELL GAS, INCORPORATED, A-X PROPANE INC., CORTEZ GAS COMPANY, BLACK GOLD ENERGY CORPORATION, DB/A A-X EXPRESS MART AND CONOCO #155, and RAYMUNDO HILDALGO, General Manager of A-X EXPRESS MART AND CONOCO #155,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

Plaintiff in intervention Christine Romero ("Romero") states as follows:

Parties. Jurisdiction & Venue:

1. Plaintiff in intervention Christine Romero, hereinafter referred to as Romero, is

presently a resident of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. She was a resident of Socorro,

New Mexico and an employee of Defendant Bell Gas at all material times.

2. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, hereinafter referred to as

the Commission, is an agency of the United States of America, charged with the administration,

interpretation and enforcement of Title VII.

3. Defendant Bell Gas Incorporated, A-X Propane Inc., Cortez Gas Company, Black

Gold Energy Corporation, d/b/a A-X Express Mart and Conoco #155 hereinafter referred to as

I",,')

"Defendant Bell Gas" or "Employer," has continuously been doing business in the State of New Mexico, in a number of cities in New Mexico, including Socorro and Roswell, New Mexico, and is an employer of 15 or more employees, as defined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 USC §2000-e et seq.) as amended.
4. Defendant Raymond Hildalgo, hereinafter referred to as Hildalgo, was employed by Defendant Bell Gas Incorporated as the General Manager of A-X Express Mart and Conoco #155, in Socorro, New Mexico, and was acting in the scope of his employment at all material times.
5. This action arises under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C §2000-e, et seq.
6. The unlawful employment practices and other acts which give rise to this Complaint were committed in Socorro, New Mexico and are within the jurisdiction and venue of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
7. Romero timely filed charges of discrimination with the Commission and has satisfied all conditions precedent to the filing of this action.
8. On July 26, 2001, upon completion of its investigation of Romero's charges, the Commission issued a Determination that there was cause to conclude that Romero was sexually harassed and raped by her supervisor Raymond Hildalgo, then transferred and constructively discharged by Defendant Bell Gas in retaliation for reporting the sexual harassment and sexual assault by her supervisor.
2

Allegations Common To All Causes of Action: 9. In February 2000, Romero was employed by Defendant Bell Gas Incorporated at an AX Express Mart/Conoco station owed by Bell Gas Incorporated in Socorro, New Mexico. 10. Plaintiff Romero was twenty (20) years old and this was her first full time job. II. Defendant Raymond Hildalgo, over fifty (50) years old, was the general manager of the propane station in Socorro, New Mexico. Plaintiff Romero had gone to high school with Defendant Hildalgo's son who also worked for Defendant Bell for a short time. 12. Plaintiff Romero was under the direct supervision and control of Defendant Bell's general manager, Defendant Hildalgo. 13. In 1991, Defendant Bell Gas Corporation had fired Hildalgo for time card fraud and/or for having an affair with his secretary, Lydia Aragon. The secretary, Lydia Aragon, was also fired. Hildalgo was re-hired by Defendants with in a few years of his termination. Ms. Aragon was not re-hired by Defendant Bell Gas. 14. Defendant Hildalgo is rumored to have had numerous sexual relationships with female coworkers, in spite of the fact that he is married. 15. In June of 2000, Defendant Hildalgo began touching Plaintiff Romero inappropriately and speaking to her in a sexually explicit manner. A least one co-worker witnessed Defendant Hildalgo touching Plaintiff on monitor cameras. 16. Plaintiff Romero was frightened to complain of Defendant Hildago's sexually offensive behavior because she feared that if she complained she would lose her job. 17. Plaintiff Romero had witnessed the firing of another female employee, whom she believed had been intimately involved with Defendant Hildalgo, after Defendant Hildalgo called
3

that female employee a "bitch." 18. Hildalgo' s sexually aggressive behavior towards Plaintiff continued through the
months of June and July 2000. 19. On July 15,2000, Defendant Hildalgo raped Plaintiff Romero on his desk in his
office 20. A few days following the rape, Plaintiff Romero complained of Hildalgo's sexual
assault to Assistant Manager, Texie Baggs, and then to the Office and Station Managers, Yvette Martinez and Debra Chittenden, and then to District Manager, Bryan Stegall.
21. Plaintiff reasonably feared continuing to work with Defendant Hildalgo. 22. District Manager Bryan Stegall told Plaintiff Romero that she could continue working for the company at a station in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. 23. Plaintiff moved to Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, to secure continued employment with Defendant Bell Gas. She never received a call from Defendant Bell telling her when or where she could begin working for Defendant in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. Plaintiff was without employment for a number of months.
COUNT I - HOSTILE WORKPLACE GENDER DISCRIMINATION & RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (AGAINST DEFENDANT BELL GAS)
24. The Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference herein. 25. Plaintiff is within a protected class (female) and was treated differently by Defendant Bell Gas from male co-workers in the terms and conditions of her employment.
4

- ......------------------------- .
26. Defendant Bell Gas subjected Plaintiff Romero to a hostile work environment. 27. Plaintiff complained to Defendant Bell Gas, via her supervisors about verbal and sexual harassment because of her gender, female, by her immediate supervisor Defendant Raymond Hildalgo. 28. Because Plaintiff voiced her original complaint to her supervisors, then voiced her complaints regarding her treatment by Defendant Hildalgo to his supervisors, she was retaliated against by Defendant Bell Gas. 29. As a result of Defendant's sexual harassment and/or retaliation, Christine Romero was either discharged or constructively discharged by Defendant Bell Gas. 30. Such retaliation and sex discrimination is prohibited under the Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 USc. §§2000e-2(a) and Section 704(a) ofTitle VII, 42 V.S.c. §2000e-3(a). 31. Plaintiff was forced to move to a new location which created a hardship for her, and she was not able to work as she was not given the job position with Defendant Bell Gas that she was promised by their agent Bryan Stegall. 32. Plaintiff has suffered sever emotional distress, physical injury, and economic harm as a result of Defendant's violations of Title VII.
COUNT II - SEXUAL ASSAULT AND BATTERY (AGAINST DEFENDANT HILDALGO and DEFENDANT BELL GAS) 33. Plaintiff restates each of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 32 as if stated fully herein. 34. Hildalgos' sexual remarks and comments to Romero caused her to suffer fear and apprehension regarding Hildalgo's intended sexual action towards her.
5

35. Hildalgo' s physicial sexual acts were unwelcome and constituted a battery. 36. Hildalgo's actions were intentional, willful, wanton, obdurate, sexual, and in gross and reckless disregard of Plaintiffs' personal dignity and bodily integrity. 37. Defendant Bell Gas is vicariously liable for Hildalgo's actions under the doctrine of re.lpondeal superior. 38. Defendant Hildalgo's actions proximately caused extreme emotional distress and personal injuries to Plaintiff.
COUNT III: NEW MEXICO TORTS: NegJigent Retention, Supervision and Training
(DEFENDANT BELL GAS)
39. Plaintiff Romero hereby incorporates into this cause of action paragraphs I through 38 of this complaint.
40. Defendant Bell Gas has a duty to refrain from hiring or retaining unfit employees. 41. Defendant Bell Gas has a duty to insure that its employees are properly trained and supervised, including their manager, Hildalgo. 42. Defendant Bell Gas had actual knowledge that manager Hildalgo was unfit to work for them because of his discriminatory attitude towards women, his sexually predatory behavior towards female employees, and his dishonest conduct in the workplace. 43. The discriminatory attitude of Defendant Hildalgo and the poor training of employees created a foreseeable risk of harm to female co-workers. 44. Defendant Bell Gas knew or should have known that Defendant Hildalgo behaved in an unfit manner, yet Defendant failed to properly supervise and train their employees in gender discrimination or retaliation.
6

