Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR

Document 1-1

Filed 09/05/2003 Page 1 of 5
--FILED -ENTERED
LODGED__ RECEIVED

SEP 5 2003 DJ

A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. REGIONAL ATTORNEY

2 KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY

CARMEN FLORES, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY

3 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 4 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104

nRihlNAL

TELEPHONE: (206) 220-6893 5
6

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
03-CV-02768-CMP

7

UNITED STATES DIS I RICT COURT

8

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

9

10

II

12
0

- 13
i 14

'VQ

.
Jl

15

:...J 16
........_,
:1·~ 17 18
';x 19
~ 20
~ 21

22

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

QV03 2768P

)

Plaintiff,

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

v.

)

)

) COMPLAINT

ELDORADO STONE, LLC

) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)
___________D_e_fe_nd_a_nt_. ________))

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 and to provide appropriate relief to Maria C. Chavez, Eva Cortez, Andrea Weber, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty and Karen Hunt ("charging parties"). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that defendant sexually harassed Ms. Chavez and Ms. Hunt and,

23 retaliated against Ms. Cortez, Ms. Weber, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Prouty when they

24 opposed discrimination against Ms. Chavez and Ms. Hunt. Defendant also failed to

25 take prompt corrective action to remedy the harassment, thus forcing Ms. Hunt to

COMPLAINT-- PAGE I

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue. Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2003 Page 2 of 5

1 constructively discharged from her job. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief including

2 pecuniary and nonpecuniary compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief

3 on behalf of these charging parties who are or were employed by defendant and who

4 experienced sexual harassment, retaliation and/or constructive discharge.

5

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331,

7 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections

8 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

9 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §

10 1981a.

II

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within

12 the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of

13 Washington.

14

PARTIES

15

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

16 "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

17 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized

18 to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1 ).

19

4. At all relevant times, defendant, Eldorado Stone LLP has continuously

20 been a corporation doing business in the State of Washington and has continuously

21 had at least 15 employees.

22

5. At all relevant times, defendant has continuously been an employer

23 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b}, (g)

24 and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).

25

COMPLAINT-- PAGE 2

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTL:J'IiiTY COMMISSION Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone. (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2003 Page 3 of 5

1

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

2

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Chavez,

3 Ms. Cortez, Ms. Weber, Ms. Hunt, Mr.Johnson and Mr. Prouty each filed a charge of

4 discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging violations

5 of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have

6 been fulfilled.

7

7. Since at least January 14, 2002, defendant engaged in unlawful

8 employment practices at its Carnation, Washington facility in violation of Sections

9 703(a) and 704(a) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and 3(a). Defendant subjected

10 Ms. Chavez and Ms. Hunt to sexual harassment; constructively discharged Ms. Hunt

11 and subjected Ms. Weber, Ms. Cortez, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Prouty to retaliation for

12 opposing Ms. Chavez's and Ms. Hunt's discrimination.

13

8. The effect of the unlawful employment practices complained of in

14

paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Ms. Chavez, Ms. Cortez, Ms.

15

Weber, Ms. Hunt, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Prouty of equal employment

16

opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees,

17

and adversely affect their terms and conditions of employment.

18

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above

19 were intentional.

20

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above,

21 were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of

22 Ms. Chavez, Ms. Cortez, Ms. Weber, Ms. Hunt, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Prouty.

23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

24

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

25

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant and its officers, agents,

COMPLAINT-- PAGE 3

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMEI''T OPPORTUNITY COM:\11SSIO~ Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98\04.\061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile (206) 220-6911
TDD (206) 220-6882

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2003 Page 4 of 5

1 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from

2 engaging in sex discrimination and retaliation against employees who oppose

3 discrimination.

4

B. Order defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

5 programs which prevent its employees from being subjected to sexual harassment and

6 retaliation for opposing practices that they believe are unlawful under federal anti-

7 discrimination laws and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful

8 employment practices.

9

C. Order defendant to make whole charging parties by providing appropriate

10 back pay with prejudgment interest, and front pay in amounts to be determined at trial,

11 and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful

12 employment practices described above, including but not limited to, reinstatement.

13

D. Order defendant to make whole charging parties by providing

14 compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

15 employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including without limitation

16 medical expenses, job search expenses and other past and future out-of-pocket

17 expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

18

E. Order defendant to make whole charging parties by providing

19 compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

20 practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including without limitation emotional

21 pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to determined at trial.

22

F. Order defendant to pay charging parties punitive damages for its

23 malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be

24 determined at trial.

25

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

COMPLAINT-- PAGE 4

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COM.MISSIO~ Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
IDD: (206) 220-6882

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2003 Page 5 of 5

I public interest.

2

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

3

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

4

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

5 complaint.

6

DATEDthis -Eb!J

o~~""', day

2003.

7
A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. 8 Regional Attorney

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

9 KATHRYN OLSON Supervisory Trial Attorney
10 CARMEN FLORES
II Senior Trial Attorney

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

12

()

13 BY: a. CJ.~a#v ~)II=

14 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

15 Seattle District Office

Office of the General Counsel

909 First Avenue, Suite 400

1801 "L" Street NW

16 Seattle, Washington 98104

Washington, D.C. 20507

Telephone (206) 220-6893

17

Attorneys for Plaintiff

18

19

20

21
22
23 24 25

COMPLAINT-- PAGE 5

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITI' CO:\fMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

 
 Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 10 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 1 of 11

The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 2

3 Tell)' A Venneberg, WSBA #31348 Attorney at Law
4 625 Commerce Street, Suite 460 T."oma, Washington 98402
5 Telephone: 253-072-3467
Facsimile: 253-572-3662
6 Kenneth R. Friedman, WSBA #17148
7 Friedman, Rubin & Wllite 1126 Hignland Avenue
8 Bremerton, Washington 98337 Telephone: 360-782-4300
9 Faesllnile: 360-782-4358

Attorneys for Plaintiff~Intervenors

11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRlCT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

13
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

14 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

15

Plaintiff,

16

and

17 MARlA CHAVEZ, KAREN HUNT,
ANDREA WEBER, EVA CORTEZ, 18 GREG JOHNSON, and BRADY
PROUTY,
19
Plaintiff-Intervenors, 20
VS.
21 ELDORADO STONE, LLC, TIMOTHY
22 O'DELL, and ELMER RODRIGUEZ a/k/a LUIS RODRIGUEZ,
23 Defendants.
24

Case No. CV03-2768P

25
.cOMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS 26

27

28
COMPLATNT OF PLAINTTFF-INTF..RVENORS EEOC ", Eldorado StOlTe, Uc, III at Case No CV03-2768P Pilge 1 of 11

E:XIIJBIT...,&r Pagclofl1

Terry A. Venneberg
Allnmcy ~t LIlW 625 Cmnm~rcc Slll'lll Suitc.t60 rllcomll WA !l!4C2 (253) S7:I-3-167 (25:)) m·Wj~ f~~

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 10 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 2 of 11

C01v1E NOW plaintiff-intervenors Maria Chavez, Karen Hunt, Andrea Weber, Eva

2 Cortez, Greg Johnson, and Brady ProuLy, by and through their counsd of record. Kenneth R.

3 Friedman, ofthe Law Offices of FriedmaTI, Rubin & White, and Terry A, Venneberg, ofthe Law

4 Offices ofTeny A. Venneberg, Attorney at Law, and, by way o[compla;nt against defendants

5 Eldorado StQne, LLC, Timolhy O'Dell, and Elmer Rodriguez, slate and allege as follows:

6

L Plaintiff-intervenors Maria Chavez,Karen Hunt, Andrea Weber, Eva Cortez, Greg

7 Johnson, and Brady Prouty are residents of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen

8 (18) years; and are in all respects qualified and competent to maintain this action.

9

At all relevant times, defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC has continuously been a

10 corporation doing business in the State of Washington and has continuously had at least 15

11 employees. At all relevant times, defendant Eldorado Stone has continuously been an employer

12 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b). (g) and (h)

\3 ofTitie VII, 42 U.s.C. §§ 2000c-(b), (g) and (h).

14

Upon infonnation and belief~ defendant Timothy O'Dell is: OVer the age of ei.ghteen

15 (18) years and has been, at all relevant times, a supervisor at the Carnation, Washington facility

16 of defendant Eldorado Stone.

17

Upon information and belief, defendant Elmer Rodriguez a/kJa Luis Rodriguez is

18 over the .age of eighteen (18) years and was, at all reJevant times, a supervisor at the Carnation,

Washington facility ofdefendant Eldorado Stone. Upon information and belief; the employment

2 of clefendant Rodriguez at defendant Eldorado Stone ended in March 2003.

21

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the agency ofthe United

22 States ofAmerica charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement ofTitle VU,

23 and is .xpressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(1)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

2 § 2000e-5(1)(1).

25

26

27
28
COMPLAINT OF PLAJNTIFF·INTERVE·NORS E.EOC 1', Eldorado Slo/T(~. lLL',. e/ (11 Ca:Ie No. CVOJ·2768P Pagelof 11

Elfl HBIT H Page 20f11

Terry A. VenlJebel"g
Attorney lit lliW 62:5 COfllmeteC Sh'c~
Tuoom~ WA 9l!M12 (2B) S12~146 7 {15l} S12-ZMl fllJl.

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 10 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 3 of 11

6. The EEOC has alleged ill Ihis .ction that defendant Eldorado Stone engaged in

2 unlawful employment practices at its Carnation, Washington facility in violation of

3 Sections 703(a) and 704(.) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2(a) .nd 3(.), by subjecting Maria

4 Chavez and Karen Hunt to sexual harassment, constructively discharging Karen Hunt, and

5 su~iecling Andrea Weber, Eva Cortez, Greg lohnson and Brady Prouty 10 retaliation for

opposing the discrimination directed against Chavez. and Hunt.

7

7. As the "aggrieved persons" in the unlawful employment practices alleged by the

8 EEOC, Chavez, Hunt, Weber, Cortez,.lolmsonand Prouty(hereinafier"Intervenors''J are entitled

9 to intervene in Ihis action, under Section 706(1)(1) ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

10 as amended, 42 U.S.c, § 2000e-5(£)(I). Intervenors have satisfied all requirements concerning

1] exhaustion of administrative remedies and aH conditions precedent to the institution of their

12 claims.

13

8. Paragraphs 1 through 10 of the Complaint filed by the EEOC in this action are

incorporated by reference as. if fully set out herein.

15 Fa~tual Background
16 9. Intervenor Karen Hunt began working for defendant Eldorado Stone in 1999. On
17
Or about June 10, 2002, Hunt was compelled to resign from her employment at Eldorado Stone
18 by the actions of Elmer RodrigLl3.':"Z" a co-worker. Rodriguez eng<Iged in offensive and
19
unwelcome conduct lowards Hunt, serious enough to affect the tenns and conditions of her 20
employment. Rodriguez constantly grab bed Hunt and made sexual remarks to her that were very 21
offensive. ROdriguez also came to the residence occupied by Hunt on several occasions, 22
claiming he was "in the vicinity," and tried to hug Hunt. Rodriguez was pushed away by Hunt 23
and told to stop~
24
to. Hunt complained about Rodriguez's conduct on several occasions to Sandi
25 Gifford, who was her supervisor until May 2002. Oi fford, in turn, spoke to defendant Timothy
26

27
28
COM.?LAiNT OF PLAIN'tlrf-J'N1ERVENORS EF...oc l' Eldorado SII:mfi'. Ll.C, ef at COtS!!! No. CV03-:n68P
Pagc3 ot 11

~XI1l8ITA
Page) of11

Terry A. Vllnneberg
AUCllJIty Ell law 62S COmmer~c Sln:~1 S~ile 460 Tacom~ WI\. 9&402 (15) 5 12-3:467 (:153) ,sn·31:i62 f3X

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 10 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 4 of 11

1 01De1l1the Plant Manager and her supervisor, about Rodrjguez~s behavior. Gifford also sent a letter to Hmnan Resources at Eldorado Stone concerning Rodriguez and his actiol'lS. Neither

3 O'Dell nor anyone in Human Re!lources took any action to prevent Rodridguez's harassing

conduct, or remedy in any way the sexual harassment being encountered by Hunt. Because of

5 Rodriguez's continuing harassing conduct, and the failure by defendant Eldorado Stone to

6 effectively prevent or remedy the harassment after being informed ofthat conduct, Hunt was left

7 with no choice but to resign her employment at defendant Eldorado Slone. Hunt was therefore

8 constructively discharged from her position at deiendant Eldorado Stone.

9

II. Intervenor Maria Chavez began work at defendant Eldorado Stone on or about

August 23, 2001. In May 2002, Rodriguez began to sexually barass Chavez, making

11 inappropriate sexual remarks to her regarding her breast sizel among other topics. Rodriguez's
12 sexually harassing conduct towards Chavez increased over time. On August g, 2002, Rodriguez

13 abducted and assaulted Chavez, driving her 10 a motel .gainsther will for the purpose of having

sexual relations. When he arrived at the motel~ Rodriguez attempted to physicalJy remove

15 Chavez from the vehicle in which they were riding. sexually fondling and assaulting Chavez in

16 the process. Only when several motel employees notioed Chavez struggling with Rodriguez did

17 he stop and drive Chavez home. Ihis event caused Chavez severe emotional trauma.

18

12. On or about August 31, 2002, Chavez filed assault charges with the police

19 concerning her August 8 enCounter with Rodriguez. A restraining order was subsequently

20 issued against Rodriguez. Chavez .·epolted the incident to her supervisor. Andrea Weber, and

21 the Plant Manager, defendant O'Dell, on September 4,2002.

22

13. Intervenors Andrea Weber, Eva Cortez, Greg Johnson and Brady Prouty were all

23 co-workers ofChavez at the time of hereomplaint to Eldorado Stone management regarding the

24 August 8 incident. On September 4, 2002, the same day that Chavez reported the August 8

25 incident, Eldorado Stone management, including defendant O'Dell, held a meeting with workers

26

27
28
COMPLAINT OF PLAiNTIFF-INTERVENORS EeOC v. E.ldorado StOlle, LLC, el al
Cnse No. CVOJ·176&P PElge 4 or 11

jjXllFBJT A' Page40fll

Teny A. Venncbcrg
AnClfm:y ~ Low 62.5 CcmJJl~n:c $tro::! Suile 460 hC(lm~ WA 984\l~ (2:53) 572·3461 (25J) ;;12-3-1\62 rn:o.:

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 10 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 5 of 11

at the Eldorado plant, including Weber, Cortez, Jolmson, and Prouty. When the parLicipants in

2 the meeting were asked by Eldorado management about Rodriguez and what action should be

.3 taken regarding his assault an Chavez, Weber, Cortez, Johnson and Prouty all spoke in support

4 ofCbavez, and noted Rodriguez's past l1istory of sexually har.ssing conduct.t Eldorado Stone.

5

14. After speoking with Rodriguez and Chavez. as well as their co-workerS in the

6 meeting described above, Eldorado Stone management, including defendant O'Dell, st.ted that

7 they were unable to conclusively determine whether Chavez'S account of the August 8 jncident

8 was accurate, and that no action should be taken against Rodriguez.. This conclusion was

9 reached in spite of the fact that Eldorado Stone management had been awrn:e of Rodriguez's

10 previous history of sexual harassment, and therefore had knowledge of his propensity to engage

11 in unwelcome sexual overtures towards his female co~workers and subordinates, Eldorado Stone

12 management, including defendant O'Dell. concluded that Rodriguez was "too valuable of an

13 employee to lose," and Ibe incident should be put to rest.

14

15. On September 6,2002, two days after they had spoken in support of Chavez

J5 regarding her complaint against Rodriguez, Weber, Cortez and Prouty were an tenninated from

16 their employment by defendant Eldorado Stone and by their supervisor, defendant Timothy

17 O'Dell. On September 17, 2002, nfter returning flom a vacation, Johnson was also terminated

18 from his employment by defendant Eldorado Stone, and by his supervisor, defendant TimotllY

19 O'Dell. At the time of their tenninations, Weber, Cortez, Prouty and Johnson were all

20 employees in good standing at Eldorado Stone. Cortez and Johnson had recently received

21 "Employee of the Quarter" awards at Eldorado Stone, and Johnson had been given a series of

22 wage increase, during his time as an Eldorado Slone employee. Weber, Cortez, Prouty and

23 Johnson were all terminated from their employment at Eldorado Stone as a direct result of, and

24 in retaliation for, their expressions of support for Chavez in her harassment complaint against

25 Rodriguez.

26

27
28
C.'OMpLATNl" OF PLAINTlFF~INTERVE.NORS
EEOC v, EMr)l"u(iQ S/Qm!, l Le. IH af
Case No. CVOJ~.2768P Page 5 of II

8HlIfU'f A PageSafl1

Terry A. Venneberg
Attorney III law 615 Commerce Street tlllltf45Q [ ...."'lIm WA ~84(I! (2:'il) 512:·]467 (1:53) '>1l-.;lM,l tiLl:

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 10 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 6 of 11

Fjr:st Causr of Action Viol.tion. of 42 U.S.C. § 20000-2/.\ .lId -3(0)

3

16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 as set out above are incorporated by reference herein.