45. Defendant Belt Gas had a duty to Plaintiff Romero because it knew that she was in a position of risk of injury as a result of their retention of Defendant Hildalgo.
46. Defendant Belt Gas failed to properly instruct its employees as to the proper method of performing their work including the legal rights of co-workers to be free from gender discrimination and retaliation in the workplace, and as a result of this failure Plaintiff Romero was injured.
47. Defendant's failures constituted gross negligence. 48. By the outrageous conduct described above, Defendant Belt breached its duty of care to Plaintiff Romero. 49. Defendant's actions were malicious, willful and done with disregard for Romero. 50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of duty of care, Romero has suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional distress and physical injury.
COUNT IV -RETALIATORY DISCHARGE in Violation of Public Policy Pursuant to New Mexico Common Law and the New Mexico Human Rights Act (AGAINST DEFENDANT BELL GAS)
47. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully reiterated herein. 48. Plaintiff Romero was terminated unlawfully pursuant to New Mexico law in that
her termination was a violation of public policy and the New Mexico Human Rights Act. It is welt-settled New Mexico law that retaliatory discharge for gender
7

discrimination contravenes New Mexico public policy. 49. The Defendant Bell Gas acted intentionally, maliciously, and with reckless
disregard when they retaliated against Plaintiff based on her gender, female. 50. The actions of Defendant Bell caused Plaintiff Romero harm as described above.
COUNT V: NEW MEXICO TORTS--Wrongful TerminationlBreach of Implied ContractlPromissory Estoppel
(AGAINST DEFENDANT BELL) 51. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully reiterated herein. 52. Defendant Bell promised Plaintiff Romero that she would have a work
environment free from gender discrimination and retaliation. Defendant Bell promised Plaintiff Romero that she would be given an equal opportunity to advance within the company's ranks. Defendants denied Plaintiff Romero this opportunity. 71. Plaintiff Romero, was in fact, dismissed from her employment based upon her gender and in violation of public policy as codified in the Civil Rights Act and in the New Mexico Human Rights Act. 72. Prior to her wrongful termination Plaintiff Romero was forced to endure a hostile work environment and retaliation, based upon her gender in violation of public policy as codified in the Civil Rights Act and in the New Mexico Human Rights Act. 73. Defendant Bell failed to perform on its promise to employ Plaintiff in an environment free from retaliation and gender discrimination.
8

74. Defendant Bell Gas acted intentionally, maliciously, and with reckless disregard. 75. The actions of Defendant Bell has caused Plaintiff harm as described above.
COUNT VI -VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW MEXICO HUMAN RIGHTS ACT (AGAINST DEFENDANT BELL GAS AND DEFENDANT HILDALGO)
76. Plaintiff restates each of the preceding allegations as if fully stated herein. 77. Plaintiff's employer, Defendant Bell Gas and her supervisor Defendant Hildalgo,
have discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff because of her gender, female. 78. Defendants conduct violates the Human Rights Act, NMSA Section 28-1-1 et seq.
(including Section 28-1-7(A). 79. The actions of Defendant Bell and Defendant Hildalgo has caused Plaintiff harm as
described above. 80. Pursuant to the New Mexico Human Rights Act, Plaintiff is entitled to recover her
actual damages and attorneys' fees. See NMSA Section 28-1-13(D). PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff has suffered the following damages: a. Mental anguish. b. Humiliation, loss of enjoyment oflife, and loss of self-esteem. c. Monetary damages, including loss wages and benefits. e. Because Defendants' conduct was willful, deliberate, and done with malice, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages from the Defendants.
9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief: 1. For compensatory damages for physical and emotional damages; 2. For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter the type of tortious and statutorily prohibited conduct complained of herein; 3. For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; 4. For pre-and post-judgment interest; 5. Issue a declaratory judgment declaring Defendant Bell Gas's conduct violated Plaintiff's rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ; 6. Issue a permanent injunction enjoining Bell Gas from engaging in gender discrimination; 7. Issue a permanent injunction against Bell Gas to implement and enforce policies which provide equal employment opportunities for its employees and which eradicate the effects of its past discriminatory practices; 8. Issue Plaintiff an award of back pay and front pay against Bell Gas; and, 9. Award Plaintiff all other relief that is just, equitable and appropriate under the circumstances.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury
10

L. OLIVER JOSEPH P. KENNEDY KENNEDY & OLIVER, PA Attorneys for Plaintiff 420 Central Avenue SW, Suite 250 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 (505) 244-1400 FAX (505) 244-1406
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed and sent via facsimile this 7th day of January, 2003 to counsel of record:
Veronica Molina EEOC Trial Attorney 505 Marquette NW #900 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2160 FAX (505) 248-5233
Mr. Ray Bell Black Gold Energy Corp. f/k/a Ray Bell Oil Company PO. Box 490 Roswell, New Mexico 88202 FAX (505) 627-7002
Raymond Hildalgo c/o Lee Deschamps Lee Deschamps Law Firm LLC P.O. Box 37
e ·co 87801-0037 -2 2
~
II

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

and

CHRISTINE ROMERO,

Intervenor,

v.

No. CIV 02-1090 WJ/DJS

BELL GAS, INCORPORATED, A-X PROPANE, INC., CORTEZ GAS COMPANY, BLACK GOLD ENERGY CORPORATION, d/b/a A-X EXPRESS MART and CONOCO #155,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Defendants’s Opposed Motion to

Set Aside Clerk’s Entry of Default [Docket No. 13], Plaintiff’s Motion for Default [Docket No.

9], and Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Opposed Motion to Strike

Defendant’s Answer Filed December 23, 2002 [Docket No. 18]. Having reviewed the

submissions of the parties and being otherwise fully advised, I find that the motion to set aside

default will be granted, and the Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment and to set aside the

Defendant’s answer will be denied for the reasons stated herein.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commisson (EEOC) filed the Complaint in this matter on August 29, 2002. On September 20, 2002, Plaintiff sent waivers of service to defendants requesting that defendants waive service and answer the complaint within sixty days of September 20. Ray Bell, president of Defendants Bell Gas, Inc., (Bell Gas), Cortez Gas Co. (Cortez), Black Gold Energy Corp. (Black Gold), and A-X Propane, Inc. (A-X Propane) signed waivers of service on behalf of all these Defendants on October 17, 2002. On December 16, 2002, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment as no defendant had filed an answer to the complaint or otherwise entered an appearance in the case. Subsequently, on December 17, Plaintiff requested the clerk enter default against the Defendants. On December 19, the clerk entered default. On December 20, 2002, counsel for Defendants entered an appearance, and on December 23, Defendants filed an answer and a motion to set aside the clerk’s entry of default. To date, no default judgment has been entered in the case. DISCUSSION
A court may use its discretion to set aside an entry of default for good cause shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). The good cause required for setting aside a clerk’s entry of default under Rule 55(c) poses a lesser standard for a defaulting party than the excusable neglect which must be shown to obtain relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Garberg & Assoc., Inc. v. Pack-Tech Int’l Corp., 115 F.3d 767, 775 n.6 (10th Cir. 1997). The principal factors a court considers when determining whether a defendant has met the good cause standard are 1) whether the default was the result of culpable conduct of the defendant; 2) whether the plaintiff would be prejudiced if default would be set aside; and 3) whether the defendant presented a meritorious defense. Porter v. Brancato, 171 F.R.D. 303, 304 (D. Kan. 1997). These factors, however, are not carved in
2

stone and a court may consider other factors. In re Dierschke, 975 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir. 1992). A factor of particular importance to this Court is the law’s preference for the resolution of legal claims on the merits. Walker v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 240 F.3d 1268, 1272 (10th Cir. 2001).1
Plaintiff points to Porter for the proposition that a failure to file a timely answer to a complaint after receiving actual notice of the complaint is culpable conduct. The court in Porter, however, found that the defendant’s failure to file a timely answer showed a willful and flagrant disregard for the court in part because the defendant did not move to set aside the default until six months after he had been served. 171 F.R.D. at 304. It is also worth noting that the Porter case involved a defendant’s motion to set aside a default judgment under Ruled 60(b) rather than a motion to set aside default under Rule 55(c). I do not find that the defendants in this case have shown a willful or flagrant disregard for the court. Rather, the defendants’failure to file a timely answer was the result of an honest mistake. Thus, I find that the failure of the Defendants in this case to file a timely answer was not the result of culpable conduct.
Plaintiff will not be overly prejudiced by the set aside of the entry of default in this case. The motion to set aside the default was filed less than a week after default was requested and entered. Additionally, Defendants’answer contains affirmative defenses that appear meritorious, even at this early stage of litigation. For these reasons, I will grant Defendants’motion to set aside the default. Accordingly, I will deny Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and motion to strike Defendants’answer.
1Had default judgment been entered in this case, this factor would be tempered by the public policy favoring finality of judgments. See Weiss v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 283 F.3d 790, 794 (6th Cir. 2002).
3

CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’s Opposed Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s
Entry of Default [Docket No. 13] is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default [Docket No. 9] is hereby
DENIED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s
Opposed Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer filed December 23, 2002 [Docket No. 18] is hereby DENIED.
_________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

CHRISTINE ROMERO,

Plaintiff in Intervention

v.

CIV. NO. 02-1090 WJ/ACT

BELL GAS INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon eleven motions filed by the parties all of

which are discussed below.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Docket No. 1) entitled “Nature of the Action” (“Complaint”) on

August 20, 2002. In the Complaint Plaintiff states that:

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Christine Romero who was adversely affected by such practices while by employed by [Defendants]. The Commission alleges that Christine Romero was subjected to verbal and physical sexual harassment by her immediate supervisor, Ray Hidalgo, which created a hostile work environment. The Commission also alleges Christine Romero was retaliated against by the Defendants for complaint about the sexual harassment. As a result, Christine Romero was either discharged or constructively discharged by the Defendant.

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, a change in policies, as well as monetary relief. The monetary relief sought is back pay, compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, punitive damages and costs.

Complaint, p.4-5. The Court held an initial scheduling conference on March 17, 2003. Docket No. 37. An
Amended Initial Pretrial Report was entered on May 16, 2003. Docket No. 45. Defendant Raymond Hidalgo filed a notice of filing bankruptcy on May 23, 2003. Docket No. 47. Counsel for Defendants Bell Gas, Incorporated, A-X Propane, Inc., Cortez Gas Company, Black Gold Energy Corporation d/b/a A-X Express Mart and Conoco #155 (“Corporate Defendants”) filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel July 31, 2003. Docket No. 93. Mark E. Komer and Nancy Ruth Long filed an entry of appearance for the Corporate Defendants on July 31, 20023. Docket No. 94.
The Corporate Defendants filed an Opposed Motion for Thirty Day Stay and Extension of Time for Defendants to Retain New Counsel on July 16, 2003. Docket No. 85. As grounds the Corporate Defendants states that counsel gave notice on July 3, 2003 that the firm was going to withdraw as counsel and that Defendants needed to obtain new counsel. The Corporate Defendants further stated that depositions were scheduled and responses to discovery were due July 17, 2003. Plaintiff and Plaintiff in Intervention opposed the motion. Plaintiff stated that it opposed the motion because it would extend the discovery deadlines. Plaintiff in Intervention stated it opposed the motion because counsel for the Corporate Defendants continued to represent the Corporate Defendants and the Corporate Defendants had delayed in retaining new counsel. The Court finds that the Opposed Motion for Thirty Day Stay and Extension of Time for Defendants to Retain New Counsel is well taken and will be granted in part. The following deadlines will govern this case:
1. The case will be stayed until August 18, 2003. 2. The termination date for discovery is January 15, 2004. 3. All discovery motions must be filed by January 26, 2004; responses must be filed
by February 9, 2003; and replies must be filed by February 23, 2003. 4. Plaintiff and Plaintiff in Intervention must identify their experts and submit expert
2

reports by October 17, 2003. 5. Defendants must identify their experts and submit expert reports by November 17,
2003. 6. All pre-trial motions must be filed by March 4, 2004; responses must be filed by
March 18, 2004; and the replies must be filed by April 1, 2004. 7. Plaintiff and Plaintiff in Intervention must submit the pre-trial Report to the
Defendant on or before April 8, 2004. Defendants must submit the pretrial Report to the Court on or before April 19, 2004.
Based on these new deadlines and the new representation by the Corporate Defendants, the Court will make the following rulings on other pending motions:
Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s First Set of Non-Uniform Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents filed June 30, 2003 is denied with permission to refile. Docket No. 67. Counsel for Plaintiff and Counsel for the Corporate Defendants shall confer in good faith within the next twenty (20) days regarding the discovery requests at issue as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2)(A). If there are any remaining issues to be resolved by the Court, Plaintiff may file a motion to compel no later than thirty (30) days after the entry of this Order.
Corporate Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena and Notice of Non-Appearance of Barbara Parks is granted. Docket No. 79. Corporate Defendants Motion for Protective Order and Notice of Non-Appearance for Texis Baggs (Docket No. 87) and Debra Chittenden (Docket No. 88) are granted. Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Compel Depositions is denied. Docket No. 89. Plaintiff may take these depositions during the new discovery period.
Corporate Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants to Provide Expert Reports will be granted. Docket No. 86. Corporate Defendants state they have not received the raw data on which Plaintiff’s expert psychologist has relief on to give to the Corporate Defendants expert.
3

Within five days of entry of this Order, Counsel will submit a stipulated order requiring Dr. Linda Daniels to submit all her raw data to the expert psychologist retained by the Corporate Defendants.
The remaining pending motions concern Defendant Raymond Hidalgo (“Hidalgo”). Hidalgo’s Motion for Protective Order on June 20, 2003 (Docket No. 60) and Motion for Protective Order, Quash Subpoena and Notice of Non-Appearance (Docket No. 61) will be granted in part and denied in part. The Corporate Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order filed on July 31, 2003 will be granted. Docket No. 98. Plaintiff and Plaintiff in Intervention are seeking discovery against Hidalgo. Plaintiff in Intervention has filed a motion in the U.S. Bankruptcy court seeking relief from the automatic stay. Plaintiff asserts that it is not subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay.
Under the automatic stay provision, a petition filed in bankruptcy “operates as a stay, applicable to all entities of – (1) the commencement or continuation...of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have commenced before the commencement of the [bankruptcy] case...” 11 U.S.C. §362(a). However, the “filing of a petition...does not operate as stay--...(4)...of the commencement of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit to enforce such governmental unit’s police or regulatory power...” 11 U.S.C. §362(b).
Not all agency actions against a debtor are exempt from the automatic stay. The courts have used two tests to determine whether an action fits into the exception. Eddleman v. United States Department of Labor, 923 F.2d 782, 791 (10thCir. 1991). The first in the ‘pecuniary purpose” test. The Court “asks whether the government’s proceeding relates primarily to the protection of the government’s pecuniary interests in the debtor’s property and not to matters of public policy.” Id.
4

The issue is whether the action is “primarily for the purpose of protecting a pecuniary interest.” Id. If the proceeding relates to pecuniary interest, the exemption does not apply. Under the “public policy” test, the issue is whether the action is “aimed at effectuating public policy” or “those aimed at adjudicating private rights.” Id. Actions whose primary purpose is aimed at advancing private rights are not exempt from the automatic stay. Courts have taken the position that EEOC’s request for money damages under Title VII is different from other actions seeking money damages and thus are exempt from the automatic stay. EEOC v. Rath Packing Co., 787 F.2d 318, 325-26(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 910 (1986)(“when the EEOC acts, albeit at the behest of and for the benefit of specific individuals, it acts also to vindicate the public interest in preventing employment discrimination.”)(citation omitted); EEOC v. McLean Trucking Company, 834 F.2d 398 (4th Cir. 1987).
Given the present posture of this case, Plaintiff may proceed against Hidalgo but Plaintiff in Intervention may not. Since the Court has extended the discovery deadlines, the Court will stay all discovery against Hidalgo pending a ruling by the Bankruptcy court on Plaintiff in Intervention’s Motion. If the Bankruptcy court has not ruled on Plaintiff in Intervention’s Motion for Relief from Stay by October 15, 2003, the parties are to notify this Court and a status conference can be scheduled. Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Raymundo Hidalgo Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court filed July 2, 2003 is denied. Docket No. 72.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1) Corporate Defendants’Opposed Motion for Thirty Day Stay and Extension of Time for Defendants to Retain New Counsel (Docket No. 85) is granted in part and denied in part and that this matter is stayed until August 15, 2003 and the deadlines above will govern the subsequent pre-
5

pretrial proceedings in this matter; 2) Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission’s First Set of Non-Uniform Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents (Docket No. 67) is denied;
3) Corporate Defendants’Motion to Quash Subpoena and Notice of Non-Appearance (Docket No 79) and Motions for Protective Order and Notice of Non-Appearance (Docket No. 87 and 88) are granted;
4) Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Compel Depositions (Docket No. 89) is denied; 5) Corporate Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants to Provide Expert Reports (Docket No. 86) is granted pursuant to the deadlines given and that the parties shall submit a stipulated order requiring Dr. Daniels to submit all her raw dat to the expert psychologist retained by the Corporate Defendants; 6) Hidalgo’s Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 60)and Motion for Protective Order, Quash Subpoena and Notice of Non-Appearance (Docket No. 61) is granted in part and denied in part and a stay is imposed for all discovery against Hidalgo until October 15, 2003 or sooner if the Bankruptcy court lifts the automatic stay; 7) Corporate Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 98) is granted; and 8) Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity commissioner’s Opposed Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Raymundo Hidalgo Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court (Docket No. 72) is denied.
____________________________________ ALAN C. TORGERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6

 
 , . .,

r~'n LEU

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11',

JRT

UlmED STATES DISTRICT COl" ..AL'Rll(Y !r-;:,···l ~i-. "':F-"':"v t·.~r:X.I(;()

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW 'IEXlco'" '

OEC 2 "\-2003

EQUAL ~:MPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Pla,intiff,

cl r;K{7?rj,J;/-Ujm~L-E7n7K1.£A

CHRISTINE ROMERO, Plain tiff in In terven tion
v.