4

17. From at loast January 2002, defendant Eldorado Stone engaged in unlawful

5 employment practices at its facility in Carnation) Washington with reference to the employment

6 ofInttrvenors by subjecting Maria Chavez and Karen Hunt to sexual harassment, constructively

7 discharging Karen Hunt and su~iecting Andrea Weber, Eva Cortez, Greg JOhnSOIl and Brady

8 Prouty to retaljation for opposing the discrimination directed against Chavez and Hunt

9

18. The unlawful employment practices engaged in by defendant Eldorado Stone

10 constitute a violation of42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(.), which prohibits thedischargo of any individual,

11 or discrimination against any individual with respect to terms and conditions of employment,

12 because of such individual's sex, and a violation of 42 US.C. § 20000-.3(a), which prohibils

13 discrimination against any employee because they ha.ve opposed an unlawful employment

14 practice~ orbecause they have assisted orpmlicipatcd in any investigation. proceeding or hearing

]5 concerning an unlawful employment practice.

16

19. As. direct and proximate re,u]( of the violations 01'42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and

17 -3(a} by defendant Eldorado Stonej Intervenors Hunt, Weberl Cortez, Johnson and Prouty have
18 incurred .and will continue to incur damages [or lost wages and benefits, loss cfeaming capacity,

t 9 emotional distress, pain and suffering~ humiliation, inconvenience and loss ofenjoyment of life,

20 as welJ as other special and general harm, in an amount to be proven at trial. As a direct and

21 proximate re,ull of the violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by defendant Eldorado Stone,

2 Intervenor Chavez has incurred and will continue to incur damages for emotional distress. pain

23 and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, and loss ofenjoyment oflife. as wen as other general

24 hann, in an amount to be proven at trial.

25

26

27

2&

COMPLAINT OF PL-A1Nl1FF-IlHERVENORS EEOC v_ Eld(Jf(ldo SrO/UJ. Ll.C, at 01 Ca!Oe No. CY03-:276SP Page 6 of 11

EXIHBITA Page 6 of 11

Terry A. VennebEfg
ACklrn~ ill tall! 62' C:omm~rce SW,.'(!I Suilt460 TaoornIl WA 9a402 (253-) S1H461 (2m 572·3662 fa....;

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 10 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 7 of 11

20. Defendant Eldorado Stone is also liable for all assessment of'punHive damages,

2 due to its viol.tions of 42 U.S.C. § 20000(2)(0) and -(3}(.), and its malicious and reckless

,3 conduct in doing so, in an amount to be proven at trial.

4

Second Cans. of Action

5

Violations or RCW 49,60.180

6

21" Paragraphs I through 20 as set out above are incorporated by reference herein.

7

22, Jurisdiction ofthis courtis invoked for this claim, and all claims brought under the

8 laws of the State of Woshington, nnderprovisions oU8 U.S.C. § 1367.

9

23. RCW 49,60,180 provides in pertinent part that "it is 811llnfair practice for any

10 emp]oyer... to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions

11 of employment because of.., sex....10

12

24. By subjecting Intervenors Chavez and Hunt to different tenus and conditions of

13 employment based on their .ex. defendant Eldorado Stone violated RCW 49.60.180, and is

14 civilly liable for said vioJations.

15

25. By su~jecting]ntervenorChavez to different terms and conditions of employment

16 based on her sex, defendant Elmer Rodriguez) as Chavez's supervisor at Eldorado Stone,

17 violated RCW 49.60.180, and is civilly liable for said violation,

18

26, As a direct and proximate result of the violation ofRCW 49 . 60.180 by defendant

19 Eldorado Stone, Intervenor Hunt has incurred and will continue to incur damages for lost wages

'20 and benefits, loss of earning capacity, emotional distress, pain and suffering, hmniliation, 21 inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of life~ as well as other special and general harm. in all

22 amollnt to be proven attrial. As a direct and proximate result ofthe violation ofRCW 49.60.180
23 by defendants Eldorado Stone and Rodriguez, Intervenor Chavez has incurred and will continue 24 to incur damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, hwniliation, incanveniem~e and loss

25 of enjoyment of life, as well as. other general harm, in an amount to be proven at trial.

2
27
28
COMPLArNT OF PlA1NT1FF-INTERVENORS
EEOC v. Eldorado Smile, £.I.e. el (1/
C~se No. CV03-1'/68P
Page 7 LJf 11

EXHIBIT .... Page70fll

Terry A. Venm:lH!rg
Allo;1I1""Y -"I I.nw 62,. CmnmtrCC Sw,,1
SUil.:460 Tacoma WA 9~402
OH):m-H~1
OB)512-3662 r!lll.

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 10 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 8 of 11

or Third Ca.s. A~tion

2

Violations of RCW 49.60,210

].

27. Paragraphs] through 26 as set out above arc incorporated by reference herein.

4

28. RCW 49.60.210 provides in pertinent part that, "It is an unfair practice for any

5 employer... to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she

6 has opposed any practices forbidden by this chapter. or because he or she has filed a charge,

testitied~ or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter."

8

29, By discharging Intervenors Weber, Cortez, Johnson and Prouty for opposing the

9 discrimination encountered by Intervenor Chavez, and for assisting tntervenor Chavez in

10 bringing a complaint concerning that discrimination to the attention of defendant Eldorado

II Stone, defendants Eldorado Stone and Timothy O'Dell violated RCW 49,60.21 0, and are each

12 civilly liable tor ,.id violations.

13

30. As a direct and proximate result aflheviolation ofRCW 49,60,210 by defendant'

14 Eldorado Stone and Timothy O'Oeli, Intervenors Weber, Cortez, Johnson, and Prouty have

15 incurre.d and will continue to incur damages for lost wages and benefits, Joss of eaming capacity,

16 emotional distress, pain and SUffering, humiliation. inconveoience and loss ofenjoyment oflife,

17 as well as other special and general harm, in an amollnt to b. proven at trial.

18

Fourth Cause of Action

19

Assault llDd Battery

20

31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 as set out above are incorporated by reference herein_

21

32, As described above, on or about August 8, 2002, defendant Rodriguez physically

22 assaulted Intervenor Chavez in attempting to pull her ont ofhis vehicle into a motel room for the

23 purpose ofhaVing sexual relations, During this physical assaul~ defendant Rodriguez also made

24 se,,"ual contact with Intervenor Chavez, touching her inappropriately for the purpose of sexual

25 gratification.

26

27

28

COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFf·INTERVENORS EEOCv EldDJ'lJd()SWrre. LLC, I?lal. Case No. CVOJ-l168P Pagc80f 11

EXWIDlt A PageSofll

Terry A.. VIIlnJJiIlberg
AUClmey 3It..", 625 C(lmnl~([;C S~""~l SIIile460 ra~tlma WA98402 (253) 511-l4~1 (15J) ;';72·3662 f'l~

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 10 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 9 of 11

33. In the period immediately prior to her constructive discharge on June 10,2002,

2 Intervenor Hunt was constantly grabbed by defendant Rodriguez in the workplace. Defendant

3 Rodriguez also went to Intervenor HunCs horne and ma.de bodily contact with her in attempting

4 to hug her, even following her into her bedroom to do so. Intervenor Hunt made it clear to

5 defendant ROdriguez that his consistent attempts to make bodily contact with her were not

6 welcome.

7

34~ By .ttempting to unlawfully use force or inflict bodily injury all Intervenors

8 Chavez and Hunt, accompanied by the apparent present ability to give effect to the attempt,

9 defendant Rodriguez committed an assault upon Intervenors Chavez and Hunt, and is civilly

10 liable for the same.

II

35. By intentionally bringing about an offensive contact with lntervoMtS Chavez Dnd

12 Hunt, defendant Rodriguez committed a battery upon Intervenors Chavez and Hunt, and is civilly

13 Hable fDr the samc.

14

36. As a direct and proximate result ofthe assault and battery committed by defendant

15 Rodriguez~ IntenrenOfS Cl1avez and Hunt have incurred and will continue to incur damages for

16 emotional distress, pain and suffering~ humiliation, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment oflife,

17 as well as other general harm) in an amount to be proven at trial.

18

Fifth Cause of Action

19

Negligent Hiring and Retention

20

37. Paragraph, I through 36 as set out above are incorporated by refetence herein.

21

38. Defendant Eldorado Stone owed a duty to its employees, including Intervenors

22 Chavez and Hunt. to exercise reasonable care in the hiring and retention of supervisory

23 personnel, including defendant Elmer Rodriguez.

24

39. Defendant Eldorado Stone breached its duly to exercise reasonable care in the

25 hiring and retention of defendant Rodriguez. Defendant Eldorado Stone either knew or should

26

27
28
COMPLAINT OF PLAINYlJ'F-lNrERVENORS EEOC V Eldorado SUme, l.LC, ei al
Gase No CV03·276.111' Page90f II

€?trrtBll Pi
Pag~ 9 ()f II

Terry A. Venneberg AnonICr ~t Uny
625 Commerce Street
Swl~400
Taeom;t WA 98402
(253) S7;!.-HG7
(2Sl) 572-36&2 rax

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 10 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 10 of 11

have known of defendant Radrlguez's unfitness for a supervisory position at the time of his

2 appointment, and was negligent in continuing to retain defendant Rodriguez in a supervisory

3 position after it was reported that he was sexually harassing employees at Eldorado Stone.

4

40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence ofdefendant Eldorado Stone in

5 the hiring and retention of defendant Elmer Rodriguez, Intervenors Chavez and Hunt have

6 incurred and wi1I continue to incur damages for emotional distress. pain and suffering,

7 humiliation, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of life, as well as other general hann, in an

8 amount to be proven at trial.

9

10

11

41. Paragraphs I through 40 as set out above 3[e incorporated herein by reference.

12

42. Defendant Eldorado Stone owed a duty to its employees, including Jntervenors

13 Hunt and Chavez, to exercise reasonable care in the supervision of its employees} including

14 defendant Elmer Rodriguez.

15

43, Defendant Eldorado Stone breached its duty to exen:ise reasonable care in the

16 supervision of defendant Ehner Rodriguezc Defendant Rodriguez presented a risk of harm to

17 others, including Intervenors Hunt and Chavez. Defendant Eldorado Stone knew or~ in the

18 exercise of reasonable care, should have known that defendant Rodriguez presented a risk of

19 harm to others, including intervenors Hunt and Chavez.

20

44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence ofdefendant Eldorado Stone in

21 supervising defendant Elmer Rodriguez, Intervenors Chavez and Hunt have incun-ed and will

22 continue to incur damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering) humiliatiol11 inconvenience 23 and loss of enjoyment of life. as well as other general harm, in an amount to be proven at trial.

24

WHEREFORE Intervenor> Chavez, Hunt, Weber, Cortez, Jolmson and Prouty play fOl

25 the following relief to be granted:

26

2

28

cOMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF·INTERYfNORS EI!,oc \/. Eldorado Sl'OIt~, U.c, er ai Case No, CV03·2768P
Pa~elOof II

EXJIIBIT A Page 10 of J I

'fury A. Venneberg
Anome)' m l ~w 625 CommeN!~ Slrec~ SIIite461l Tocom:l WA !JR402
0-51}:sn-J~ri7
{J:Bj 57:1:·366i. 1\1.~

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 10 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 11 of 11

1. That Intervenors be awarded damages against defendants Eldorado Stone, QIDclt

2 and Rodriguez in an amount to be proven at triaL

3

That punitive damages be assessed against defendant Eldorado Stone in favor of

4 Intervenors in an amount to be proven at trial-

5

That Intervenors be awarded costs, interest and attorneys l fees, as provided by

,t 6 applicable law, including, but not limited to, 42 ns,c, § 1988. 4. That such other further reJiefas this court may deem appropriate be granted.

8

DATED this.L day of December 2003.

9 Il

~~. ~ By:---S~nneberg

..,__

WSBA No.3 1348

12

FRIEDMAN, RUBIN & WHITE

13

14

15

~ By:~:nih"'R~.,;F"n::Oe"dm=a"'n---···__·..- - -

16

WSBA No. 17148

17

AttQrneys tor Plaintiff·Intervenors

18

19

2

21

22

2.1

24

25

26

27
28
COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS EEOCv EldoradoSrone, LfC, eta/. C3..$8 No. CV03-276S)'l Page 11 of II

Page II of II

Teny A. Vl'!lJJleberg
Al1omc), at law
1'i25 C<;l/JJfm'~C~ Slr~1:I SLiite 460
T!K:oms WA 11840Z (1.'i]) :;72-346'/ (253) Sn-3662 fiIX

 
 Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 17 Filed 03/22/2004 Page 1 of 9

HONORABLE MARSHA PECHMAN

2 I111111 Imll IUlllmll 1111111111 1IIIIImi 11m

3 1111111111111101111111111111111111

4

03·ev·0276&-ANS

_-_-_F__I_LlEODDGE!L~ENT£RED

5

RECEIVED
!1AR2Z_ MR

6 7

., wJo.l..l..O.C..a..~.~~

-·'··_c.. """'"

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DlSTRleT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10

)

) II EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

12 COMMISSION,

)

13

Plainti fr,

) )

and

)

14

)

MARIA CHAVEZ, KAREN HUNT,

)

15 ANDREA WEBER, EVA CORTEZ, GREG )

16 JOHNSON, and BRADY PROUTY,

)

)

17

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

vs.
18

) )

ELDORADO STONE, LLC, TIMOTHY

)

19 O'DELL, and ELMER RODRlGUEZ,

)

)

20

Defendant.

21

--------~-----~

CIVIL ACTION No. CV03 2768·P
DEFENDANT ELMER RODRIGUEZ'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFINTERVENORS

22 NOW COMES DEFENDANT EI.MER ROlJRIGUEZ ("Defendant"), by and through Ius
23 atiomeys. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, to a.nswer Plaintiff-Intervenors' Complaint as follows:
24
25

DEFENDANT ELMER ROnRIGUEZ'S ANSWER "]'0 COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS -1CV03 !7CI!j_P

ORIGINAL

DORSEY & Wl-tlnljF,Y LLP
11.3. IIA~1i II\;ILDIHG ('f:lla~
, ..'" rwmAVEMCE, ~un:r, \4ij~ :;~ATTLI1. WA~f-lIr-;{j"l'ON 98101
PHONE: (1I11» OO,)-ggOD ~ ..~ (2~~19m ..88:W

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 17 Filed 03/22/2004 Page 2 of 9

COMPLMNT OF PLATNTIH-INTERVENORS

2

1, Defendant is without sufficient mfonnation to fann a belief as to the allegations

3 in this paragraph and on that basis denies them.

4

2. Defendant is without sufficient infOimation to form a belief as to the allegations

5 1n lhis paragraph and all that basis denies them.

6

3. Defendant admits that Timothy 0' Dell is over the age of 18. Defendant is

7 without sufficient information to fonn a belief as to the remaining allegations in this paragraph

8 and on that basis denies them.

9

4. Defendant admits that he is over the age of 18 and was employed at the Carnation,

10 Washington facility from September 13, 1999 to Match 12, 2003 and that his final position was

11 Assistant Plant Manager. plant 2, Defendant is without sutlkient infonnation to faml a belief as

12 to the remaining allegations in this paragraph and on that basis denies them.

13

5. This paragraph contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required.

14

6. Defendant is without sufficient information to fonn a be1ief as to the allegations

15 in this paragraph and on that basis denies them.

16

7. This paragraph contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required.

17

8. Defendant was not a party to thi~ action at the time of the EEOC's Complaint

18 against Eldorado Stone, LLC. Defendant has no obligation to respond to any allegations

19 contained within the EEOC's complaint against another party.

20

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

21

9. Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to Karen Hunt's

22 employment history with Eldorado Stone and on lhat basis denies these allegations. Defendant

23 admits that he has been to the residence of Karen Hunt. Defendant denies the remaining 24 allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.