CIV. NO. 02-1090 \V.//ACT

BI~LL GAS INCORPORATED. et aI.,
,
Defendants. ORDER
TillS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaillli ff-In-Inter\'ention's Motion to Compel
i
Answers to Interrogatories to Def~ndant Hidalgo lilcd Novel11b~r 17, ~003. Docket 1\0. I Iii. Defendant Hidalgo did not file a response. The Court is aware that Defendant Ilidalgo is pro st'. However. pro se litigants must tallow the same procedural rules as other Iitigallls. Greell v, Dorrell. 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.1 failure to file a timely response in opposition to a motion "constitutes consent to grant the Illotion." Thus, Plainti fI~lnIntervention's Motion will be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff-In-Intervcntion's Motion to Compel Answcrs to IntclTOgatories to Defendant Hidalgo is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dcfendant Raymond Hidalgo will respond to Plaintifl~

· r"
a:.
In-Intervention's First Set oflnterrogatorics Nos. 1-9, 10, 11-16,22-25 within 10 (ten) days 0[" entry

of this Order.

?1Z~c.~~
U · ALAN C. TORCERSON
lINITF:D STATES M.-\GISTR-\TE,llIDGE

2

 
 LIE D IN THE l!:'oIITED STATES DISTRICT cOllR..fFH

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MF!t#.1f~ST(lTES DISTRICT COURT

.

liQlJEROUE. NEW MEXICO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY" COMMISSION

APR 6 2004

Plaintiff, CHRISTINE ROMERO.
Plaintiff in Intervention

... -.";-, ~.

CLERK

,.'_ ......

v.

CIV-02-I090 WP.l/ACT (ACE)

BELL GAS, INC., et al

Defendants.

CONSE:'oIT llECREE

This matter came before the Court upon the agreement of all parties to enter into a

consent decree for the purposes of settling all claims asserted against the defendants in this'

lawsuit. The Court tinds that the partics have agreed as follows:

J. The United Slalcs Equal Employment Opporlunily Commission (lhe

"Commission" or "EEOC") filed this action against Bell Gas Incorporated. A-X Propanc. Inc ..

Cortez Gas Company, Black Gold Encrgy Corporation, d/b/a A-X Express Mart and Conoco
11155, of Socorro, New .\1exico (,'Defendant"), to enforce Tille VII orthe Civil Rights Act or

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e elseq. ("Title VB"). In the Complaint the Commission

alleged that the Defendants subjected Christine Romero to verbal and physical sexual

harassment by her immediate supervisor, Ray Hidalgo, which created a hostile work

environment. The Commission also alleged in the COIpplaint that Christine Romero was

retaliated a~ainst by the Defendants for complaining about the sexual harassment and, as a

result, Christine Romero was either discharged or constructively discharged by the Defendants in

violation of Title VII.

2. The Defendants denied all allegations of the Plainti 1'1' and Plainti ff-in-Intervention

and atlirmative.ly stated that Ms. Romero was not subjectcd to a hostile work environment and

that the Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and properly correct any alleged sexual

harassment. Defendants Bell Gas, Inc.. Cortez Gas Company and Black Gold Energy

Corporation also asserted that they were not Ms. Romero's employer and were improper

defendants. The Defendants also denied that Ms. Romero was retaliated against for engaging in

protected conduct.

3. Defendants acknowledge that Title VII prohibits employers from unlawfully

discriminating against an employee on the basis of race, color, religion. sex or national origin or

retaliating against an cmployec who: (a) opposes practices made unlawful by Title VII or a state

equal employment statute, (b) makes a charge of discrimination or assists or participates in an

investigation or proceeding undcr Title VII or a state equal employmcnt statute. or (e) liles an

internal complaint of discrimination.

4. The parties do not objcct to the jurisdiction orthe Court over this action and

waive their rights to a hearing and the entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

5. This Decree resolvcs all claims or the Commission against the

Defendants, including compensatory and back pay damages sought on behalf of Ms. Romero,

injunctive relief, attorney's [ces and costs arising out of the issues in this lawsuit.

6.

In accordance with this Decree and with her signcd Relcase and Indemnifying

Agreement. Christine Romero shall reccive the following payments from the dcl'endants:

A. Sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) to be paid within ten days of the elltry

of this Decree.
,
(\lIlsc:m Decree; Christine Romero

B. Two thousand dollars (S2,OOO.00) pcr month for sixty (60) months

hcginning on May I. 2004.

7. The checks provided for in paragraph 6 of this decree shall be mack

payable to Christine Romero and her attorneys Kennedy & Oliver. P.c.. and shall be mailcll

directly via first class mail to Ms. Romcro c/o Kennedy & Oliver, P.c.. 1000 Second Strect

1\.W .. Albuquerque, New Mexico 8710::!.

8. Dcfendants' obligation for the periodic payments set forth in paragraph 6(B) shall

be securcd by a mortgage lien on real property to hc idcntified by the Defendants. The mongage

will be in a usual and customary form for SLlch pU'lJoses. It will provide that the amount of the

mortgage lien shall be reduced as the Defendants make the periodic paymcnts. Once the final

payment is made, the mortgage shall be deemed released. and Romero will execute all

appropriate documents nccessary to release the mortgage or any cloud on title to the real

property deriving from the mortgage. Defendants shall idcntify the property via a letter from

counsel to Kennedy & Oliver within tcn (10) days of the entry of this decree.

9. The Defendants shall institute and carry out polices aimed at fostering a work

environment free from sex discrimination, including sexual harassment of its employees, and

that allow employees to raise concerns or complaints without retaliation ahout matters made

unlawful by Title VII, whether alleged, perceived or actual. Defendants shall distribute copies of

their sexual harassment policies to each of their cum:nt full and part-timc employees. and to

each new employee hired for the duration of this decree.

10. The Defendants shall provide training on sex discrimination and harassment

according to the following terms:

A. The Defendants shall retain and pay fora consultant/lecturer who shall

Cons~1ll Decree: Chris tint!' Romero

-3-

provide consultation and training for one seminar-training session each year this decree is in

effect for a total of two (2) years. All corporate of1iccrs, directors, managers, supervisors and

employees of the Defendants shall attend the first seminar-training session. For the second year

session, those employees who work more than fitly (50) miles Irom the sitc of the training

session may. in lieu of attendance in person, view a videotape in the same fashion as new

employees as set forth in Paragraph F. Duplicative sessions may be held to accommodate

staffing needs. The Defcndants shall be responsible for any additional costs to provide such

duplicative sessions.

B. Thc first s<:minar-training scssioil shall be conducted within three months

of the entry of this decree.
. ,
C. The consultant/lecturer shall be a person(s) acceptable to the Commission.

The Defendants shall submit the name(s),-address(es). telephonc numhcr(s) and

resumc(s) of the proposed consultant/!eeturer(s) together with the dates of the proposed

seminar-training sessions and the details of the contents of the training to the Regional

Attorney of the Albuqucrquc District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission within thirty (30) days o[the entry of this decree. The Commission shall

have thirty (30) days from the date ofreccipt of the information described ahovc to

accept or reject the proposed consultant/Iccturer and/or the contents of the training. In

the event the Commission does not approve the designated consultant/lecturcr, the

Commission shall designate the consultant/lccturer which shall he paid by the Defendants

at a cost not to exceed 5 I,500 per seminar-training session.

D. The seminar-training sessions shall he no less than two hours of

instruction. All personnel. designated in paragraph A shall both register for and attend

Const!nt Decree; Christine Romero

--/-

the seminar-training sessions. The· registry of attendancc shall be retained by the

Defendants for the duration of the decree.