25

OI:iFJ~NDANT ELMER RODRIOUJ':z's ANSWBR TO COMPLAINT OF PLA1NTIFf-!NTERVENQRS -2CV032768-P 48J7-1841·KI.I44\,\

DoKiHW & WHITNI!:V IU"
1.J.~. W,"riK !l;UIt..DIJOI3CenU 14~~ Fwrn A V1:llU~, SUirE l41XI ~~A'ITLI'.,. WAS!l!N(1T(JN '!H101
flr.!I>'E. (205) ~OJ.HH(III
FAJ<: (~O") ~'I.l.;2j820

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 17 Filed 03/22/2004 Page 3 of 9

10, Defendant denies enga.ging in any harassing conduct. Defendant is without 2 sufficient infonnation to [oun a belief as to the al1egations in this paragraph and on that basis

3 denies them,

4

II. Defendant admits that Maria Chavez began her employment at Eldorado Stone

5 Open:ltions LLC on or ahout August 3, 2001. Defendant further admits that on or about August

6 8; 2002, he and Chavez drove to a motel and he drove Chavez home. Defendant denies the
7 remaining allegations in this paragraph.

8

12. Defendant admits that Malia Chave, flied police charge. and obtained a

9 restraining order against him in or ahout September 2002, Defendant is without sufficient

10 infomlation to form a belief as to the remaining allegations in this paragraph and on that basis

t 1 denies them,

12

13. Defendant admits that the intenJenors were co-workers of Chavez at the time of

13 her complaint. Defendant denies that he had a past history of sexually harassing conduct.

14 Defendant is withoul sufficient infonnatiotl to fonn a belief as to the remaining allegations in

15 this paragraph and on that basis denies them,

16

14. Defendant admits that he met with Roger Sideris and Tim O'Dell on September 4,

17 2002. Defendant denies a previous history of sexual harassment Defendant further denies that

18 the conclusion was 'reached that no action should be taken against him to the extent that being

19 instructed to stay away ftom Ms. Chavez is atl action against him, Defendant is Witllout

20 sufficient infomlation to fonn a belief as to the remaining allegations in this paragraph and on
21 that basis denies them,

22

15. Defendant is without sufficient infonnation to foml a belief as to the allegations

23 in lliis paragraph and on that basis denies them.

24
25

DEFENDANT ELMER RODRIGuh:Z'S ANSWEI{ TO COMPLAINT OF pLAINT1J?f-INTERVI::NORS ,3. eW32768-P
4~31Tlg41-8944\J

DURSEY & WHrrNII'.Y LLP
1J.~. I!AI<"-BL'llDJN[JC!:NTR~
14111 • "1'~\ A~E!oI'JE.. SllTTf ~""Q SH ...TTLE. WASInJo.(;-'UN ~gl~1
J'IIL'HE. (206) !I11:1_RlIO(l
rAJ<' (~IlI,) ""~.~820

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 17 Filed 03/22/2004 Page 4 of 9

FIRST CAUSR OF ACTION

2

VIOLATIONS O}' 42 U.S.C. § 2000Il·2(Al AND -3CAl

3

16. Defendant incorporates hy reference his answers to paragraphs I through 15 as set

4 out above.

5

17. Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations

6 in this paragraph and on that basis denies them.

7

18. This paragr""ph cOlllains a legal conclusion to which no response is required.

8

19. Defendant is without sufficient infoIll1ation to form a belief as to the allegations

9 in this paragraph and on that basis denies them.

!O

20. Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations

1I in this paragraph and on that basis denies them.

12

SIlCOND CAUSE OF ACTION

13

YIOLATIONS OF HCW 49.60.180

14

21.

15 out above.

Defendant incorporates by reference his answers to paragraphs 1 through 20 as set

16

22. This paragraph contains a legal conclusion to which tiO response is required.

17

23. Defendant admits the allegation in lhis paragraph.

18

24. Defendant is without sufficient infonnation to fonn a belief as to the allegations

19 in this paragraph. and on that basis denies theme

20

25. Defendant denies the allegations in tlus paragraph.

21

26. Defendant deni.s (hat he viol.ted RCW 49.60.180. Defendant is without

22 sufficient information lo [onn a belief as to the remaining allegations in this paragraph and on

23 that basis denies them.

24

25

DEFENDANT ELMI:!R RODRIGUEZ'S AN3Wj-.j{ TO COMP'LAINTOf PLAINTIFF-INTERVUNORS ·4· CVOJ 2768·P
4837-1 ~4I-t1Q44\1

DORSEY & WHITNf.Y !.I.I>
lJ ~ Ellll'lli J1.I!IL[lINC' CEN'lRE 1~20 FIFTH AVENUE, ~I nn :14'" SIlIITTLR WASHINGTON ~8H1l
p~, (~r..;) ~OJ·~i800
!'1oX (206) !lOHSlO

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 17 Filed 03/22/2004 Page 5 of 9

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

2

3

27.

4 out above.

VIOLATIONS OF RCW 49.60.210 Defendant incorporates by reference his answers to paragraphs 1 through 26 as set

5

28. Defendant admits the allegation in this paragraph.

6

29. Defendant is without sufficient infonnat1ofJ to form a belief as to the allegations

7 in this pamgmph and on that basis denies them.

8

30. Defendant is without sufficient infonnatiofl to fom1 a belief as to the allegations

9 in this paragraph and on that basis denies them.

10

FOURTH CAUSIl OF ACTION

11

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

12

31. Defendant incorporates by reference his answers to paragraphs 1 through 30 as sct

13 out above.

14

32. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.

15

33. Defendant admits that he has been to the residence of Karen Hunt. Defendant

16 deoies the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.

17

34.

18

35.

19

36.

20

21

22

37.

23 out above.

Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION Defcndant incorporoGltes by reference his answers to paragraphs 1 through 36 as sel

24

38. This paragraph contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required.

25

DEFENDANT ELMER RODRIGI)HZ'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAIl'HlFF·INTERVl::!NORS -.~­ CV03276B-P
4~~7-1841-8944\1

DoRSEY & WHITNEY LLI'
l!~, BM" BUILDJNU CE!<TItI! 1420 FIfTH AVENUE. SUITE !~DD SJ:ArrLE. WA<lJ.lIN(l'1 ON '!~llIl
Plt."lh"F.: (W!» ~II,.~J«IQ
fAX: (206) ~OH820

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 17 Filed 03/22/2004 Page 6 of 9

39. Defendant denies he was unfit fOT a supervisory position at the time of his

2 appointment Qf at any time during his tenure as supervisor at Eldorado Stone. Defendanl denies

3 he sexually harassed. any employee at Eldorado Stone. Defendant is without sufficient

4 infonnation to fonn a belief as to the remaining allegations in tillS paragraph and on thal basis

5 denies them.

6

40.

7

8

9

41.

10 out above.

Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
Defendant incorporates by reference h1S answers to paragraph 1 through 40 as set

II

42. This paragraph contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required.

12

43. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.

13

44. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.

14

DEFENSES AND An"IRMATIVR DEFENSES

15

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE DEFENSE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO EACH

16 AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SET FORTH IN THE COMPLAINT, Defendant alleges:

17

I.

Plaintiffs' (which tenn when lISed herein refers to the Plaintiff..Jlltervenors unless

18 otherwise specified) claims are barred by the equitable doctrines oflaches. estoppel, unclean

19 hands, and acquiescence.

20

2. Plaintiff..;; are estopped by reason of their own conduct. acts or omissions From

21 recovering against Defendant on any ptLrpmted claim for relief contained herein.

22

3. Defendant at all times relevallt hereto exercised reasonable care to prevent andlor

23 identify any [mm ofunlawrul discrimination, harassment and/or retallatlon; that if any unlawful

24 discrimination, harassment andlor retaliation did exist) Defendant exercised reasonable care to

25 promptly correct any form of unlawful discrimination and/or retaliation; and that Plaintifl's

1}1':Fr~NDANT ELMER RODRIGUEZ'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Of PLAINTIF}i-INTERVENORS -6CV032768-I' 41137-1l,l4\·8944\1

DORSEY & WIJlTJliEY LLP
U~. n,,1IX BlmLln.'(: Cf,'lol'I'~U 141Cl FIFTH ""fNlJP.. ~u"u l~OO s~"'rrLE, WASHINGTON 91101
PIJI.!NE. (205) 90J.SB(JO
F"x: (2M) Ym~M:W

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 17 Filed 03/22/2004 Page 7 of 9

1 unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by

2 the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.

3

4. If it is determined that Plaintiffs have certain rights under (he Company's benefit

4 plan, such claims ate pre-empted by ERTSA.

5

5. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

6

6. Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

7

7. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate damages.

8

8. All actions taken by Defendant were in good faith.

9

9. Plaintiffs' damagcs are barred by the doctrine of comparative fault.

10

10. Plaintiff>;' recovery of damages must be reduced by the amolUlts received from

11 collateral sources.

12

11. Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by ihe laws of Workers' Compensation.

13

RRSERYATION

J 4

Defendant reserves the right to add defenses and affirmative defenses, to add

15 counterclaims ami third-party defendant~ and to argue legal thcories in addition to or in lieu of

16 those specifically identified herein, as the facts in this matter may warrant, including without

17 limitation additional or further facts hereafter disclosed through discovery.

18

PRAYER FORREUEF

19

Defendant prays for the following relief:

20

A. That the Complaint bc dismissed with prejudice and withQut an award of

21 damages, costs, or fees of any kind to Plaintiffs;

22

B. Thal Defendant be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

23

c. That Defendant be awarded s.uch other relief as this Court deems appropriate, just,

24 and equitable.

25

IJEPENDANT ELMI:!R RODRIGUEz'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTQF' PLAINTIFF·INTF,RVENORS ·7CVO;l 2768-P
4:8J7·1841·!l,<J44\1

DORSEY & WIIITl'iEY LLP
U S BANK IluILOmG tF.NT~I'. ]42<1 flFTII /I.VE!1HF.. sun!1 "",(10 SIlAIT[.F., WA~IlIN"TON 91[0!
"HD!i~: (106) ~mJIlIOO
fA.~: (2Q~}<XI:l-~~W

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 17 Filed 03/22/2004 Page 8 of 9

tb. DATED this day ofMarch, 2004.
2 3 4 5
6
7 8
9
10 II
12
13 14
15
16 17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25

GRKG . HENDERSHOTI, WSBA #27838
DICK CUNTON, WSBA #2167
U.S. Bank Centre
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suile 3400 Seattle, WA 9810 1-4010 Telephone: (206) 903-8800 Facsimile: (206) 903-8820
Attorneys for Defendant
ELDORADO STONE, LLC, Timothy O'Dell and Elmer Rodriguez

DEFENDANT EIMER RODRIGUEZ's ANSWER TO CQMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS .geVO) 2768-P
4t:137-]1j,41·894411

DORSEY & WIUTNEY LLI'
u.s Il»iltrllJn,llINGl:€i'I1'~~
1410 FlnH"\I"NIJF" ~~Il'~ J.4OO ~".A'r'I'I.~, W"'~H.L"I(iTON 98101
PMO~~ (206)!J<J~ 8800 FAX: (206] 9CLI.i810

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 17 Filed 03/22/2004 Page 9 of 9

PROOF OF SERVICE

2

On March £t!2004, I served the willlin DEFENDANT ELMER RODRIGUEZ'S

3 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIl'l'S-INTERVENORS on the interested parties in

4 this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a scaled envelope~ addressed as rollows:

Terry A. Venneberg Attorney at Law 625 Commerce Street, Suite 460
Tacoma, WA 98402 fax: (253) 572-3662
Via Facsimile tUJd U.S. Mail
Kennelll R. Jlriedmau
Friedman~ Rubin & White 1126 Highlaud Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337 Fax: (360) 782-4358
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail

CanneD Flores U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite
400 Seattle, WA 98104
Via Personal Messenger

Executed on March.M!2004, at Seattle, WA. 1 declare lhat the statements above are true to the best ormy infomlation, knowledge, and

Date: MarehL2004

~' tmm2l Signature:
Name:

'6elTiDowns

DEFENDANT "~LM";R RODRIGUEZ'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAfNl'IPfi-INTERVP,NORS -9-
eVil3 27MI-P 4837·1 Ml·8944\1

DoRSEY & WHiniEr' LI.I"
ll,~, BAilK 1I~1L!l11«l C!HTU 14211 FlPTH A ~ENlJE, SlnrE J400 SIl.A'ITL~. WAS!lINC,WIN 'iKlIll
FooNP' (1111» '~)-~~'") FAll' (:lIl6) ~m 88M

 
 Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 26 Filed 06/15/2004 Page 1 of 7

--

LED _ENTERED
DeED _RECEWED

HONORABLE MARSHA PECHMAN

A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. REGIONAL ATTORNEY 3 KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY
CARMEN FLORES, SENIOR TRIALAITORNEY 4 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 5 SEATTLE, WASIlINGTON 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 220-6920
6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRlCT OF WASlIlNGTON AT SEATTLE

9

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMlSSION,

11

Plaintiff,

12 v.

13 ELDORADO STONE, I_LC, and ELDORADO STONE OPERATIONS, LLC,
14 Defendant,
15 and
16

17 MARIA CHAVEZ; KAREN HUNT; ANDREA WEBER, EVA CORTEZ; GREG JOHNSON;
18 and BRADY PROUTY,

19

PlaintiIT~ Intervenors,

20

v,

21 ELDORADO STONE, LLC; ELDORADO
22 STONE OPERATIONS, LLC; TIMOTHY O'DELL: alld ELMER RODRIGUEZ,
23
Defendants.
24

) ) ) )
) CASE NO. CV03-2768P ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMI'LAlNT ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND )
) ) ) ) )
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
III~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
03-CV-1I276S-0m>
, ) ) ) ) ) )

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -, PAGE 1

11."'. 'l:QUA I, .. "OLO'iMIi:NT QPpu,,','UNIIT COMM1~SI"'"
s.. ,,1t Dio,<irl QrJi«
'JlIiI ~ir'i A,....,.. Sui!< 400 ~".1I1" w ...'nglon '111104-1(\(>1
T"","",": \l(IO)~} F"",h"I"(:!II6)UIHIJII
1UU: (:!II.) 220-!ill~2

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 26 Filed 06/15/2004 Page 2 of 7

1 NATURE OF THE ACTION

2

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title 1 (.fthe Civil

3 Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and to provide appropriate relief to

4 Abigay Fulgencio Behnonle (a.k.a. Maria C. Chavez), Eva Cortez, Andrea Weber, Greg John!i-on,

5 Brady Prouty and Karen Hunt ("Plaintiff-Intervenors"). "lbe Equal En1ploymenl Opportunity

6 Commission alleges that defendant sexually harassed Ms. Chavez ant! Ms.I1unt, and retaliated

7 against 1\11.:>, Cortez, Ms. Weber, Mr. Johmon and Mr. Prouty when they opposed discriminaticu

8 against Ms. Chave:£ and M!>. Hlillt. Defendant also tailed to take prompt corrective action to

9 remedy the harassment, thus forcing Ms. Hunt to constructively discharge from her job. Plaintiff

10 seeks monetary relief including pecuniary and nonpecuniary compensatory and punitive damages

11 and injunctive relief on behalf of these Plaintiff-Intervenors who are or were employed by

12 defendant and who experienced sex.ual harassment, retaliation andior constructive discharge.

\3

Jl1R1SDICTION AND VENUE

14

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1.331~ 1337,

15 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant lo Sectionfl 706(f)(I) and (3) of

16 Title VII of thf;': Civil Rights Act of 1964, Wi amended, 42 U.S.c. § 20DGe f',t seq. C'TitIe VII") and

17 Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act ofl991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 •.

18

The empluyment practices alleged to be lll1lawful were committed ''lithin the

19 jurisdiction ofthe Uni1cd States District Court for Ihe- Western District o[Washingtan.

20

PARTIES

21

3.

Plaintitf, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission C'the C(!l111nissiontl), is

22 the agency of the United Slates of America charged with the administration, interpretation and
23 enforcement of Title vn, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) cf

24 Tille Vll, 42 U.S.C. § 20000-5(1)(1).

25

4, At .all rdev-nnt times, defendant, Eldorado Stone, lLC and Eldorado Stone

FIRST AMENDED COMJl'LAINl'·· PAGE 2

U.R. t.:QU ... L E.lItr'I.IIYMtNT or ... R rUNITY CQfIIMISSION s•• tlL. PIo"lol Olfl,.
~tJ!I fi"I""~''''', ~"itz~OO
_'::.m.o.. WoriUr'M"'" !IHJI)4,.ID!iJ
1",1",,_:(2(110) 22n.ti8~J
~""mik: (2(l('J 220.6911 TD[I, (1(t6)22l1.b!!~2

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 26 Filed 06/15/2004 Page 3 of 7

Operations, LLC, have constituted B. "single employer" for purposes of liability fur unlawful

2 employment practices undc:r Title VII 42 U.S.C. §§ ct. seq, AI aU relevant times, defendants

3 Eldurado Stone, LLC and Eldorado Stone Operations, LLC, have hurl an integrated economic

4 n':lationship, and have exercised common control over employment practices. The defendants

5 shall hereafter be jointly referred to as "defendan1 Eldorado Stone." Defendant Eldorado Stone

6 hao;. continuulisly been a cotpomlion doing business in the State of Washington and has

7 continuously had at least 15 employees,

8

5. At all relevant tirnes, defendant Eldorado Stone has continuously been an

9 employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the mcaning of SectiO::lS 701(b), (g)

10 and (h) ofTille VIL 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e·(b). (g) and (h).

11

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

12

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuitj Ms. Chavezj Ms.

t 3 Hunt, Ms. Webcr, Ms. Corte:l, Mr, Johnson and Mr. Prouty each filed a charge of discrimination

14 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging violations of Title VII by

15 Eldorado Stone. All conditions precedent to !he institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

16

7. Since at Icast January 14, 2002, defundant Eldorado Stone engaged in unlawful

17 employment practices at it'i Carnation, Washington facility in violation of Sections 703(a) and

18 704(a) of Title Vll, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e~2(a) and 3(a). Defendant Eldorado Stone subjected Ms.

19 Chavez and Ms. Hunt to sexual hllntssment, constructively discharged Ms. Hunt, and subjected

20 Ms. Weber.. Ms. Corte?, Mr. Johnson and Mr. l~outy to retaliation for opposing Ms. Chavez's

21 and Ms. Hunt'!j discrhnination.

22

8. The efI"ect ofthe unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraph 7

23

24 25
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- PAGE J

lI.1i. I'QlJAL EM "I.O'>:'MENT O~POIIT\lNI1''>:' COjYIM1SSION " ...... ~I,"'<t O(fi« ~r~,",A."","-S""1IJIJ
:1<0"'(, W..h~ '>11' ...._1001
TIlephono: ('lQI:» ~<G-666~
F..,oirQ!o: (2(11;) UlI-ti911
IOD. f,I[)f,}nOIiUr

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 26 Filed 06/15/2004 Page 4 of 7

above has been to deprive Ms, Chavez, M~. Hunt, Ms. Weber, Ms. Cortez, Mr. Johnson and Mr,

2 Prouty of equal employment ()pportu)lities and otherwise adversely affect their status as

3 emplo~~s, and adversely affect their terms and conditiomi of empi(l)'lnent.

4

9. The unlawful em.pJOYTllent practices complained ofin paragraph 7 above were

5 intentional,

6

10. The unla.wful employmentpractice,s complained ofinparagrnph 7 above, were

7 done with n18lice Dr with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Chavez,

8 Ms. Hunt. Ms. Weber, Ms. Cortez, Mr, Johnson and Mr. Prouty_

9

PRAYER FORRELIRF

10

WherdOre, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

11

A. Grant a pennancnt injunction enjoining defendant Eldorado Stone and its officers,

12 agents, successors, assigns, lind all persons in active conceit or participation with them, from

13 engaging in sex discrimination and retaliation against employees who oppose discrimination,

14

B. Order defendant Eldorado Stone to institute and carry alit policies, practices, and

15 programs which prevent its employees from being subjected to sexual harassment ~and retaliation

16 for OPPOSing practices that they believe are unlawful under federal anti-discrimination laws and

17 whieh er-d.dieate the effects of its past and present l,Inlawful employment pmcbces,

18

c. Order defendant Eldorado Slone to make whole Ms. Chavez, Ms. lJunt, Ms.

19 Weber, Ms. Cortez, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Prouty by providing appropriate back pay with

20 prejudgment interest, amI front pay in a.mounts to be detennined at trial, and other affirmative

21 reliefnecessary to eradicate the eITects of its unlawful eIllplo)'lllenl practiCe!) described above,

22 including but not limited to, rein.'~tatcment

23

24
25
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT·· PAGE 4

lI,~,J:QtJAL 1',l>IPLOYMJ>l'lf OP.rOlHIINrn' CO:HJIH':;l111'" MO"" Dlot,,,, "IfIu 'IIIJ FiB' .....,''',. ~,,'''400
~. W..hi1~"", QMoo.jiJIi! :r.J~J""""I2ll1>J 120,6113
""",illil.,(1I)foJ;,~.tI9jl
TDD, (lIK,):z1I'I.6II!;1

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 26 Filed 06/15/2004 Page 5 of 7

D. Order defendant £ldorooo Stone to make whole Ms. Chavez, Ms. Hunt, Ms.

2 Weber, Ms. Cortez, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Prouty by providing compensation for past and future

3 pecuniary losses resulting frum the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7

4 above, inc.!uding witholJllimitation medical expense.~, job search expenses ,md othc:r past' and

5 future out-of-pocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

6

E. Order defendant Eldorado Stone to make Whole Ms. Chavez, Ms. H1Jnt, Ms.

7 Weber, Ms. Cortez, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Prouty by providing compensation for past and future

8 nonpecuniary losses resulting from th~ unlawfull'ractices complained ofin paragraph 7 above,

9 including without limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment oClife, in amounts

10 to determined a( lrial.

11

F. Order defendant Eldorado Stone to pay Ms. Chavez, Ms. HUllt, Ms. Weber, Ms.

12 Cortez, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Pouty punitiw damages for its maliciolls and reckless conducL

13 d~s(;ribcd in pamgraph 7 above, in amounts \0 be determined at trial

14

G. C':rrant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

15 inter~st

16

H. Award the Commission its cost" of this ;:u;tion.

17

18

19

20

21

22 23

24 25
fIRST AMENDED COM1'LATNT·· l'AG1l 5

U.:>,I:(JIJAL E~lrLOYr.tI:Nl· OprOR1"t'NJ1'W COMMISSION s ••tiI. llluf~' Offi« 009 fino. A'I","" ~ui," 400
H.IIIII<. W""hn~LU" ~""1•• 11I61 f <Iophono: (206) Jl""",~j
"""'imilo: (206) .1""""1 TlID: {206Un..1t2

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 26 Filed 06/15/2004 Page 6 of 7

2

3

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

4

TIllY COmmission reqllcsts a jury tl'ial on all questions of fael raised by its complaint.

5

DA TED ihlS _-,l"Ol",h_ _ day of_~J",ui!!n,,-e_ _~, 2004,

6

ERIC S, DREIBAND
General Counsel

JAMESL. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS
Assodate General COlll1sel

14 EQUAL EMPWYMENT
15 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
16 Seattle District Ollice 909 First Avenue, Suite 400
17 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206j 220,6920
18

EQUAL HMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office ofthe General Counsel 1801 "L" Sb'eel NW Washington, D.C, 20507

19

Attorneys for Plaintiff

20

21

22

23

24 25
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - J'AGE 6

U.S. EQIIA I. I:MPLOYIIIII:I'IT OPPOHT~ 1'I1l'\' CQMMISSIIIN Sun). 111.1';01 on;" ~ FintA,oru.. s."" 41~1
l;ettll., WMhillClun 9!lltl~_lIK,1
'..,.i. . r'''pho~ (206) JZM~~, l~, (lIl611JO~ 11 Tllll, (~220-6882

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 26 Filed 06/15/2004 Page 7 of 7

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21 22
23
24 25
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- PAGE 7

U.S. EQUAL EMPI,(IoVIIr1I:NT n'FOKTlINI:rY COJolMIS.IQN Suit'" III,t.kt om" 'Ilfl ~.."AY""" ~ ~oo
~...u", w..hnst"" !lIlJ~4 Will
"r.l.ph....: (l(J!,) 22~_61gj
h",I"OIo: (lIK.):lltl-WII Tnl); (lllf,)lll'_~i2

 
 Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 45 Filed 07/01/2004 Page 1 of 12

_(NTE/!£!) -RECEIVED
JUl I - 2004

The Honorable Marsha Pechman

6

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

11 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

) )

12

Plaintiff,

I

13

and

)

5 14 ABIGAY FULGENCIO BELMONTE, a.k.•

MARlA CHAVEZ; KAREN HUNT;

)

15 ANDREA WEBER; EVA CORTEZ;

)

GREG JOHNSON; and BRADY

)

16 PROUTY,

)

17

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

18 vs.

1

19 ELDORADO STONE, LLC; ELDORADO )

STONE OPERATIONS, LLC;

)

20 TIMOTHY O'DELL; and ELMER

)

RODRIGUEZ,

)

21
Defendants.

I )

22

Case No. CV03-2768P

23

24

25

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

26

11111111111111111111111111111111111

27

03-CV _0276K-CMI'

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTtFF-INTERVENORS . Pqe I

Terry A. VI:Dneberc
Attl;lmo:y ~La'l' 625 Commerce Slrc:r;t Sllilc460
T11ro1ll1l. WA 9114<l2
rm) :;;12,3'167 (lS3) :512-3662 &x

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 45 Filed 07/01/2004 Page 2 of 12

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS

1

COMES NOW plaintiff-intervenorS Abigay Fulgencio Belmonte, a.k.B.. MlU'ia Chavez. Karen

2 Hunt, Andrea Weber~ Eva Cortez, Gr-eg Johnson. and Brady Prouty, by and through their counsel of

3 record. Kelllleth R. Friedman, ofthe Law Offices ofFriedman, Rubin & White, and Terry A. Venneberg, 4 ofthe Law Offices ofTerry A. Venneberg~ Attorney at Law, and by way ofcornplaint against defendants

5 Eldorado Stone, LLC, Eldorado Stone Operations, LLC, Timothy O'Dell and Elmer Rodriguez, and state
6 and allege as follows:

7

1. Plaintiff-intervenors Abigay Fulgencio Belmonte, a.k.a. Maria Chnvez, Karen Hunt, Andrea

8 Weber, Eva Cortez, Greg Johnson, and Brady Prouty (hereinafter "intervenors") are residents ofthe State

9 of Washington over the age of eighteen (18) years, and are in all respects qualified and competent to

10 maintain this action.

11

2. At all ",levant times, defendants Eldorado Stone, LLC, and Eldorado Stone Operations, LLC,

12 have continuously been limited liability companies doing business in the Statl! of Washington and have

13 c:ontinuously had at least 15 employees. At all relevant times, defendants Eldorado Stene, LLC, and

14 Eldorado Stone Operations, LLC, have continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting

IS commeroe within the meaning ofSeotions 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII" 4l: U.S.C. §§ 2000<-(b), (g) 16 and (h).

1

3. At an relevant times, defendants Eldorado Stone, LLC, and Eldorado Stone Operations, LLC,

18 have constituted a "single employer" for purposes Ofliability for unlawful employment practices under

19 Title VII, 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000. 'I, seq. At all relevant times, defendants Eldorado Stone, LLC,

2 (hereinafter "Eldorado Stone Parent"), and Eldorado Slone Operations, LLC, (hereinafter "Eldorado

21 Stone Operations"), have had an integrated economic relationship, and have e:x:ercised common control

22 over employment practices. All references herein to Eldorado Stone Opm.tions as the employer of 23 plaintiff~intervenors shall not constitute a waiver ofthe allegation, expressly made here, that Eldorado

24 Stone Parent was also an employer of plaintiff-intervenors for purposes of liability Wlder Title VllllIld

25 other applicable laws. 26

27 28
FiRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Of PLAtN11FF·INTERVIiNORS· Ptt~ 1

Terry A. V<eilDebel'):
Anomer l1i.Jw 625 C~rcc Swet Sllik: 460 TlICOTTl~ WA 98402 1~3) 572..J4ii1 (i5]) 512·3662 fax

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 45 Filed 07/01/2004 Page 3 of 12

4. Upon information and belief, defendant Timothy O'Dell is over the age ofeighteen (18) years

1 and has been. at all relevant times, a supervisor at the Carnation, Washington facility of defendants

2 Eldorado Stone Parent and Eldorado Stone Operations.

3

5. Upon information and belief, defendant Elmer Rodriguez; is ovez the age of eighteen (18)

4 years, and was, at all relevant tilm=S, a .supervisor at the Carnation, Washington facility of defendants

5 Eldorado Stone Parent and Eldorado Stone Operations, Upon information iU1ld belief, the employment

6 of defendant Rodriguez at defendant Eldorado Stone Paront and/or Eldorad<J' Stone Operations ended 7 in March 2003.

8

6. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the agency of the United States of

9 America charged with the administration, interpreta.tion and enforcement of ~ntle VII, and is expressly

10 authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) ofTill. VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000Oo5(f)(I).

11

7. The EEOC has alleged in this aotion that defendants Eldomdo Slone Parent and Eldorado

12 Stone Operations engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Carnation, Washington facUity in

13 violation of S""tions 703(a) and 704(') of Tille VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000.-2(.) and 3(a), by subjetting

14 Maria Chavez and Karen Hunt to sexual harassment, constructively discharging Karen Hunt and

15 subjecting Andtea Weber; Eva Cortez, Greg Johnson and Brndy Prouty to retaliation for opposing the

16 discrimination directed against Chavez and Hunt.

17

8. As the "aggrieved persons" in the IUJlawful employment practices alleged by the EEOC,

18 Chavez, Hunt, Weber, Cortez, Johnson and Prouty (hereinafter "Intervenors") are entitled to intervene

1'9 in this action, under Section 706(1)(1) of Tille VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
20 u.s.c. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Intervenors have satisfied all requirements corn:eming exhaustion of

21 administrative remedies and all conditions precedent to the institution of their claims.

22

9. Porngn.ph' 1 tim>ugh 10 of the First Amended Complaint filed by the EEOC in this action

23 are incorporated by reference as iffully set out herein.

24

25

26

27 28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAtN11FF·INTERVENORS· PIlt~:3

Terry A. VenDebell
Allomey II Law
6::!~ Conuner« Street Suile 460 TICOllla WA 518402
(233) 312-3%1 (2~3) S72-3662 fax

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 45 Filed 07/01/2004 Page 4 of 12

Factual Bas;kground

1

10. Intervenor' Karen Hunt began working for Eldorado Stone Corporation in 1999. In 2000, by

2 virtue ofa clumge in the business structure ofthe Eldorado Stone companies, Hunt's employer became

3 Eldorado Stone Operations. On or about June 10, 2002, Hunt was com~.el1ed to resign from her

4 employment at Eldorado Stone Operations by the actions ofElmer Rodrigue,;, a co-worker. Rodriguez 5 engaged in offensive and unwelcome conduct towards H1lnt, serious enou~:h to affect the term.s and

6 conditions ofher employment. Rodriguez constantly grabbed Hunt, and made sexual remarks to herthat

7 were very offensive. Rodriguez also came to the residence occupied by Hllnt on sevetal occasions, 8 claiming he was ~'in the vicinity," and tried to hug Hunt. Rodriguez was pushl~ away by Hunt, and told 9 to stop.

10

11. Huntcomplained about Rodriguez;s conduct on several occasions to Sandi Gifford, whowas

11 her supervisor until May 2002. Giffordhad also complained about Rodriguez, and his sexually hElI'a5sing

12 conduct towards her. Gifford sent a letterto Hwnan Resources at Eldorado Stone Operations concerning

13 Rodriguez and his actions. Neither O'Dell nor anyone in Human Resources took any :action to prevent

14 ROdriguez's harassing conduct, either towards Hunt or Gifford, or remedy in any way the sexual

15 harassment being encountered by Hunt. Because ofRodriguez's continuing harasSing conduct, and the

16 failure by defendant Eldorado Stone Operations to effectively prevent or remedy the harassment after

17 being informed oftbat conduct, Hunt was left with no choice but to resign her employment at defendant

18 Eldorado Stone Operations. Hunt was therefore constructively discharged from. her position at defendant

19 Eldorado Stone Operations.

20

12. Intervenor Maria Chav.. began work at defendlillt Eldorado Sto". Operation, on or about

21 August 23, 200!. In May 2002, Rodriguez began to seXually h"""" Chavez, making inappropriate

22 sexual remarks to her regarding her breast size, among other topics. Rodriguez;s sexually harassing
23 conduct towards Chavez increased over time. On August 8, 2002, Rodriguez abducted and. assaulted

24 Chavez, driving her to a motel against her will for the purpose of having sexual relations. When he

25 arrived at the motel, Rodriguez attempted to physically remove Chave. from the vehicle in which they 26

27 28
fiRST AMENDED COMI'LAINTOF PLAlNT(FHNTERVENORS - Page"

Terl')' A. Vellnebllrg
A.\'lQmq It Law V25 Commcrco Street Sliite "'60 TlI(ItJmll WA 98401
(253) '72-3461 (2S~) m,·~662 fa

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 45 Filed 07/01/2004 Page 5 of 12

were riding, sexually fondling and assaulting Chavez in the process. Only when several motel

1 employees noticed Chavez struggling with Rodriguez did he stop and drive Chavez home. This event

2 caused Chavez severe emotional traUMa.

3

t 3. On or about August 31, 2002. Chavez filed assault charges with the police concerning her

4 August 8 encounter with Rodriguez, A restraining order was sUbsequently issued against Rodriguez,

5 Chavez reported theincidentto bet supervisor, Andrea Weber, and the Plant Manager, dc;:fendant O'Dell,

6 on September 4, 2002.