E. The training shall include the subject of what constitutes sex

discrimination, including sexual harassment, harassmcnt based on gender and rClaliation;

that sex discrimination in the hiring, firing, compensation, assignment or other terms.

conditions or privileges ofemplo)lnent and retaliation violates Title VII; how to prevent

sex discrimination and retaliation, how to provide a work environment lI'ee fi'om sex

discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation, and to whom and by what means

employees may complain if they feel they have been subject to sex discrimination, s.:xual

harassment and retaliation in the workplace.

F. Ncw employees shall attend any seminar-training sessions required by this

decree; employees hired after the seminar-training sessions arc prcscnted shall. within ten

( 10) days of their hire. view a video tape orthe training and/or a professional training

tape which covers the topics set forth in paragraph E and shall be given any written

material disseminated at the seminar-training sessions for the duration of this decree.

G. During the first six (6) months of this agreement, all individuals

designated by the Defendants to receive, investigate or take any action in response to

complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation, shall attend Commission-approved

training on the processing of sexual harassment complaints. ilicluding, but not limitcd to.

proper investigation of complaints. lnfonnation concerning the proposed training under

this paragraph shall be submitted to the Regional Attorney, 505 \1arquette. NW. Suite

900, Albuquerque. Ncw \1cxieo, within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Consent

Decree. The infornlation will include the name, address and qualifications and

Const:'nl Decree; Christine ROIllt:'ro

-5-

expcrience of the proposed trainer. an outline of the proposed training and the dates.

times and location of the proposed training. Dcfendants shall be responsihle for paying

for such training sessions at a cost not to exceed $1,500.00.

II. The Commission, at its discretion. may designate Commission representatives to

attend and participate in the seminar-training sessions described ahove, and the representative

shall have the right to attend and fully participate in the sessions. The Commission will provide

5-day notice to Defendants' counsel of its intent to participate or attend the seminar-training

session described above.

12. Each Defendant shall post within 30 days of the entry of this Conscnt Decree jor

thc duration of this decree in a prominent place frequented by its cmployces, a copy orthe

Notiec applicable to each Defendant attached to this deerec as Exhibit A. This Notice shall be

the same type. style and size as in Exhibit A.

13. The Defendants shall report in writing to the Regional Attorney of the

Commission's Albuqucrquc Area OfJice at 505 \1arquette, NW. Suite 900. Albuquerque. I\CI\'

Mexico 87102. beginning six (6) months from the date of the entry of this decree and therealter

every six (6) months for the duration of the decree the following information:
...... '.
A. Any changes. moditications. revocations or revisions to its policies and

procedures that COIKcm or uffec.t the subject of scx discrimination.

B. Any changes. modifications, revocations or revisions to its policies and

procedures that concern or affect the subject of retal iation.

C. The registries of persons attending each of the seminar-training sessions·

required in paragraph 10 of this decree and a list of current employees on the day of the

seminar-training session, along with a statement that thc.training sessions described in

Const:111 Decree; Christine Romero

-{i-

paragraph 7 ofthis.decree were completed.

14. This decree shall expire hy its own tenns at the end of two (2) years after entry.

without further action by the parties.

15. The parties agree to entry of this decree. sllbjeet to linal approval by the Court.

16. The Defendant shall expunge from the personnel files of Christinc Romero all

references to the charge ofthc discrimination tiled against the Defendant. In response to any

employment inquiries or reference chcck concerning: Christine Romero. the Defendants will only

providc the dates of Ms. Romero's employment. position held. job duties and salary.

17. Upon cntry of this Consent Decree. this case, as it relates to the claims by

Plainti ff and Plaintiff in Intervention. shall be dismissed with prej udice. with the Court retaining

jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcement of the terms of this Consent Decree. Each party will

bear its own attorney's fees and costs.

IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED. ADJCDGED A:-.JD DECREED as follows:

I. The settlement, including the terms of this Consent Decree. is herehy approved.

2. . Each party shall bear its own attorney's fees and costs.

3.

All claims asserted by the Plaintiff EEOC and Plaintifl~in-Intervention Christine

Romcro against the Defendants arc hcreby dismissed with prejudice, with the Court retaining

jurisdiction for the purposes ofenforcemcnt.ofthis Consent

lION. WILLIAM P. JOH United States District Judge

COnSl'1l1 Dc:cree; Christine Romero

-7-

.' '.
APPROVlm AND CONSENTED TO:
l
VERONICA A. MOLINA. Esq. Trial Attomey l.urctta Medina Senior Trial Attome)' Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 505 Marquette, NW, Suite 900 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Allornc\-:\·j{)/· PlailllijJ
KENNEDY & OLIVER, P.C.
Telephonically approved on 04/05104 by Shannon L. Oliver SHANNON L. OLIVER. Esq. JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, Esq. 1000 2nd Street. NW Albuquerque. NM 87102 Allornep-jor FlaillrW·ill llllen'clllioll
HERRERA. LONG. POUND & KOMER. P.A.
Telephonically approved on 04/02104 by Mark E. Komer MARK E. KO:'v1ER. Esq. NANCY R. LOl\G. Esq. P. O. Box 5098 . Santa Fe. Ny! 87502-5098
A{/o/,I1(\:\'.fhr J)1;'ji..:llllallfS
"/Jell Gas, Cor(('z G,lS ,mti AX Propane, Inc.
. Telephonically approved 04/02104 bv Rav Hidalgo RAY HILDAGO, Pro Se P.O. Box 542 Socorro, NM 87801

ConsenL Decree: ChrisLine Romero

-8-

I '.' • ,
'NOTICE TO AL1J~iV1pL<)YEES
OF AX ,. PROPANE, INC.
._-'
It is unlawful under federal law (Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act) and state , law (New Mexico Human Rights Act) to discriniiliatc against an employee on
the basis ofsex in hiring, firing, eompclisati01i or other temlS, and conditions or privileges,of employment, includi~g'sexual i"lal:a·ssment.

It is also unl<l\vful, under fedL'ral law (Title VlI ofthe Ci\'il Rights Act) and state hiw (!\ew \1exieo I-Iuman Rights Act) to retaliate against an employee or former employee for (I) opposing discriminatory practices made unlawful by fcdenil law; (2) 'filing a chargl: or assistiil!,(or participating in the filing of a " charge ofdiscrimination; or (3) assisting,oi' participating in an investigation or proceeding brought under Title ViI.

A-X Pr()pane Inc: incorporated will not discriiniliate on the basis ofsex and will
a not retaliate agains't any employee who opposes practice made unlawful under
federal law, Iilcs, assists or participates in the filiilg of,i charge ofdiscrimination " or participates in any investigation under Title VII, or who tiles a grievance
,, allegirig discrimination. '
; If you believc you havc bccn discrimina(ed against or rctaliatcd agaiQst, you have the right to scck'assistance from and file a chargc of discrimination with the:

. 1) lJ:S. Equal Employmcnt Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 505 Marquette, Suite 900, Albuquerque', New Mexico 87102,
" (50S) 248=5201 or 1-800-669-4000:01' .

; (2) The New Mcxico ])cpartmcnt of Labor, Human Rights I>ivision

, " '(~MHRD), 1596 Pacheco St., Sllitel 03:Santa fe, New Mexico

87505, (505) 827-6838.

" , -.,-"

. . .: . , _ .

.;

EXHIBIT A

.... -... "., .
, ~-.

. _.......:\ .. -: ...
.. '.