7

14. Intervenors Andre. Weber, Eva Corte", Greg lolmson and Brady Prouty were all co-workers

8 ofChavez: at the time ofher complaint to Eldorado Stone Operations management regarding the August

9 8 incident. On September 4, 2002, the same day 1hnt Chavez reported the August 8 incident, Eldorado

10 Stone Operations management, including defendant O'Dell, held a meeting with workers at the Eldorado

II p1an~ including Weber, Corte",lolmson, and Prouty. When the participants in the meeting were asked

12 by Eldorado Stone Opemtions management about Rodrigue", and what action should be taken regarding

13 his assault on Chave:z:, Weber, Cortez, Johnson and Prouty all spoke in support of Chavez, and noted

14 Rodriguezjs past history of sexually harassing conduct at Eldorado Stone Operations.

15

IS. After speaking with Rodriguez and Chavez, as well as their en-workers in the meeting

16 described above, Eldorado Stone Operations management, including defendallt O'Dell, stated that they 17 were unable to conclusively determine whether Chavez's account ofthe Augu:~t 8incident was accurate
j
18 and that no action should be taken against Rodriguez. This conclusion was f4:ached in spite of the fact

19 that Eldorado Stone Operations management had been aware ofRodrigllez's previous history ofsexual

20 harassment, and therefore had knowledge of his propensity to engage in unwelcome sexual overtureij

21 towards his female co-workers and subordinates. Eldorado Stone Operations management, including

22 defendant O'Dell, concluded that Rodriguez was "too valuable ofan employ.., to lose," and the incident

23 should be put to rest.

24

16. On September 6, 2002, two days after they had spoken in support of Chavez regarding her

25 complaint against Rodrigue", Weber, Cortez and Prouty were all tenninated from their employment by 26

27
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAfNTlFF·INTERVElNO~S -1'Il0l(:'

Terry A. Verm.ebtrg Attorney It LIW 615 COlllmC~ Stztel
SuiUl 460 Tacoma WA 9!M0l
(153) m·3467
om m·~6Q IU

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 45 Filed 07/01/2004 Page 6 of 12

defendant Eldorado Stone OperatiollB and by their supervisor, defendant Timothy O'Dell. On

1 September 11, 2002, after retuming from a vacation. Johnson was also terminated from his employment

2 by defendants Eldorado Stone, and by his supervisor, defendant Timothy O'Dell. At the time of their

3 terminations, Weber, Cortez. Prouty and Johnson were all employees ingood standing at Eldorado Stone

4 Operations. Cortez and Johnson had recently received "Employee of the Quarter" awards at Eldorado

5 Slone Operations, nnd Johnson had been given a series ofwage increases duril1g his time as an Eldorado 6 Stone Operations employee. Weber~ Cortez, Prouty and Johnson were !tIl tenninated from their

7 employment at Eldorado Stone Operations as a direct result of, and in retalia'tion for, their expressions

8 of support for Chavez in her harassment complaint against Rodriguez.

9

17. Defendant Eldorado Stone Parent thereafter conducted an investigation of the scxua1

10 harassment complaint made by Chavez against Rodriguez. Defendant Eldorado Stone Parent concluded

II that Rodriguez's behavior towards Chavez on or about August 8, 2002 was "completely unacceptable."

12 DefendantEldorado Stone Parent also concluded thatRodrigucz's "'activities 'were in direct contrast with

13 the commitment of this company to ensure all employees can work in an environment free of

harassment." Defendant Eldorado Stone Parent concluded that Rodriguez should be demoted as aresult 15 of his; conduct towards Chavez~ Rodriguez decided to resign from Eldorado Stone Parent in lieu of

16 accepting his demotion.

17

First Cause gfActjQQ

18

Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000.-2(0) and -3(a)

19

t 8. Paragraphs 1 through 17 as set out above are incorporated by reference herein.

20

19. From at least January 2002. defendants Eldorado Stone PlIIent and Eldorado Stone

21 Operations engaged in unlawful employment practices at the EldoradQ Stone facility in Carnation,

22 Washington with reference to the emplQyment ofIntervenors by subjecting Maria Chavez and Karen 23 Hunt to sexual harassme:nt~ constructively diSCharging Karen Hunt and subjecting Andrea Weber, Eva

24 Cortez, Greg Johnson and Brady Prouty to retaliation for opposing the discrimination directed against

25 Chavez and Hunt. . 26

27
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF·INTERVENORS - PIlIp 6

T~lT)' A. VC!lInebtrg
Attam~ at Law n, Q!mlllerce Street Suite 4/iO TaC<lml WA 9&4(l2 (253) $72..3467 (2S3) S71·J.6~ flPI

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 45 Filed 07/01/2004 Page 7 of 12

20. The unlawful employment practice. engaged in by defendants Eldorado Stone Parent and

I Eldorado Stone Operations constitute a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 20000-2(.), which prohibit. the

2 discharge ofany individual, ordiscrimination against any individual with respect to terms and conditions

3 of employment, because of such individual's sex, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), which

4 prohibits discrimination against any employee because they have opposed an unlawful employment
S practice, or beca~se they have assisted or participated in any inv~stigati.on. proceeding or hearing

6 concerning an unlawful employment preetice.

7

21. A•• direct and proximate re.ult of the violation, of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and -3(.) by

8 defendants Eldorado Stone Parent and Eldorado Stone Operations) Intervenors Hunt, Weber, Cortez,

9 Johnson and Prouty have incurred and will to continue to incur damages for lost wages and benefits,

10 loss ofearning capacityl emotional distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience and loss of

11 enjoyment of life, as well as other special and general harm, in an amount tl) be proven at trial. As a

12 direct and proximate re.ult of the violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by defendant, Eldorado Stone

13 Parent and Eldorado Stone Operations, Intervenor Chavez has incmted and will continue to incur

14 damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, and loss ofenjoyment

1S of life, as well as other general harmt in an amount to be proven at trial.

16

22. Defendant. Eldorado Stone Parent and Eldorado Stone Operations are also liable for an

17 a"e.sment of punitive demage., due to its violations of 42 u.s.c. § 20000(2:)(0) and -(3)(a), and their

Ig malicious and reckless conduct in doing so, in an amount to be proven at triEu..

19

Second Cause of Action

Violations of RCW 49 60 180 20

23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 as set ou1 above are incorporated by reference herem. 21

24. Jurisdiction ofthis court is invoked fortbis claimj and all claims 'brought under the laws of 22

the St.te of Washington, underprovi.ions of28 U.S.C. § 1367. 23

25. RCW 49.60.180 provides in pertinent part that "'it is an unfair pr,actice for any employer". 24

to discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions (If employment
25

because of... sex..." 26

27 28
FIRST AMeNDED COMt'LAlNT OF PLAINTIFF.JNTEA.VEl\IORS .. Page '1

Terry A. VtDDeberg
Attorney at I.aw 62S Colllml:ltt Suw. &.Lit<: 4(;1) TIB:OIruII WA 9.11M12 (253) m·J4157 aSJ) S72·J66ll'ax

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 45 Filed 07/01/2004 Page 8 of 12

26. By sUbjecting Intervenors Chavezand Hunt to different terms and ¢onditions ofemployment

1 based on their sex, defendants Eldorado Stone Parent and Eldorado Stone Operations violated RCW

2 49.60.180. and is civilly liable for said violations.

3

27. By subjecting Intervenor Chavez to different terms and conditions ofemployment based on

her sex, defendant Elmer Rodriguez. as Chavez's supervisor at Eldorado Stone Operations, violated

5 RCW 49.60.180, and is civilly liable for said violation.

6

28. As a direct and proximate result ofthe violation ofRew 49.60.180 by defendants Eldorado

7 Stone Parent and Eldomdo Stone Operations, Intervenor Hunt has incurred and will to continue to incur

8 damages for lost wages and benefits, loss of earning capacity, emotional dilitrfiss, pain and suffering, 9 humiliation, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment ofllfe, as well as other s~x:ial and general hann, in

lOan amount to be proven at trial As a direct and proximate result of the violation ofRCW 49.60.180 by

11 defendants Eldorado Stone Parent, Eldorado Stone Operations and Rodriguez, Intervenor Chavez; has

12 incurred and will to continue to incur damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, humiliation,

13 inconvenience iIDd IQSS Qf -enjoyment of life, as well as other general harm, in an tunount to be pt'oven

14 .t trial.

15

Third C8U§C of Action

16

Violations ofRCW 49.60.21Q

17

29. Paragraphs 1 through 28 as set out above are incorporated by reference herein.

18

30. RCW 49.60.21 0 provides in pertinent part that, "It is an unfair practice for any employer...

to discharge, expel Or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she has opposed any

20 practices forbidden by this chapter, or because he or she has filed a charge, testified, or assisted in any

21 proceeding under this chapter.

22

31. By discharging Intervenors Weber, Cortez, Johnson and Prouty for opposing the

23 discrimination encountered by Intervenor Chavez, and for asSisting Intervenor Chavez in bringing a

24 complaint concerning that discrimination to the attention of defendant Eldorado Stone, defendants

25

26

27
28
* FIIlST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAlNTIFF--INTEFlVENOA.S· f'lIgt:

Tl:rry A. Vl:nncbere
AtlGtrIq lit LIIW
62S Commerce: SIrKl Suiw 460 TEII,l\lm, W1\ 98402 (2SJ)S71.·14ri1 (253) 512·3662 fix

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 45 Filed 07/01/2004 Page 9 of 12

Eldorado Stone Parent, Eldorado Stone Operation, and Timothy O'Dell violated RCW 49,60.210, and

are each Civilly liable for said violations.

2

32. As. (Ii""t and proximate re,ult ofthe violation ofRCW 49.60.210 by defendants Eldorado

3 Stone Parent, Eldorado Stone Operations and Timothy O'Dell, Intervenors WI~ber, Cortez, Johnson, and

4 Prouty have incurred and will to continue to incur damages for lost wages and benefits,loss of earning

5 capacity, emotional distress, pain andsuffering, humiliation, inconvenienceand loss ofenjoyment oflife,

6 as well as other special and general hann, in an amount to be proven Ilt trial.

7

Fourth Cause of Action

Assault and Battety

8

33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 as set out above are incorporated by reference herein.
9

34. As described above, on or about August 8, 2002, defendant Rodriguez physically assaulted 10

Intervenor Chavez in attempting to pull her out of his vehicle into a motel room for the purpose of 11

having sexual relations. During this phy.sicaJ assault, defendant Rodriguez also made sexual cOntact with 12

Intervenor Chavez~ touching her inappropriately for the purpose of sexual gratification. \3

35. In the period immediately prior to her cons111lCtive discharge on June 10, 2002, Intervenor 14

Hunt was constantly grabbed by defendant Rodriguez in the workplace. Def."dant Rodriguez also w<:nt 15

to Intervenor Hunt's home, and made bodily COntact with her in attempting to hug her, even following 16

her into her bedroom to do so. Intervenor Hunt made it clear to defendant Rodriguez that his consistent 17

attempts to make bodily contact with her were not welcome. 18

36. By attempting to unlawfully use force or inflict bodily injury all Intervenors Chavez and 19

Hunt, accompanied by the apparent present ability to give effect to the attempt, defendant Rodriguez 20

committed an assault upon Intervenors Chavez and Hunt. and is civilly liable: for the same. 21

37. By intentionally bringing about an. offensive contact with Intervenors Chavez and Hunt, 22

defendant Rodriguezcommitted a battery upon In~rvenors Chavez and Hunt, :md is civilly liable forthe 23

same. 24

38. As. 8. direct and proximate result of the assault and battery committed by defendant 25

Rodriguez, Intervenors Chavez and Hlmt have incurred and will to continue to incur damages for
26

27
28
~'IRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF·INTERVENORS· PAj!e 9

Ter'l)' A. VenDebe:ra:
AUOtDey &1 LIIW 62S CIIJIIme~~ &retl Sliite: 460
Tec;oma WA 98401 (2B) '12-3467 (l~~) S1M66i (lilt

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 45 Filed 07/01/2004 Page 10 of 12

emotional distress, pain and .uffeting, humiliation, inconvenience and 10•• ofeojoymeot oflife. as well

as other general harm. in an amount to be proven at trial.

2

Fifth Cause ofActjQD

3

Negljgent Hiring and Retention

4

39. Paragraphs I through 38 as set out above are incorporated by reference herein.

5

40. Defendant Eldorado Stone Operations owed 'il duty to its employ,~s, including Intervenors

6 Chavez and Hunt, to exercise reasonable care in the hiring and retention c)f supervisory personnel,

7 including defendant Elmer Rodtiguez.

8

41. Defendant Eldorado Stone Operations breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in the

9 hiring and retention of defendant Rodriguez. Defendant Eldorado Stone Operations either knew or

10 should have known of defendant Rodriguez's unfitness for a supervisory position at the time of his

11 appointment, and was negligent in continuing to retain defendant Rodriguez in a supervisory position

12 after it was reported that he was .exually haras.ing employees at Eldorado Stone Operations.

t 3

42. As a direct and proximate result ofthe negligence ofdefendant Eldorado Stone Operations

14 in the hiring and retention ofdefendant Elmer Rodtiguez, Intervenors Chavez and H1l1lt have incurred 15 and will continue to incur damages foremotional distress, painand suffering, h1lmiliation, inconvenien~

16 and loss of enjoyment of life, as well as other general harm, in an amount to be proven at trial.

17

Sixth Cause of Action

Negligent Supervision 18

43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 as set out above are incorporated beteiI'L by reference.
19

44. Defendant Eldorado Stone Operatktns owed a duty to its employl~s, including Intervenors 20

Hunt and Chavez, to exercise reasonable care in the supervision of its employees, including defendant 21

Elmer Rodriguez. 22

45. Defendant Eldorado Stone Operations breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in the
23

supervision of defendant Elmer Rodriguez. Defendant R.odrigue~ presented a risk ofhann to others,
24

including Intervenors Hunt and Chavez. Defendant Eldorado Stone Operations knew, Or in the exercise 25

26

27 28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF·INTERVENORS . Pille 10

Terry A. VenDebere
Atb;IfM)' at ~II'" 6lS Commerce SInW
Suj~460
TacDrtUI WA 9.400: (2'3) m.·3467 (lSl) S72·l~1. (8)\

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 45 Filed 07/01/2004 Page 11 of 12

of reasonable care, should have known, that defendant Rodriguez presented a risk of harm to others,

1 including Intervenors Hunt and Chavez.

2

46. As a direct and proximate result ofthe negligence ofdefendant Eldorado Stone Operations

3 in supervising defendant Elmer Rodriguez, Intervenors Chavez and Hunt have incurred and will continue

to incur damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, humiliation. inconvenience and 1055 of

5 enjoyment oflife, as well as other general harm, in an amount to be proven lit trial.

6

WHEREFORE Intervenors Abigay Fulgencio Belmonte, a.k.a. Maria Chavez. Karen Hunt,

7 Andrea Weber, Eva Corlel:, Greg Johnson and Brady Prouty pray forth. foll<lwing rellefto be granted:

8

1. That Intervenors be awarded damag.sagainst defendants Eldorado Stone Paren~ Eldorado

9 Stone Operations, O'Dell and Rodriguez in an amount to be proven at trial.

10

2. That punitive damages be assesaed against defendants Eldorado Stone Parent and Eldorado

11 Stone Operations in favor of Intervenors in an amount to be proven at trial.

12

3. That Intervenors be awarded costs,. interest and attorneys fees, as pIOvided by applicable law.

n including, but not limited to, 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

4. That such and other further reliefas this court may deem appropriate be granted.

15

16

17

DATED this I" day of July, 2004.

18

19

20

By:.__~/w~Te~ny~A~.~V~~~e~~~.=-___

21

T""Y A. Venneber~

Attorney for Plaintlff·IntervenCifs

22

WSBA No. 31348

62$ C<>mineroe Street, Suite 460

23

Tacoma, Washington 98402

Phone: (253) 572-3467

24

Fax: (253) 572-3662

E-mall: tavlaw@gwest.net

25

2

27 28
FIRST AMENDED COMPlAINT OF PLAINTIFF·INTERVENORS· Pap II

Terry A. Ve~neberl
AtttImG)' m Law
0;1:' CoIflIJ1OfCCl Stree1 Suite 460 TIk;(IIIIII: WA 9&4(l2
(2Ulm·346,7 {2Sll572·3662. fu

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 45 Filed 07/01/2004 Page 12 of 12

2 Thi, will certilY that I caused the foregoing
to be electronically filed on July 1,2004, with the court 3 wring the CMlECF system which will send
notifi.cation of such filing to:
4 Gregory A. Hendershott, Esq. Cannen M. Flores, Esq.
5 lsI Terry A. Venneberg
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26 27 28
FIRST AMENDED COMPl.AINTOf p!rA.lNTlfi'-lNTAAVENORS" ~lIfi:c 12

TlI;rry At VfDDtberg
AtlOfMY AI Law 62S ComnItr'u StJt;ct Sililc 460 TiIIGOO\II WA 984(12 (153)5n·1461 (253) sn-3662 (ax

 
 Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 69 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 1 of 7

1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6

AT SEATTLE

7

8

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11 ELDORADO STONE, LLC, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

CASE NO. C03-2768JLR ORDER

14

15

I. INTRODUCTION

16

This matter comes before the court on two motions for summary judgment from

17 Defendants Eldorado Stone, LLC (“Eldorado Stone”) and Eldorado Stone Operations

18 LLC (“ESO”). For the reasons stated below, the court grants Defendants’ second motion

19 (Dkt. # 62) and denies Defendants’ first motion (Dkt. # 33) as moot.

20

II. BACKGROUND

21

The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) brought this suit on

22 behalf of six plaintiff-intervenors who were employees at ESO’s Carnation, Washington

23 manufacturing plant. The Plaintiffs brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights

24 Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) seeking redress for ESO’s discriminatory and otherwise

25 wrongful conduct as an employer.

26

ESO is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eldorado Stone. Eldorado Stone is a holding

27 company with seven other wholly-owned subsidiaries. The combined number of

28 employees in the parent company and its eight subsidiaries (hereinafter the “combined

ORDER – 1

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 69 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 2 of 7

1 Eldorado entities”) is well over 500. It is undisputed, however, that at all relevant times,

2 ESO had 100 or fewer employees. It is also undisputed that ESO and Eldorado Stone

3 together had 100 or fewer employees at all relevant times.

4

Eldorado Stone acquired ESO on June 30, 2000. Before that, ESO or its

5 predecessors had been operating independently in Carnation since 1969. ESO had its

6 own human resources staff at all relevant times, although it appears that ESO managers

7 outside the human resources department made most substantive employment decisions,

8 including the ones at issue. Through at least August 2002, ESO handled its human

9 resources needs without assistance from Eldorado Stone. Until May 2002, when

10 Eldorado Stone hired Elizabeth Roche from one of its subsidiaries to act as a human

11 resources director, Eldorado Stone had no human resources employees. It is undisputed

12 that all of the allegedly wrongful acts of ESO took place by September 6, 2002.

13

Because the intricacies of the corporate structure of Eldorado Stone and its

14 subsidiaries in 2002 are critical to the resolution of Defendants’ motions, the court

15 reserves a review of those facts for the relevant sections of its analysis, infra.

16

III. ANALYSIS

17

ESO’s two summary judgment motions seek related relief. The first motion seeks

18 summary judgment that ESO and Eldorado Stone are not a “single employer,” and thus

19 the number of employees in the two entities cannot be aggregated for assessing damages

20 under Title VII. The second motion seeks summary judgment that even if ESO and

21 Eldorado Stone are a single employer, ESO, Eldorado Stone, and the seven other

22 subsidiaries of Eldorado Stone are not a single employer.

23

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact

24 and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56©).

25 The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue

26 of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving

27 party has met its burden, the opposing party must show that there is a genuine issue of

28 fact for trial. Matsushita Elect. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586

ORDER – 2

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 69 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 3 of 7

1 (1986). The opposing party must present significant and probative evidence to support its

2 claim or defense. Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d 1551, 1558

3 (9th Cir. 1991). Reasonable doubts as to the existence of material facts are resolved

4 against the moving party and inferences are drawn in the light most favorable to the

5 non-moving party. Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000).

6 A. The “Single Employer” Test and an Overview of the Eldorado Entities.

7

Congress has capped certain damages under Title VII depending on the size of the

8 employer’s workforce. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3):

9

The sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded under this

section for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering,

10

inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other

nonpecuniary losses, and the amount of punitive damages awarded under

11

this section, shall not exceed, for each complaining party –

12

(A) in the case of a respondent who has more than 14 and fewer than 101

employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or

13

preceding calendar year, $50,000[.]

14 The statute sets increasing damage caps, reaching its maximum for employers with over

15 500 employees, whose damages are capped at $300,000. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D). It

16 is undisputed that ESO and Eldorado Stone together employ fewer than 100 people, and

17 that more than 1,000 people work for the combined Eldorado entities.

18

The “single employer” test, sometimes called the “integrated enterprise” test, is an

19 inquiry into whether legally distinct entities (such as the parent and subsidiary

20 corporations here) nonetheless function as one employer for purposes of Title VII.1 A

21

22 1The Plaintiffs make two additional arguments. The first is that the court cannot

23 entertain a motion on the single employer issue until after a trial verdict. The court notes that

24

many courts disagree. E.g., Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1364 (10th Cir. 1993) (affirming summary judgment); Cellini v. Harcourt Brace & Co., 51 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1035

25 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (granting summary judgment). The second argument is that the Defendants’

motion, because it seeks to limit their financial exposure and facilitate settlement, “represents the 26 height of cynicism and is frankly insulting to both the process and the court.” The court

27 disagrees. Every defendant who seeks summary judgment on any issue is seeking to limit damages and to perhaps assist in resolving the case without trial. Such efforts are neither

28 cynical nor insulting.

ORDER – 3

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 69 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 4 of 7

1 four-factor test governs the inquiry. The court must consider: (1) interrelation of

2 operations, (2) common management, (3) centralized control of labor relations; and (4)

3 common ownership or financial control among the entities in question. Kang v. U. Lim

4 Amer., Inc., 296 F.3d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 2002). Common ownership and some degree of

5 common management and interrelated operations are to be expected between a parent

6 company and its subsidiary. For that reason, the most important factor in the four-factor

7 test is “centralized control of labor relations.” Id. at 815; Vance v. Union Planters Corp.,

8 279 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2002) (“we have consistently focused, almost exclusively, on one

9 question: which entity made the final decisions regarding employment matters relating to

10 the person claiming discrimination?”); Romano v. U-Haul Int’l, 233 F.3d 655, 666 (1st

11 Cir. 2000).2

12

As to the three less important factors in the test, the facts in this case are

13 unremarkable. It is undisputed that all of the entities in question have a common owner,

14 Eldorado Stone. It is also undisputed that Eldorado Stone’s current President, Michael

15 Lewis, was at one time the President of three of Eldorado’s subsidiaries (but not ESO).

16 John Bennett, the President of ESO, is also a “Vice-President of Research Development

17 and Franchising” at Eldorado Stone. As ESO president, he reports to Mr. Lewis. Some

18 other ESO managers report directly to officers at Eldorado Stone. Finally, it is

19 undisputed that Eldorado Stone has made various public statements about the combined

20 Eldorado entities. In a “Company Overview” prepared by its outside financial advisers,

21 the company stated that “As of June 30, 2002, Eldorado employed 985 individuals, none

22 of whom are unionized.” Another company statement proclaimed that Eldorado Stone

23 was created “to take what was a fragmented franchise organization and put that

24 organization under the umbrella of a platform company . . . .” Plaintiffs point to several

25 other corporate statements of a similar nature.

26

27 2Because there is limited Ninth Circuit authority on the particularized issues in these
28 motions, authority from other Circuit Courts of Appeal guides the court’s analysis here.

ORDER – 4

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 69 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 5 of 7

1

Plaintiffs’ weakest showing is on the critical “centralized control of labor

2 relations” factor. It is undisputed that Eldorado Stone had no human resources personnel

3 until it hired Ms. Roche in May 2002. It is also undisputed that prior to Ms. Roche’s

4 hiring, there was no effort to centralize human resources decisions or policies across the

5 combined Eldorado entities. Although Ms. Roche was hired to begin the process of

6 integrating human resources across the combined entities, she started slowly. She did not

7 visit ESO until August 2002. While there she made general suggestions to ESO

8 managers. Plaintiffs do not attempt to show that any of those general suggestions

9 impacted the wrongful conduct at issue in this case. It is undisputed that Ms. Roche was

10 not informed about any of the allegedly wrongful acts that took place at ESO on or before

11 September 6, 2002. No one at ESO consulted with Ms. Roche or anyone at Eldorado

12 Stone before the last of the allegedly wrongful acts.

13

After the Plaintiffs made their initial complaints,3 ESO informed Ms. Roche, and

14 she became heavily involved in directing ESO’s response to the allegations. She hired

15 outside counsel, conducted an on-site investigation of Plaintiffs’ complaints, and made

16 reinstatement offers to several of the terminated Plaintiffs.

17

As to the rest of the Eldorado Stone subsidiaries, Plaintiffs make no showing of

18 centralized control of labor relations, other than to claim generally that Ms. Roche visited

19 each of the subsidiaries in June and August of 2002. Ms. Roche’s deposition testimony

20 shows only that she visited one other subsidiary in June 2002, and was a human resources

21 employee at another subsidiary before assuming her position at Eldorado Stone.

22

23

24

25

26

27 3It is not clear from the parties’ briefing whether these were complaints to the EEOC or
28 another regulatory body.

ORDER – 5

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 69 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 6 of 7
1 B. Plaintiffs Have Not Offered Sufficient Evidence that the Combined Eldorado Entities Are a “Single Employer.”
2 The court finds that Plaintiffs have not made any showing of centralized labor
3 control across the combined Eldorado entities at the time of the wrongful acts. As
4 Defendants point out, in order to treat the combined Eldorado entities as a single
5 employer, the court must apply the four-factor test to the relationship between each
6 subsidiary and Eldorado Stone. Plaintiffs have largely failed to provide evidence about
7 Eldorado Stone’s relationship with each subsidiary.
8 Although Plaintiffs provide some evidence that Eldorado Stone has made great
9 strides toward integrating human resources control over its subsidiaries, those strides
10 came after the alleged wrongful conduct at ESO. The four-factor “single employer” test
11 should be applied to the corporate enterprise as it existed when the alleged discrimination
12 occurred. Vance, 209 F.3d at 446; Alberter v. McDonald’s Corp., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1138,
13 1142 (D. Nev. 1999). The focus on the corporate relationship at the time of the wrongful
14 conduct recognizes that the Title VII damage caps exist, in part, because smaller
15 workplaces usually lack the financial resources to sustain full-scale human resources
16 departments. Vance v. Union Planters Corp., 209 F.3d 438, 446 (5th Cir. 2000).
17 Plaintiffs ask the court to combine each of the seven non-ESO subsidiaries, but offer no
18 evidence that these entities were an integrated enterprise with respect to labor relations on
19 or before September 6, 2002.
20 Plaintiffs succeed in showing that the combined Eldorado entities are under the
21 same corporate umbrella, but this is to be expected in any parent-subsidiary relationship.
22 Courts require something more before declaring that corporate entities are an integrated
23 enterprise. Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1362 (10th Cir. 1993) (discussing
24 “strong presumption that a parent company is not the employer of its subsidiary’s
25 employees”); Lusk v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., 129 F.3d 773, 778 (5th Cir. 1997) (noting
26 same “strong presumption” and that “[c]ommon management and ownership are ordinary
27 aspects of a parent-subsidiary relationship.”). Plaintiffs paint a picture of a parent
28
ORDER – 6

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 69 Filed 11/02/2004 Page 7 of 7

1 corporation with unremarkable relationships with its subsidiaries, while failing to provide

2 evidence from which a jury could find in its favor on the crucial element, centralized

3 control of labor relations across the combined entities. For that reason, the court finds

4 that the combined Eldorado entities are not a “single employer” as a manner of law.

5 C. The Defendants’ First Motion is Moot.

6

The court’s ruling that the combined Eldorado entities are not a “single employer”

7 determines Defendants’ second summary judgment motion, and in turn moots their first

8 motion. The relief that Defendants seek is a ruling that places them within Title VII’s

9 lowest damage cap category. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(A). Because the combined

10 Eldorado entities are not a “single employer,” the largest potential “single employer” is

11 the combination of Eldorado Stone and ESO. That combination had less than 100

12 employees at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct, and thus would fall under the

13 lowest damage cap. For that reason, the court need not decide whether Eldorado Stone

14 and ESO are a “single employer, and thus it need not reach Defendants’ first motion. The

15 motion is denied as moot.

16

IV. CONCLUSION

17

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary

18 judgment. (Dkt. # 62). Defendants’ second motion (Dkt. # 33) is DENIED as moot.

19

Dated this 1st day of November, 2004.

20

21

s/James L. Robart

________________________________

22

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 7

 
 Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 74 Filed 12/13/2004 Page 1 of 3

1

!t!iO..~..l.iG..,(O

_lN1E.n[D _R,CllVEO

2 1lEt. \ 1200~

HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

III~III~IIIDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~III~

5

11111111111111111111111111111111111

6

03-CV-0276K-ORD

7

g

IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR TIlE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10 )

II

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

C1VIL ACTION No. CV03-2768R

12 COMMISSION,

)

13

Plaintiff,

)

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF

)

DISMISSAL

14

and

) )

15 MARIA CHAVEZ, KAREN HUNT,

)

ANDREA WEBER, EVA CORTEZ, GREG )

16 JOHNSON and BRADY PROUTY,

)

)

17

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

18

v.

) )

19 ELDORADO STONE, LLC, ELDORADO ) STONE OPERAnONS, LLC, TIMOTHY )

20 O'DELL and ELMER RODRIGUEZ,

)

)

21

Defendants.

22

STIPULATION

23
TJ IE PARllES, by and through their undersigned COWlSel of record, hereby stipulate and

24 agree that the above-entitled matter should be dismissed with prejudice and without an award of

25
attorneys' fees or costs to any party. Pursuant to a court order dated December 2, 2004~ the

STIPtJ1.ATJON AND ORDER Of v ISMISSAL- I
CV03-2168R

DORSEY" WHITNEY LLP
1).5, B• .nc IW!I.tJI>jQ cmnl:!
[420 I'IFntAWNIII!, SUmi !HOO
SEATTU!, WASHINGTON 9BIOI
PIIot<:B: 00IS)900·8100 F~' {105) 9OJ-~lm

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 74 Filed 12/13/2004 Page 2 of 3

Court has retained jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the Consent Decree.

2

DATED this 10" day of Deeember, 2004.

3 4 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP

5

6 s/Gregory A. Hendershott Gregory A. Hendershott, WSRA #27838
7 Attorney for Defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC, 8 Eldorado StQne Operations~ LLC, Timothy O'Dell and
Elmer Rodrigue?,
9

10 LAW OFFICES OF TERRY VENNEBERG

II

12 slIerrv A. Venneberg

13

Terry A. Ve"~eberg. WSBA #31348 Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors Maria Cru.vez,

14 Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty
and Andrea Weber

15

16 I'RIEDMAN. RUBIN & WHITE
17

18

19

slKenneth R. Friedman
Kelllleth R. Friedman. WSBA #17148

20 Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors Maria Chavez>

Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty

21 ""d ~dre. Weber

22

23

24

25

STlPULA"(lON N'lD ORnER OF DISMl&1l.AL - 2 CV03·27li8R

DORsl.v &: WHITN1!.Y LLJI
]4"" tJ.S.IlANK IWILPlNOc...-,...
IH~ Fll'TH 'VENUE, SQIIR SBATI1.Jl., WASIBNG"IOO W;\Dl
1'00HB: (:'IlII)90l.!!OO
flW<:12{\Iij!'I'J:I·ggl~

Case 2:03-cv-02768-JLR Document 74 Filed 12/13/2004 Page 3 of 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2

PUIl!uant (0 the foregoing stipulation, it is hereby ORDERllD that the above·-enlitled

3 matter is dismissed with prejudice and without an award of attorneys fees or costs to any party.

4 The Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for purposes ofenforcing the Consent Decree.

5

DATED this IJ.I,t, day of [)".,.,,\g .,."

, 2004.

6

7
8 Presented by:
9 10 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP

The Ho orable James L. Robart

11 "Gregory A. Hendershott
12 Gregory A. Hendershott, WSBA #27838 Attorneys for Defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC,
13 Eldorado Stone OP.rations, LLC, Timothy O'Dell and Elmer Rodriguez
14
15 Approved as to Fonn; Notice of Presentation Waived:

16 LAW OFFICES OF TERRY VENNEBERG
17

18 sfI'elTY A. Venneberg

Terry A. Venneberg, WSBA#31348

19 Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors Maria Chavez,

20

Eva Corter,.,. Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty and Andrea Weber

21

22 FRIEDMAN, RUBIN & WHITE

23
slKenneth R. Friedman 24 Kenneth R. Friedman, WSBA #I7I48
Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors Maria Chavez, 25 Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty
and Andrea Weber

SllPULAliON AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 3 CV'!)]-2768R 4819-88()g.5iJ 16\1 lUI M()(}4

DoR&F.Y & W'HITNBY UP
tJ 3_ EI""'" trlITI.llIN!; Cem"" 14~" PIPIlIAVENlIIl, StlI!I!:HOI) SIlATILl!. WA.SIUNGTON 9BIOI
PI«m": ~ 90J.8BO{1
FAJI.~!lIlJ.,'m

 
 .,

1

HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

2 A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. REGIONAL ATTORNEY 3 KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORN~;Y
CARMEN FLORES. SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY
4 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 5 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 220-6920
6

_ IIIIU __ ENTERED _LODGED ._RECEIVED

CLfR'( II', 11. -ii '11'.. 1 COURT W~:;;I,,;,. ' .. _" "":"~"\"""-~I--itI\IGTOf'4

6'(

"',~"IJn'

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRlCT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

9

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

11

Plaintifl',

12

v.