· .
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF BELLGAS. INC.
It is unlawful under federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) and state law (New Mexico Human Rights Act) to discriminate against an employee on the basis of sex in hiring, firing, compensation or other tCnllS, and conditions or privileges of employment, including sexual harassment.
It is also unlawful under federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) and state law (New Mexico Human Rights Act) to retaliatc against an employee or fonner employee for (1) opposing discriminatory practices made unlawful by federal law; (2) filing a charge or assisting or participating in the filing of a charge ofdiscrimination; or (3) assisting or participating in an investigation or proceeding brought under Title VII.
Bell Gas Incorporated will not discriminate on the basis of sex and will not retaliate against any employee who opposcs a practice made unlawful undcr federal law, files, assists or participates in thc filing ofa charge ofdiscrimination or participates in any investigation. under Title VII, or who files a grievance alleging discrimination.
If you believe you have been discriminated against or retaliated against, you have the right to seek assistance from and file a charge of discrimination with the:
1) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 505 Marquette, Suitc 900, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102. (505) 248-5201 or 1-800-669-4000; or
(2) The New Mexico Department of Labor, Human Rights Division (NMHRD), 1596 Pacheco St., Suite 103, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505, (505) 827-6838.
EXHIBIT A

- " ""
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES . OF CORTEZ GAS COMPANY
. ";.
It is unlawfulund.::r led.::rallaw (Title VB oftheCivil Rights Act) and statc law (l\ew Mexico_ Human Rights Act) to discriliiinat.:: against an employee on the basis of s-ex in hiring, firing, compensatioil or othcr'"terms, and conditions · or privilegcs of .:mploymcnt, including s.::xual harassment.
"' -' "
- It is also unla\vful under f.::d.::ral law (Title Vllo( the Civil Rights Act) and stat.:: law (New Mexico Human Rights Act) to retaliate against an .::mploy.::.:: or
o former employee [or ( I ) opposing discriminatory practices made unlawful by
federal law;'(2) filing a charge or assisting br partitipating in the filing ofa
, charge of discrimination; or (3) assisting or.lxirticipating in an invcstigation or · proceeding brought under Title VII:
Cortez Gas-Company Incorporated will not discriminate on the basis orsex and , will not n:taliate_against any employee \\;h6 6riposcs a practice made unlawful
under federal la\\;' tiles, assists or participat~s in-- the filing of a charge of discrimination or participates in any inves~igation under Title VII, or who liks :- a grievance alleging discrimination.
" """: .:
If you believe you have been discriWinated against or retaliated against, you have the right to seek assista-nce from and file a chargc · of disc.-imination with the:
, I) lJ.S. Equal Employment Opportuiiity Commission (EEOq, 505 Marquelle, Suite 900, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, (505.) 248-520 I or 1-800-669c4000; or .
-. (2) .The i\ew :\1exico DepartmentofLabor,Human Rights Division (NMHRD). 1596 Pacheco St., Suite I03, S:lllta Fe, New Mexico 87505, (505) 8 2 7 - 6 8 3 8 . '
""- "
EXIIIBIT A

 
 District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?312459570816991-L_3...

MTNDDL, REFER, TERMED
U.S. District Court District of New Mexico - Version 3.0 (Albuquerque) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-01090-WJ-ACT

EEOC, et al v. Bell Gas, Inc., et al Assigned to: District Judge William P. Johnson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson Demand: $0 Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 08/29/2002 Date Terminated: 04/06/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

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

Loretta F Medina EEOC 505 Marquette, NW #900 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 248-5230 Fax: (505) 248-5217 Email: loretta.medina@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Jo O'Neill EEOC Phoenix District Office 3300 North Central Avenue #690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2504 (602) 640-5000 Fax: (602) 640-5009 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Veronica A Molina Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

1 of 12

6/14/2007 9:17 AM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff Christine Romero Applicant in Intervention
V. Defendant Bell Gas, Inc. Bell Gas Incorporated
2 of 12

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?312459570816991-L_3...
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 Joseph P. Kennedy Kennedy & Oliver PC 1000 2nd Street NW Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 244-1400 Fax: 244-1406 Email: kolawjpk@qwest.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon L Kennedy Kennedy & Oliver PC 1000 2nd Street NW Albuquerque, NM 87102 505-244-1400 Fax: 505-244-1406 Email: kennedylaw@civilrightslawnewmexico.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Debra J. Moulton Kennedy, Moulton & Wells PC 2201 San Pedro NE Building 2, Suite 105 Albuquerque, NM 87110 505-884-7887 Fax: 505-884-7123 Email: dmoulton@kmwpc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Komer Long, Pound & Komer, P.A. 2200 Brothers Road P. O. Box 5098
6/14/2007 9:17 AM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report
Defendant A-X Propane, Inc
Defendant Cortez Gas Company
3 of 12

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?312459570816991-L_3...
Santa Fe, NM 87502-5098 505-982-8405 Fax: 505-982-8513 Email: lpk@nm.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy Ruth Long Long, Pound & Komer, P.A. 2200 Brothers Road P. O. Box 5098 Santa Fe, NM 87502-5098 505-982-8405 Fax: 505-982-8513 Email: lpk@nm.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Debra J. Moulton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Komer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy Ruth Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Debra J. Moulton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Komer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy Ruth Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6/14/2007 9:17 AM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?312459570816991-L_3...

Defendant Black Gold Energy Corporation doing business as A-X Express Mart
Defendant Conoco #155
Defendant Raymond Hidalgo

represented by Debra J. Moulton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Komer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy Ruth Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Debra J. Moulton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E. Komer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy Ruth Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Raymond Hidalgo PO Box 542 Socorro, NM 87801 (505) 507-0571 PRO SE

Date Filed 08/29/2002 09/12/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT for employment discrimination; jury demand (1 Summons issued) (referred to Magistrate Judge Don J. Svet) (mlk) Modified on 08/30/2002 (Entered: 08/30/2002)
2 NOTICE of refusal to consent to proceed before a US Magistrate Judge by plaintiff (mlk) (Entered: 09/12/2002)

4 of 12

6/14/2007 9:17 AM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?312459570816991-L_3...

10/08/2002 12/11/2002 12/11/2002 12/11/2002 12/16/2002
12/16/2002
12/17/2002 12/17/2002 12/19/2002 12/20/2002 12/23/2002
12/23/2002 12/23/2002 01/03/2003 01/03/2003 01/13/2003 01/13/2003
01/15/2003

3 MOTION by intv-pltf to intervene & for issuance of summons (vv) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE of s/c upon defendants A-X Propane, Inc & Black Gold Energy Co on 10/17/02 (mlk) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
5 WAIVER OF SERVICE of s/c upon defendants Bell Gas, Inc. & A-X Propane, Inc on 10/17/02 (mlk) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE upon defendant Bell Gas, Inc. on 10/17/02 (mlk) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
9 MOTION by plaintiff for entry of default as to Bell Gas, Inc., A-X Propane, Inc, Cortez Gas Company, Black Gold Energy Co, Conoco #155 (vv) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
10 AFFIDAVIT of Veronica A Molina regarding motion for entry of default as to Bell Gas, Inc., A-X Propane, Inc, Cortez Gas Company, Black Gold Energy Co, Conoco #155 [9-1] (vv) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
7 AMENDED CERTIFICATE by plaintiff of service of motion for default and affidavit in support to counsel on 12/17/02 (mlk) (Entered: 12/18/2002)
8 PRAECIPE: by plaintiff requesting clerk's entry of default (vv) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
11 CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to defendants (cc: all counsel*) (vv) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
15 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for defendants by Debra J. Moulton (mlk) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
12 ORDER by District Judge William P. Johnson granting intv-pltfs' motion to intervene & for issuance of summons [3-1] (cc: all counsel*) (vv) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
13 OPPOSED MOTION by defendants to set aside clerk's entry of default (vv) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
14 ANSWER by defendant [1-1] (vv) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
16 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to set aside clerk's entry of default [13-1] (vv) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
17 AFFIDAVIT of Veronica A Molina regarding motion response [16-1] (vv) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
18 OPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff to strike deft's answer filed 12/23/02 (vv) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
19 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Don J. Svet Rule 16 scheduling conference set for 3/17/03 at 1:30 pm before Alan C Torgerson; provisional discovery plan & IPTR due 3/3/03 (cc: all counsel*) (vv) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
20 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION by intervenor-plaintiff (vv) (Entered: 01/15/2003)

5 of 12

6/14/2007 9:17 AM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?312459570816991-L_3...