13 ELDORADO STONE, LLC, and ELDORADO STONE OPERATIONS, LLC,

14

Defendants,

15

and

16 ABiGAY FULGENCIO BELMONTE, a.k.a. 17 MARIA CHAVEZ; KAREN HUNT; ANDREA
WEBER, EVA CORTEZ; GREG JOHNSON;
18 and BRADY PROUTY,

19

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

) CASE NO. CV03-276SJLR )
) )
) CONSENT DECREE AND ) [i'ROi'OSED] ORDER OF ) DISMISSAL
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
; 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
l 11111111111111111111111111111111111

20

v.

)

03-('V-02768-U1W

)

21 ELDORADO STONE, LLC; ELDORADO

)--)

22 STONE OPERATIONS, LLC; TIMOTHY

)

O'DELL; and ELMER RODRIGUEZ,

)

23

)

Defendants.

)

24 - - - - - - - - - - - )

25

CONSENT DECREE - PAGE I

\I.~. J:QUIt.I. IUIII'r.OVM F:NT O'I'ORn'~'IlTY ~01\l1\l18S10N
S••j,lo DI.... ! om ••
QDQ "l'" A."..... SuiIC" 400 & •• ",- WII<hini\un ~!1{H-I061
Toi",,_ ('~~1220-63!lJ F"~imil,, (1~6) 2l0-M011
roo: (Z06) WI_IIlIHl

I. INTRODUCTION

2

L

This action originated with lIiscriminalion chru-ges filed by Maria C. Chavez1

3 Karen Hunt, Eva Cortez, Andrea Weber, Greg Johnson and Brady Prouty ("Charging Parties')

4 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Charging Parties alleged that

5 ELDORADO STONE, LLC ("Eldorado Parent") and ELDORADO STONE OPERATIONS,

6 LLC, ("Eldorado Stone") discriminated against them on the basis of sex by subjecting them to

7 sexual harassment, retaliation, and/or constructive discharge, in violation ofTitl~ VII of the Civil

8 Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title Vll"), 42 U.S.c. § 2000e ct seq.

9

2.

The rmoe sent Defendants Eldorado Parent alld Eldorndo Stone a Letter of

10 Detennination with findings of reasonable caJ,lse that it had violated Title VII.

11

3. The Commission filed this lawsuit on September 5, 2003 in the United States

12 District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of the charging parties.

13

4. The EEOC~ Charging Parties, Defendant Eldorado Parent, Defendant Eldorado

14 Stone, Defendant O'Dell, and Defendant Rodriguez want to conclude all claims of the charging

15 parties without expending further resources in contested litigation.

16 II. NON-ADMISSION OIl LIABILITY AN IJ NON-DIJ:TIJ:RMINATION BY THE COURT

17

5. This Consent Decree is not an admission of wrongdoing or an adjudication or

18 finding on the merits of the case. This Consent Decree shall not be used as evidence of liability

19 or for pUIposes of res judicata 01' collatenll estoppel in any legal proceeding against any

20 Defendant. Neither the agreement to enter this Dccree, nor the Dccree shall be admissible in any

21 proceeding as an admission by any Defendant of any violation of, failure to comply with, 22 interference, retaliation or obstruction of compliance with Title VII or any other employment law
23 OY ordal'.

24

25

CONSENT DECRlili ·l'AGE 2

LU'.I:QUA I. 1:~IPI.on"I:IIIT {]PP(lKTIINITY I:OIltI\.1 L~NL"l'I ~"LjL. DI• .,ioi (l1TI•• 'IIL'I FI'LL:A....... Nw.. 40LI
~_... W"hnpm ~KIt>4·loc.l
·1~1'I'Jl<"": 1211(,) llO-MHJ P,..,..lo: IlIHIlllIHi9L I
TOD: /206\220·6W.j

1

III. SETI'LEMENT SCOPE

2

6.

This Const:":nt ~cree is the final and complete resolution of all Title VII

3 alkgatiomi ofunlawful employment pmctices contained in the complaint filed herein on behalf of

4 the charging partics by the EEOC including all claims for attorney fees and costs. The terms of

5 this Consent Decree shall apply to employees at Defel1dant Eldomdo Stone's Carnation,

6 Washington facility. The Consent Decree resolves <Ill issues and claims arising out of this

7 Complaint <md is binding and final as to all such issues and claims.

8

IV. JURlSDICTION i\ND VENUE

9

7.

Jurisdiction ofthi~ Court i~ invoked punmant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337,

10 1343 and 1345. Plaintiff EEOC's action is authorized pursuant to Section 706(£)(1) and (3) of

11 mle VII of the Civil Right, Act of 1964, a, amended, 42 U.S.c. §§2000e-5(f)(I) lllld (3) and

12 2000e-6 ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act ufl991. 42 U,S,C, §.l981a, The

13 employment practices alleged to be unlawful in the EEOC's Complaint tiled herein occurred

14 within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District ofWa!iliinglon.

15

V. DEFINITION OF TERMS

16

For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall app:.y:

17

8. "TIle Effective Date of the Consent Decree,j is the date the United States District

18 Court for the Western District ofWa!iliingtoll at Seattle enlers the Consent Decree f.nd

19 (Proposed) Order of Dismissal.

20

9.

Unless otherwise indicated~ the wOrn "days" refers to calendar days.

21

10. "Formal or Infonnal Complaints" includes any complaint, whether written or oral;

22 made to a manager or supervisor with the Defendant.

23

11. "Defendant Eldorado Stone" is deflned as being Eldorado Stone Op(~rations. LLC,

24

25

CONSENT DECREE - PAGE.]

UK EqUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTl:NI'I'V COMMISSION SnUIo DI...I.,; orn••
90'1 Fu.iA""..... S,,;,o 400 S.otllo,W~ %IGoI..IOIiI
TeI<phono: (2061220 6W F,,,,i..I.: (lM):I20 6911
'1 DO: flOti) 2206882

- - - - - - - --- .---------~---.------

1

VI. MONETARY RELIEF

2

12. In s~lement ofthe EEOC's and the PJaintiff~lntervener's claims in this lawsuit,

3 Defendant Eldorado Stone has agreed to pay the Charging Parties the lotallump sum 0[$475,000

4 on behalf of all Defendants.

5

VII. INJUNCTNE RELIEF

6

A. Compliance with Title VII

7

13. Defendant Eldorado Stone reatllnns its commitment to comply with Title VII. To

8 further this commitment, the Defendant Eldorado Stone shall monitor the affinnative obligations

9 of this Consent Decree. The terms of this Consent Decree apply to all employees 0 f Defendant

10 Eldorado Stone as defined above.

II

14. Defendant Eldorado Stone will not retaliate against any employee f()r 0pp0'5ing a

12 practice deemed unlawful by Title VII or for making a. charge, testifying, assisting, ,;:'f

13 participating in any investigation, proceeding, or llearing associated with this action.

14

15. Defendant Eldorado Stone, its officers, agents, ;,md employees are hereby enjoined

15 from engaging in personnel practices which unlawfully discriminate against applicants and

16 employees in violation of Title VII. In recognition of its obligations under Title VU:, Defendant

17 Eldorado Stone will institute the policies and practices set forth below.

lH

B. Re--distribution of Enhanced Sexual Harassment and Complaint Procedures

19

16. Defendant Eldorado Stone will distribute the expanded sexual harassment policy

20 (attached as Exhibit 2) in English and Spanish to all employees within 45 days after entry of this

21 decree.

22

17. This policy will be distributed to all pres.ent and future employees, both

23 management and non-management, in Defendant Eldorado Stone's fucilities, beginning 45 days

24 after entry of this decre~ and continuing for the duration of the decree. Distribution to temporary

25 employees may com;ist of notification of the existerJce and the location of the policy.

CONSENT DECREE· PAGE 4

t'.:>.II:QUAL ~MrLQYMII:NT OrrQRTVNIl'Y COMMISSIO:< S.. tlil Ill,t.kt QfII.. ~I)\II''''' A••-.S.ilo.....,
St.ftlt" W.,h'••,<),. ~~'"'·l"'"
T<I"""I\IIC:{;!iII;J~"]
Fh¢t"I~I,: (l~~J pl).lm , HlP: U~~Jll~""'I'1!ol

1

18. Defendant Eldorado Stone affinns the tbllowing "Statement ofZerorTolerance

2 Policy and Workplace Objective:;;":

3

Eldomdo Stone is firmly committed to developing and maintaining a zcro-

4

tolerance policy concerning sex discriminati.on, sexual harassment and retal iation

5

against individuals who report di!'.cnminatioll or harassment in the company's

6

workplace; to swiftly and firmly responding to any acts of sex discrimination.,

7

sexual harassment or retaliation ofwhid the company becomes aware; t(l

8

implementing a disciplinary !l."')'stem that is designed to strongly deter future acts of

9

sex discrimination, sexui.1.1 h<l:nu;.Sment Or retaliation; and to actively monitoring its

10

workplace in order to enSure tole[ance~ respect and dignity for all people.

11

19. In order to effectuate the objectives embodied in the Defendant Eide-cado

12 Stone's Statement of Zero-Tolerance Policy and Workplace Objectives and this o,ecree,

13 the Defendant Eldorado Stont'! will ensure Ihe following policies, procedures, and

14 practices are in effect:

15 (al Complaint Pmcedmes.

16 (i) Defendant Eldorado Stone agrees that it will provide the
17 name, job title, work location, and telephone number of the
18 rnanagement employees charged with investigating such

19

issues in its written expanded sexual harassment policy.

20

That information will also be routinely and continuously

21

posted. If the name or designation of the management

22

employees charged with investigating issues of sexual

23

discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation change,

24

dC±endant will rc-post his or her name, job title, work

25

localion, and telephone numheL Also as part of its

CONSENt l>BCKbE, pAGE.5

U_S_ III)U-"-L o;MPLnYM.o;l'IT UPI'" .. 1-UH r..- CUM MISSION
Sn,tI. DI"cr" ulliu 9(Ioj Fir... A......... SU". ~OO 5,",,1.. W••bio.gton 9jllM-I061 Toktohon.' (:106) 220)-6gg~
F,ooimilo' (:l;(l6-) l;2(l-!?11 mD, (:m!)l:!O--6l~l

procedllre, Defendant Eldorado Stone agrees that it shall

2

keep a Complaint Box in the employee cafeteria,

3

lunchroom, or other place within Defendant Eldorado Stone

4

premises where employees tend to gather and which j,s not

5

in tbe managerial area of Defendant Eldorado Stone' 1;

6

otliccs. The management employees designated by

7

Defendant Eldomdo Stone as charged with investigating

complaints of discrimination will gather the complaillts 8

from the Complaint Box. 9

10

(ii) Defendant Eldomdo Stone agrees that it shall enable

II

complaining parties to be interviewed by Defendant

12

Eldorado Stone aboul their complaints in such a manner

13

that pcnnits the complaining party, a.t such party's election~

14

to remain inconspicuous lO all of the employees in such

party's work area. Defendant Eldorado Stone agrees that 15
its complaint procedure shall not impose upon individuals 16
seeking to make a complainl alleging sex discrimination, 17
sexual harassment and/or retaliation any requirements that 18
are more burdensome th..m are imposed upon individl1als
19 who make other complaint.. of comparable gravity.

20

21

(iii) Defendant Eldom.do Stone agrees thai it shall ensure that its

22

policies and procedures provide that complaint handling

and disciplinary procedures regarding all complaints of sex 23
discrimination, sexual hamssment and/or retaliation arc 24
investigated mld addressed promptly. Specifically.
25

CONSENT DECREE -PAGE 6

U,S. EQUAL EMPLOYMEIH OPPORTUNITY CO~tMIS51Ur;
So.It!. [1101<101 om.,.
'I{ICl Finl A.,..." SIIik; 400 &>01 k. W...hn".,,,, 9!1(I4·1('(01
r,\oph."", (206Ill~""'M, F....",IiI.,('l(l6ll)a-(o\III
TllII~ (206) ll~~~l

1 Defendant Eldorado Stone agrees that it shall investig,:Lte all

2

complaints of sex discrimination., sexual harassment imd/or

3

retaliation promptly and to complete inves.tigations within

4

three (3) weeks. Defendant Eldorado Stone will further

5

make its best effort to prepare its written findings of lhe

6

results of each investigation and the remedial actions

7

proposed within seven (7) days after completion ofthe

investigation, and shall thereupon promptly communicate
8 to the complaining party the results of the investigation and
9 the remedial actions taken or proposed, ifany. Sl\ch
10 communication will reasonably take into account the
11
privacy of the accused,

12

13

(iv) Defendant Eldorado Stone agrees that it shall make its best

14

effort to ensure that appropriate remedIal action is taken to

resolve complaints and to avoid the occurrence of sex 15
discrinrinatian, sexual harassment and/or retaliation. 16
Defendant Eldorndo Stone further agrees that it shall 17
provide [ar subslantial discipline up to and including
18
tennmatioll -- including, but not limited to, suspensions
19 without pay as a possible consequence for violations of its

20

sexual harassment policy.

21

22

(b) Policies Designed Ta Promate Supervisor Accoontability.

23

(i) Defendant Eldomdo Stone agrees that it shall impose

24

substantial discipline -- up to and including demotion,

25

suspension without payor termination upon any supervisor

CONSENT DECREE - PAGE 7

tI..'i.EOtiAL EMrLO'!:MENT OrrQKTlNITY COMMISSION S~"1I1r D<i'lrkl 0111•• 'I'» Fir.. AT...... SUllo.fOO
8,0111•• W••h~ 'I'IIi04·iOr.ii TeIqlh.n'. 1'1Il6) :l:!'Hiil Fu,,""';I.: ~J 2:W_1~1I 'rill): (206,:l:%O_QilIl

1 or manager who engages in sex discrimination or sexual

2

harassment or pennils any such conducl to uccur in his or

3

her work area or among employees under his or her

4

supervision, or who retaliates against any person who

5

complains ur participates in any investigation or proceeding

6

COllceming any such conduct. Defendant Eldorado Stone

7

shall communicate ihis policy to all of its supervisors and

managers, 8

9

(ii) Defendant EldoI"ddo Stone agreet; that it shall continue to

10

advise all managers and supervisors of their duty to actively

11

monitor their work areas to ensure employees' compliance

12

with the company's sex discrim:ination and harMtsIheJ'lt

13

policy. and to report any incidents andlor complaints of sex

14

harassment, sexual harassment and/or retalia.tioo of which

they become aware to thc dcpartment charged with 15
handling such complaints.
16

17

(iii) Defendant Eldorado Stone agrees that any failure to comply

18

with this policy will be considered in evaluating its

19

managers, including when they are being considered for

20

promotions.

21

(c) Sexual Harassment Training,

22

23

(i) Defendant Eldorado Stone agrees that it shall continue to

provide annual sex discrimination and sexual harassment 24
training to all employees, and supervisors; to provide sex 25

CONSENT DECREE ·PAGE!j

II.N. t:Q\J .... KMI".QVM F.NT Ql'r(lRTVl"lTY (,QIIIM1S~I"N
~'."1I' I);••• i<' QIJi« "U'J Fl... ",Y""". """'4'"' s",tt.o. W..w.,!I'OI1 ""'.... '00' nl'r""""'J""'I"u..MoI:I
u",lI1ul<' pur'I"O-lHll
TIll>: J2Oh) ""."••,

1 discrimination and sexual harassment training to all new

2

employees dudflg employee orientation; to provide sex

3

discrimination and sexual harassment lllining to all senior

4

managers; and to provide training to all persons charged

5

with the handling of complaints of sex discriminatiorl,

6

sexual harassment andlor retaliation in the workp!ace:. and.

7

the techniques tor investigating and stopping it. This

training shall include issues regarding sex discrimination 8
and sexual harassment 3!o! it may affect employees and/or
9 customers of Defendant Eldorado Stone_ Oefendant
10 Eldorado Stone understands and agrees that this training,
11 particularly that directed toward.. senior managers, may
12 require one~on-one training or educational sessions.