01/16/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/22/2003 01/23/2003 01/27/2003 01/27/2003 02/13/2003 02/13/2003 02/13/2003
03/03/2003 03/05/2003 03/11/2003 03/17/2003 03/18/2003 03/19/2003 03/19/2003 03/25/2003 04/21/2003

SUMMONS issued as to defendant Raymundo Hildalgo & Ray Bell for complaint in intervention (vv) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
21 NOTICE by defendants of completion of briefing of opposed mtn to set aside clerk's entry of default [13-1] (vv) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
22 REPLY by defendant to response to motion to set aside clerk's entry of default [13-1] (vv) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
23 MOTION by defendant for order to initiate electronic filing (mlk) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
24 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Don J. Svet granting deft's motion for order to initiate electronic filing [23-1] (cc: all counsel*) (vv) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
26 APPENDIX filed by defendant re reply to defts' mtn to set aside clerk's entry of default [22-1] (vv) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
25 RESPONSE by defendant to motion to strike deft's answer filed 12/23/02 [18-1] (vv) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
28 REPLY by plaintiff to response to motion to strike deft's answer filed 12/23/02 [18-1] (vv) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
29 NOTICE by plaintiff of completion of briefing of mtn to strike answer filed on 12/23/02 [18-1] (vv) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
27 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by District Judge William P. Johnson granting deft's motion to set aside clerk's entry of default [13-1] [11-1], denying pltf's motion for entry of default [9-1] & to strike deft's answer [18-1] (cc: all counsel*) (vv) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
30 PROVISIONAL DISCOVERY PLAN by parties (vv) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
31 MINUTE ORDER: Case referred from Magistrate Judge Svet to Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson (cc: all counsel*) (vv) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
32 CERTIFICATE by plaintiff of service of initial disclosures to counsel on 03/10/03 (mlk) (Entered: 03/14/2003)
37 CLERK'S MINUTES: before Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson Rule 16 scheduling conference held (vv) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
33 ANSWER to complaint in intervention by defendant Raymundo Hildalgo [20-1] (vv) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
34 CERTIFICATE of service by defendants of initial disclosures to counsel on 3/19/03 (vv) (Entered: 03/19/2003)
35 ANSWER by defendants to complaint in intervention [20-1] (vv) (Entered: 03/20/2003)
36 CERTIFICATE of service by plaintiff in intervention's initial disclosure to counsel on 3/24/03 (vv) (Entered: 03/25/2003)
38 CERTIFICATE of service by plaintiff of 1st supplemental initial disclosures to counsel on 4/17/03 (vv) (Entered: 04/21/2003)

6 of 12

6/14/2007 9:17 AM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?312459570816991-L_3...

04/30/2003 04/30/2003 04/30/2003 04/30/2003 05/13/2003 05/13/2003 05/16/2003
05/20/2003 05/23/2003 05/27/2003 05/27/2003 06/05/2003 06/05/2003 06/10/2003 06/11/2003

39 CERTIFICATE of service by intervenor-plaintiff Christine Romero of 1st set of interrogatories to counsel on 4/30/03 (vv) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
40 CERTIFICATE of service by intervenor-plaintiff Christine Romero of 1st set of requests for production to counsel on 4/30/03 (vv) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
41 CERTIFICATE of service by plaintiff of 1st set of non-uniform interrogatories to counsel on 4/29/03 (vv) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
42 CERTIFICATE of service by plaintiff of 1st request for production of documents to counsel on 4/29/03 (vv) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
43 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson adopting provisional discovery plan [30-1] (cc: all counsel) (vv) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
44 MOTION by plaintiff & intervenor-plaintiff to extend expert witness disclosure & report deadlines or reinstate originally proposed expert witness report deadlines (vv) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
45 AMENDED INITIAL PRE-TRIAL REPORT by District Judge William P. Johnson and Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson; Discovery set for 8/14/03; mtn filing ddl set for 10/2/03; proposed pretrial order due 11/17/03; pretrial conference set for 9:00 am on 1/14/04; jury trial set for 9:00 am on 2/2/04; Estimated # of Trial Days: 5-7; Chances of Settlement: unknown (cc: all counsel) (vv) Modified on 05/16/2003 (Entered: 05/16/2003)
46 RESPONSE by defendant to motion to extend expert witness disclosure & report deadlines or reinstate originally proposed expert witness report deadlines [44-1] (vv) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
47 NOTICE by defendant Raymundo Hildalgo of filing bankruptcy (vv) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
48 RESPONSE by deft Raymundo Hildalgo to mtn to extend expert witness disclosure & report deadlines or reinstate originally proposed expert witness report deadlines [44-1] (kd) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
49 CERTIFICATE of Service by pltf of the 2nd supplemental initial disclosures to counsel on 5/22/03 (kd) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
50 REPLY by pltf to response to motion to extend expert witness disclosure & report deadlines or reinstate originally proposed expert witness report deadlines [44-1] (dmw) (Entered: 06/09/2003)
51 NOTICE of completion of briefing of motion for extension of or reinstatement of originally proposed expert witness report deadlines by plaintiff (dmw) (Entered: 06/09/2003)
52 CERTIFICATE of Service by defts of answers to pltf's 1st set of interrog(s) & response to 1st request for production to counsel on 6/9/03* (pr) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
53 MOTION by defts to strike expert , or in the alternative to extend the time for defts to name an expert witness of an additional 30 days * (pr) (Entered: 06/11/2003)

7 of 12

6/14/2007 9:17 AM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?312459570816991-L_3...

06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/12/2003
06/18/2003 06/18/2003 06/19/2003
06/20/2003 06/20/2003
06/20/2003
06/20/2003 06/24/2003 06/26/2003
06/27/2003 06/30/2003 06/30/2003
07/02/2003

54 CERTIFICATE of service by intervenor-plaintiff Christine Romero of supplemental initial disclosures to counsel on 6/11/03 (sl) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
55 CERTIFICATE by pltf of service of third supplemental initial disclosures to counsel on 6/12/03 (dmw) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
56 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson granting in part pltf & pltf-in-intervention's mtn to extend expert witness disclosure & report deadlines; w/pltf & pltf-in-intervenion to provide rpts by 6/20/03 & defts by 7/21/03 [44-1] (cc: all counsel*) (pr) (Entered: 06/13/2003)
57 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson setting settlement conference for 9/9/03 at 9:00 am (cc: all counsel*) (vv) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
58 MOTION by defendant Raymundo Hildalgo to withdraw attorney (vv) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
59 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson denying motion to withdraw attorney [58-1] by Raymundo Hildalgo (cc: all counsel) (vv) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
60 MOTION by defendant for protective order re discovery (vv) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
61 MOTION by defendant for protective order directing that deft is not obligated to answer deposition questions , to quash subpoena issued on 6/5/03 and notice of non-appearance at deposition on 6/23/03 (vv) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
62 CERTIFICATE of service by defendant Bell Gas, Inc. of 1st set of interrogatories, requests for production & admissions to counsel on 6/20/03 (vv) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
63 NOTICE by intervenor-plaintiff of change of address (vv) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
64 CERTIFICATE of service by intervenor-plaintiff of Rule 26 expert report (vv) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
65 RESPONSE by intervenor-plaintiff to motion for protective order directing that deft is not obligated to answer deposition questions [61-1] (vv) (Entered: 06/27/2003)
66 UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendant to withdraw attorney (vv) (Entered: 06/27/2003)
67 OPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff to compel responses to 1st set of non-uniform interrogatories & 1st request for production (vv) (Entered: 06/30/2003)
68 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to compel responses to 1st set of non-uniform interrogatories & 1st request for production [67-1] (vv) (Entered: 06/30/2003)
69 APPENDIX filed by plaintiff re motion to compel responses to 1st set of non-uniform interrogatories & 1st request for production [67-1] (vv) (Entered: 07/02/2003)

8 of 12

6/14/2007 9:17 AM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?312459570816991-L_3...

07/02/2003
07/02/2003 07/02/2003 07/03/2003 07/03/2003 07/03/2003
07/07/2003
07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/08/2003 07/10/2003 07/10/2003 07/10/2003 07/10/2003 07/11/2003
07/15/2003

70 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for protective order directing that deft is not obligated to answer deposition questions [61-1], to quash subpoena issued on 6/5/03 and notice of non-appearance at deposition on 6/23/03 [61-2] (vv) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
71 APPENDIX [EXHIBITS] filed by plaintiff re motion response [70-1] (vv) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
72 OPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff for order to show cause why Raymundo Hidalgo should not be held in contempt of court (vv) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
73 RESPONSE by intervenor-plaintiff to motion for protective order re discovery [60-1] (vv) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
74 NOTICE of non-appearance by defendant Bell Gas, Inc. for deposition on 7/10/03 (vv) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
78 APPENDIX filed by plaintiff re response to motion for protective order directing that deft is not obligated to answer deposition questions [61-1] (vv) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
75 ORDER by District Judge William P. Johnson granting motion to withdraw attorney [66-1] Lee Deschamps for Raymundo Hildalgo (cc: all counsel) (vv) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
76 NOTICE by defendant Raymundo Hildalgo's counsel of withdrawal (vv) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
76 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for defendant Raymundo Hildalgo pro se (vv) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
76 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson re withdrawal of counsel (cc: all counsel) (vv) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
77 CERTIFICATE of service by plaintiff of 2nd request for production of documents to counsel on 7/2/03 (vv) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
79 MOTION by defendant to quash subpoena & Notice of non-appearance (vv) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
80 NOTICE by defts of non-appearance of Pete Peterson at 7/15/03 deposition (vv) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
81 NOTICE by defendants of non appearance of Yvette Martinez for 7/17/03 deposition (vv) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
82 NOTICE by defendants of non-appearance of Tom Lancaster for 7/16/03 deposition (vv) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
83 REPLY by defendant to response to motion for protective order directing that deft is not obligated to answer deposition questions [61-1] (vv) (Entered: 07/11/2003)
84 NOTICE by defendants of non-appearance of Ray Bell for 7/23/03 deposition (vv) (Entered: 07/15/2003)

9 of 12

6/14/2007 9:17 AM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?312459570816991-L_3...

07/16/2003 07/18/2003
07/22/2003 07/22/2003 07/24/2003 07/24/2003 07/28/2003 07/29/2003 07/31/2003 07/31/2003 07/31/2003
07/31/2003 07/31/2003 07/31/2003 08/01/2003 08/04/2003 08/04/2003

85 OPPOSED MOTION by defendants for 30 day stay and extension of time to retain new counsel (vv) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
86 MOTION by defendants Bell Gas, Inc., A-X Propane, Inc, Cortez Gas Company, Black Gold Energy to extend time for 30 days to provide expert reports (vv) Modified on 07/31/2003 (Entered: 07/21/2003)
87 MOTION by defendants for protective order & notice of non-appearance for Texie Baggs' deposition for 7/30/03 (vv) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
88 MOTION by defendants for protective order & notice of non-appearance for Debra Chittenden's deposition for 7/29/03 (vv) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
89 OPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff to compel depositions (vv) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
90 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to compel depositions [89-1] (vv) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
91 RESPONSE by pltf EEOC to deft's mtn for 30 day stay [85-1] and for extension of time to retain new counsel [85-2] (kd) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
92 APPENDIX filed by plaintiff re memorandum in support of motion to compel depositions [89-1] (vv) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
93 MOTION by defendant to withdraw attorney (vv) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
94 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for defts by Nancy Ruth Long and Mark E. Komer (mjr) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
95 RESPONSE by intervenor-plaintiff Christine Romero to motion for 30 day stay [85-1] & extension of time to retain new counsel [85-2] (vv) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
96 RESPONSE by intervenor-plaintiff Christine Romero to motion to extend time for 30 days to provide expert reports [86-1] (vv) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
97 NOTICE by defendants of non appearane at deposition of Raymundo Hidalgo (vv) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
98 MOTION by defendants for protective order re deposition of deft Hidalgo on 8/1/03 (vv) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
99 APPENDIX (EXHIBITS A and B) filed by defts re motion for protective order re deposition of deft Hidalgo on 8/1/03 [98-1] (mjr) (Entered: 08/04/2003)
100 CERTIFICATE of service by defts of notices of deposition and subpoena to counsel on 8/1/03 (mjr) (Entered: 08/04/2003)
101 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson granting/denying in part motions [85-1], [85-2], denying motion to compel [67-1] granting motion [79-1] granting motions for protective order [88-1], [87-1], denying motion to compel depositions [89-1]; granting to extend time [86-1], granting motion for protective order re discovery [60-1], granting motions to quash subpoena [61-2] [61-1], granting motion for protective order re deposition of deft Hidalgo [98-1], denying motion for order to show cause [72-1] (cc: all counsel*) (vv) Modified on

10 of 12

6/14/2007 9:17 AM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?312459570816991-L_3...

08/05/2003 08/19/2003 08/29/2003 09/02/2003 09/09/2003 09/16/2003
09/23/2003 11/06/2003 11/17/2003 11/17/2003 12/03/2003
12/05/2003 12/24/2003
12/29/2003 12/29/2003
12/30/2003 12/30/2003

08/08/2003 (Entered: 08/04/2003)
102 NOTICE of hearing Jury selection/trial reset for 8/9/04 at 9:00 am before Judge Johnson (cc: all counsel*) (vv) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
103 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson granting deft's motion to withdraw attorney [93-1] (cc: all counsel*) (vv) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
104 CERTIFICATE of service by defts of responses to 2nd request for production of documents to counsel on 8/29/03 (td) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
105 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff to extend deadline to refile pltf's opposed mtn to compel (vv) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
106 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Torgerson; case did not settle (vv) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
107 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson granting pltf's motion to extend deadline to refile pltf's opposed mtn to compel [105-1]; mtn due 10/2/03 (cc: all counsel) (vv) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
108 CERTIFICATE by intervenor-plaintiff of service of 1st set of interrogs to counsel on 9/23/03 (emr) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
109 CERTIFICATE by intervenor-plaintiff of service of 1st set of requests for production to counsel on 11/06/03 (emr) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
110 MOTION by intervenor-plaintiff to compel answers to interrogatories to deft Hidalgo (vv) (Entered: 11/18/2003)
111 MEMORANDUM by intervenor-plaintiff in support of motion to compel answers to interrogatories to deft Hidalgo [110-1] (vv) (Entered: 11/18/2003)
112 MOTION by defendants to compel pltf's expert to furnish raw data , to extend deadline for defense expert report and for order to establish reasonable fees for deposition of pltf's expert * (vv) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
113 MOTION by defendants to withdraw motion to compel * (vv) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
114 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson granting pltf in intervention's motion to compel answers to interrogatories to deft Hidalgo [110-1] (cc: all counsel) (vv) (Entered: 12/24/2003)
115 MOTION by intervenor-plaintiff to compel answers to requests for production of documents to deft Hidalgo (vv) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
116 MEMORANDUM by intervenor-plaintiff in support of motion to compel answers to requests for production of documents to deft Hidalgo [115-1] (vv) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
117 STIPULATED MOTION by parties to extend time of certain deadlines concerning parties' damages experts (vv) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
118 STIPULATED ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson granting parties' motion to extend time of certain deadlines concerning parties' damages experts [117-1] as described herein (cc: all counsel) (vv) (Entered: 12/30/2003)

11 of 12

6/14/2007 9:17 AM

District Version v3.0.5 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?312459570816991-L_3...

01/08/2004 01/13/2004 01/13/2004 01/23/2004
02/11/2004
02/20/2004 04/06/2004

119 CERTIFICATE of service by defts of answers to intvps 1st set of interrogatories & requests for production to counsel on 1/7/04 (td) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
120 MOTION by intervenor-plaintiff for Rule 37 sanctions against deft Hidalgo (vv) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
121 MEMORANDUM by intervenor-plaintiff in support of motion for Rule 37 sanctions against deft Hidalgo [120-1] (vv) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
122 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson granting pltf-intv's motion to compel answers to requests for production of documents to deft Hidalgo [115-1] (cc: all counsel) (vv) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
123 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: by Magistrate Judge Alan C. Torgerson; deft Hildago to appear on 2/19/04 at 1:30 pm (cc: all counsel*) (vv) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
124 NOTICE by intervenor-plaintiff to withdraw mtn for Rule 37 sanctions against deft Hidalgo (vv) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
125 ORDER [CONSENT DECREE] by District Judge William P. Johnson dismissing case with prejudice (cc: all counsel) (vv) (Entered: 04/06/2004)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

06/14/2007 08:15:56

hs0328 Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:02-cv-01090-WJ-ACT

7

Cost:

0.56

12 of 12

6/14/2007 9:17 AM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - April 2004

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement04-04.html

EEOC v. Bell Gas Inc., A-X Propane, Inc., Cortez Gas Co., Black Gold Energy Corp., dba A-X Express Mart and Conoco #155 No. CIV-02-1090 WPJ/ACT (D. N.M. Apr. 6, 2004)
The Phoenix District Office filed this Title VII action, alleging that defendant gas companies created a hostile work environment for CP, a 20-year-old female gas station cashier, when they failed to discipline her immediate supervisor, a 47-year-old manager, who sexually harassed and raped her. The complaint further alleged that defendants retaliated against CP for complaining about the harassment, which led to her termination or constructive discharge. Six months after CP began employment with defendants, the gas station manager inappropriately touched CP on her breasts and body over her objections. Soon thereafter, he summoned her to his office located at a separate facility, and when she arrived he requested oral sex and then raped her when she refused. CP filed an internal complaint with defendants and requested a job transfer to another location. Defendants agreed to the transfer but after CP moved, they did not return her calls or assign her to a position at the new location. After three months of unreturned calls, CP obtained another job. The case was resolved by a two-year consent decree that requires defendants to pay $180,000 to CP ($120,000 of which is payable over a 5-year period and secured by a mortgage lien on defendants' real property).

1 of 1

6/14/2007 10:05 AM