13

14

(il) Defendant Eldorado Stone agrees that all training re~,uired

by this Decree shall be conducted in both English and
15
Spanish by educators, consultants or attorneys experienced 16
in the area of sexual harassment training. 17

18

(iii) Defendant Eldorado Stone agrees that it shall require

19

Eldorado l'arent's Human Resources Director to intmduce

20

the annual sexual harassment training to communicate

21

Defendant Eldorado Stone's commitment to its Statement

22

of Zero-Tolerance Policy and an.ti-harassment policy,

23

24

25

CONSENT DECREE - PAGE 9

\I,R, HQ1IAL ~MFL.(l~M"'1'I1 OI'P'ORTUNITY COMMI~~ION S.. ull Dlo.."II,Hlloc 9011 Pi"'l A"""", ~"I" 41~1
So.ttl.. W...hinJ:lo" 9,,0)4.111(,1 T.I~ (2%) lln.(,~~;
r,o,inik: (206) W).HIII
roD: ~)1J(I.r!~~l

c. Expunging Records

2

3

20. Defendant Eldorado Stone Will110t dh.close any infbnnation or makl~

references to any charges of discrimination or this lawsuit in responding to employment 4

reference requests for inionnation about Maria C Chavez; Karen Hunt~ Eva Cortez, 5
Andrea Weber, Greg Johnson and Brady Prouty, In response to any in(luiries, Defendant
6 Eldorado Stone shall provide employment references thal includes only dates of

7
employment and positions held, Eldorado Stone will provide each of the Plaintiff-

8 Intervenors a reference letter on Eldorado Stone letterhead confirming dates of

9 employment, positions held, final mte of pay, and a statement that the employee

10 "perfonlled satisfactorily," Defendant Eldorado Stone may produee persolUlcl

11 infonnation involving these charging parties jf jt is responding to any third party lawful

12 subpoena.

13 21. Defendant Eldomdo Stone will expunge from the Cbarging Parties'
14 penmnnel files, any references to a charge of discrimination against Defendant Eldorado
15 Stone and this lawsuit. Defendant Eldorado Stone will not add any infollTlation or
16 references to charging partie!;' personnel files or records regarding their charge of
17 discrimination and thjs lawsuit after &u(;h references have been expunged, Files
18 contdining infonnation about the charging parties that have been developed during the
19 subject litigation will be maintained at the offices of Defendant Eldorado Slone's counsel,

20 Dorsey & Whitney. Defendant Eldorado Stone will make the charging parties' personnel

21 files available for inspection by their counselor thi.': individual charging parties either at
22 the Defcndant Eldorado Stone's Carnation facility or at the offices ofDorscy & Whitney.

23

24 25
CONSENT DECREE - "PAGE 10

V.S. EQVAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORT,'N lTV ':OMMI~im:lI~
Nullio D,,'rl<t tln'ln ~ fiTtt Av<IU•• ~..m. 400
1;o1l11.. w..hiIp>r. 9~1~,1~1 l'eIophon.: (:l1l6) ~~(t ~UJ
~.osUuil.: JlI.Ici) m~m TDD: (206)~~2

1 D. Reporting
2
Six months following the entry ofthig Decree and every six months 3
thereafter for the duration of the Decree, Defendant Eldorado Stone will send the EEOC a 4
written reporl of individuals who complained of sexual hUTa.llsment during the prior six5
month period, along with an explanation as to all actions taken with regards to sud 6
complaints.
7

8

23. Detbldant EJdorooo Stone shall submit a final report to the EEOC 3D days

9 before the Consent Decree expires containing a statement that it has complied with all the 10 terms of this Consent Decree.

11

E. Posting

12 24. WiU1in two (2) weeks after entry ofthi!> Decreej Defendant Eldorado Stone
13
shall post a notice ill the form of Exhibit 1 attached to this Decree in prominent ane
14 conspicuous looation(s) in or near the employee cafeteria. lunchroom Of other place
15 within Defendant Eldorado Stone's fdcilities where employees tend to gather. The notice
16 shall n':main posted tor the duration of this Decree. In the event that the perSons and/or
17 departments to whom individuals should make complaints alleging discrimination and/or
18 retaliation change during the term (lfthe Decree, such lha[ the intbnnation contained on

19 the notice is no longer accurate, Defendant Eldorado Stone shall illU11ediately prepare a

20 new notice that contains the correct infonnation. Defendant Eldorado Stone shall

21 thereupon promptly replace the old notices with the revised notices. Defendant Eldorado

22 Stone shall maintain a copy of this decree in its Personnel Office for any employee who

23 wishes to review it.

24 25
CONSENT DECREE -l'AG.I::i 11

t'."il,rQV-'lI. !~11'1 (IYltr.NT nrPIlKHINl1l1 (:OIllMISSION
~..,t.. Dill..., om••
'JI~J I'j"I....""'11<o Sui" 400
~..ro.. W''''''S'''" 'IIIID4.JO/iJ '~I.pJ""'c: (lll~) 220 611l ~...I...., (llH» l2D ~ll
I'LJl): (l06) llD as:!

1 VIII. ENFORCEMENT

2

3

25. If tIle EEOC concludes that Defendant Eldorado Stone has breached this

agreement, it maybdng an action in the United States District Court for the Western 4
District of Washington at Seattle to enforce this Consent Decree, Before bringing ~!n 5
action for breach of the Decree, the EEOC shall first give Defendant Eldorado Stone ten 6
(10) days notice. The EEOC and Defendant Eldorado Stone shall use that lO-dayperiod
7 [or good faith efforts to resolve the matter.

9

IX. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

10

26. The United Sta\.es District Court for the Western District of Wasbington at

11 Seattle shall retain jurisdiction uver this matter for the duration ofthe Decree.

12
X. DURATION ANI) n:RMINATION 13

14

27. This Decree shall be in cflcct for three (3) years, commencing with the

15 date the Decree is filed. 1fthe EEOC petitions the Court for breach of agreement, aud the 16 court find~ Defendant Eldorado Stone to be in violation of the terl1l£ of the Consent 17 Decree, the court may extend this Consent Decree.

18

19
20

21

22

23

24 25
CONSENT DECR~E • ('AGE 12

(',Ii, EQUAL EMPLOYMJ:"'T orrORTtrNIlY COMMISSION ~..11" lll.lr1<l om••

",•• ~fi""",""",<,~,'''¢''''

~""1;

~!ot'.,. \l(Il04-L""

"""""10' HI<"'lo"" P%)nll",""' (LOl.) no.r,.",

TllD: !''''-,)TI<I-I>II"'

I XI. CONCLUSION
2
28. The provisions of this Consent Decree are not binding on the parties until
3
the authorized representatives for the Plaintiff EEOC and Defendant Eldorado Stone sign 4
and the court enters the Consent Decree in !he court. ;

6

DATED this ~ day of_ _--"D"ec.,er"n'"b"."'r.~ 2004.

7

A. LUIS LUCERO. JR.

Regional Attorney 8

9

KATHRYN OLSON

Supervisory Trial Attorney

10

CARMEN FLORliS

11

Senior Trial Attorney

ERIC S. DRlEBAND General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Coum,ei

12

By: lSI A. Luis Lucero

13

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

14

COMMISSION

Seattle District Office

I;

909 First Avel.1ue~ Suite 400

Oflice of the General Counsel

Seattlej Washington 98104

16

Telephone (206) 220-6920

J!jOI "Ljj Street, N.W. WashingtOn. D.C. 20507

17

18

BY: lSI GrelWlY Hendershott Gregory Hondershott

19

DORSEY & WHITNEY

1420 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 3400

20

Seattle, WA 98101-3920

Attorneys for Defendant

21

Telephone: (206) 903·8729

22

23

24
25
CONSENT DECREE· PAGE 13

u.s. EQU ... L EMI'LOYMENT OrrOIl-T~II'I'TY <:,O\lM'NN''''''
<' NUl"" 01".. ',ffl..
'J~" FIt"- ..."","", Mli.,OOO ~p"l; w''''''~lnn '111,,,4.10111
T<I",""",,,: (1m,) TIo.6IIiI)
~.",iMiI<: (iM~ :tlu-&lll TOO: (2Q6}11G-6SS2

I ORDf.R

2

3

Tll.c Court having considered the foregoing stipulated agreement of the parties. IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the foregoing COl1sent decree be, and the same is,
4

approved as the final decree of Ihis Court in full settlement of this action. Tbis lawsuit is 5

hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any party. The 6
Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for purposes of enforcing the consent decre(~

7 approved herein.

8

9

DATEDthis .I,..J.. dayof A~~ ,2004.

10

II

12
UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDG);
13

14

15

16

17

18

19
20

21
22

23

24
25
CONSENT DECREE ·I'AGE 14

\J.~. ~QV'"

~Mrl,I;IV"lI.lNT OrrOR1l.INIIT ,=,OM~II:;:SION

"".j S..1I1e IIlo1r"l om,.

'09

!i.VOIUO, ~"i"400

3rot~., W",h~o" 9~l04 IIJliI

ToI"""",o; (2IJOll~O 6BBJ

&.milo: (20<) 220·691 J

TDI). (lOll) lZ(l·68B2

ELDORADO STONE, LLC, and ELDORADO
STONE, OPERATIONS, LLC.
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES POSTED PURSUANT TO A CONSENT DECREE
This notice has been posted pursuant to an Order of the Court, approving the Consent Decree entered in resolution of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC) against Eldorado Stone, LLC ("Eldorado Parent'1 and Eldorado Stone Operations, LLC ("Rldorado Stone';) on September 5, 2003 in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, CY-03-2768JLlt. The Consent Decree resolves EEOCs claims of sex discrimination and retaliation against Eldorado Jlarent and Eldorado Stone and enjoins Eldorado StOlle from certain conduct prohibited by law. Eldorddo Stone denies the allegations of the l-mOC and affinns its commitment to compliance with laws against discrimination.
Federal law and the Consent Decree prohibit discrimination against any individual because of his or her sex.
Federal law aloo prohibits retaliation against any individual by an cmploycr because of the individual complains of discrimination, cooperates with any Eldorado Stone (Jf government investigation of a charge of discrimination, particlpates as a wjtness or potential witness in any investigation or legal proceeding, or otherwise exercises his or her rights under law.
Any employee who is. found to have retaliated against any other employee because such empl(}yee participated in this law!:luit will he subject to subfitantial discipline, up to and including immediate discharge.
Employees have the right to bring oomplaints of discrimination and/or hamssment to the U.s. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission! Seattle DistTict Office at 909 1" Avenue, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98104-1061, 206/220-6883, 1-800-699-4000! or the W<lshington Human Rights COIIllllission at 711 S. Capital Way, Suite 402, Olympia, WA 98504-24901 360/7536770.
Thi!j is an official notic~ ;ilnd shall not be defaced by anyQn~. This notice !:iihall remain pJ:"ominently posted in the employee lunchroomfbreak room at all Northwest region facilities for Eldorado Stone until 11/31107, This Official Notice shall not he altered, defaced, covered or obstructed by any uther material.
EXHIBIT 1

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY
It is the policy of the Company to provide equaJ employment opportunity for all applicants and employees; as well as independent contractors, without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex., age, ancestry, marital status, status as a Vietnam-cra veteran, or physical or mental disability, u..'!e of a trained guide dog as required under applicable state / federal employment laws. We will provide reasonable aaommodation, as required, for the
known physical or mental limitation of an otherwise qualified disabled employee.
Employees are reminded that the Company will not tolerate, and specifically prohibits, any employment-based retaliation against anyone who brings a complaint of discrimination or who speaks as a witness in the investigation of a complaint of discrimination. Anyone found to be engaging in any type of unlawful discrimination or retalia.tion will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including immediate tennination of employment.
STATEMENT OF ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY AND WORKPLACE OBJECTIVES
The Company is fimlly committed to developing and maintaining a zero-tolerance policy concerning sex discr,lmination, sexual harassment and retaliation against individuals who report discrimination or harassment in the company's workplace; to SWiftly and finnly responding to any acts of sex di!lcrfm1natioll, sexual harassment or rebliation of which the company becomes aware; to implementing a disciplinary system that is designed to strongly deter future acts of sex discrimination. sexual humssment or retaliation; and to actively monitoring it~ workplace in order to ensure tolerance, respect and dignity for all people.
POLICY AGAINST HARASSMENT
In keeping with the ZeTO tolerance policy, the Company maintains a strict policy prohibiting unlawful harassment on the basis of any legally pmtecled status. (Please refer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, above).
Types of harassment may include: epithets, slurs, negative stcreot)'ping, tbreats, intimidation, hostile ac;t~ nr denigrating or hostile written or graphic material posted or circulated in the workplace.
Any employee who thinks that he or she has been harassed, should report the incident to one of the following individuals, or their successor, as posted from time-to-time: Human Resources Coordinator Wen Santana (wsanlana@eldoradostone.com, (ph.) 425333.6722), Plant Manager Dave Poiricr (dpoirier@eldoradostonc.com, (ph.) 425.333.6722), or Parent Company Eldorado Stone" LLC' s Human Resources Director Elizabeth Roche (eorche@eldorado,tone.com, (ph.) 760.736.3232).
EXHIBIT 2 - Page 1 on

SEXUAL HARASSMENT Sexual Hara~sment includes, but 11:> not limited to, unwanted sexual advanc\~s, or visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature_ Specifically, no supervisor shall threaten or insinuate either explicitly or implicitly that an employee's submission to or refusal to submit to sexual advances may affect any condition orlhe employee's employment. Other sexually harassing conduct in the workplace, whether committed by supervisors or non-supervisory personnel, is also prohibited. This includes sexual flirtations, propositions, Or other words or conduct of a sexual nature which lIlay interfere with work perfonuancc or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Any employee who thinks he or she has been sexually harassed by a supervisor, another employee, or agent of the company, should report the facts 10 hislher supervisor, the plant manager, or the Director of Human Resources.
INVESTIGATION AND NON-RETALIATION Every harassment complaint will be investigated thoroughly and promptly, and the Company will attempt tD keep the investigation conlidential to the ex1e"t possible, If appropriate, disciplinary action will be taken against the harasser up to :md including tel1Jlination. Employees are assured that no employee who reports an incid~:J1t of aJleged harassment or who participates in an investigation of sexual harassment will be punished or otherwise retaliated against in any way. Employees who feel they have been retaliated against or witne!;s any retaliation shall use the above complaint procedure. Employees are expected to cooperate fully in any investigation.
EXHIBIT 2 - Page 2 of 2

 
 WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 1 of 12

CLOSED, PROTO
U.S. District Court WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (Seattle) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03-cv-02768-JLR

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Eldorado Stone LLC Assigned to: James L. Robart Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/05/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by A Luis Lucero, Jr EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1061 206-220-6883 Email: LUIS.LUCERO@EEOC.GOV LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carmen Flores EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1061 206-220-6883 Email: carmen.flores@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Blaire Olson EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1061 206-220-6883 Email: kathryn.olson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?993414809060315-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 2 of 12

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Brady Prouty
Intervenor Plaintiff Greg Johnson
Intervenor Plaintiff Eva Cortez
Intervenor Plaintiff Andrea Weber

represented by Terry Allen Venneberg 1126 HIGHLAND AVE STE 101 BREMERTON, WA 98337 360-377-3566 Email: tavlaw@qwest.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth R Friedman FRIEDMAN RUBIN & WHITE 1126 HIGHLAND AVE BREMERTON, WA 98337 360-782-4300 Fax: FAX 1-360-782-4358 Email: kfriedman@frwlaw.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry Allen Venneberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth R Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry Allen Venneberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth R Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry Allen Venneberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth R Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?993414809060315-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 3 of 12

Intervenor Plaintiff Karen Hunt
Intervenor Plaintiff Maria Chavez
Intervenor Plaintiff Abigay Fulgencio Belmonte
V. Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC

represented by Terry Allen Venneberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth R Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry Allen Venneberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth R Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kenneth R Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Allen Venneberg (See above for address)
represented by Gregory A Hendershott DORSEY & WHITNEY (SEA) 1420 5TH AVE STE 3400 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206-903-8800 Email: hendershott.greg@dorsey.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kandis M Baldwin DORSEY & WHITNEY (SEA) 1420 5TH AVE STE 3400 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206-903-8800 Email: baldwin.kandis@dorsey.com LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?993414809060315-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 4 of 12

Defendant
Elmer Rodriquez also known as Luis Rodriquez

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael W Droke DORSEY & WHITNEY (SEA) 1420 5TH AVE STE 3400 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206-903-8800 Fax: FAX 903-8820 Email: droke.michael@dorsey.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M Clinton DORSEY & WHITNEY (SEA) 1420 5TH AVE STE 3400 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206-903-8800 Fax: FAX 903-8820 Email: clinton.richard@dorsey.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth L Van Moppes DORSEY & WHITNEY (SEA) 1420 5TH AVE STE 3400 SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206) 547-4800 Fax: (206) 547-4801 Email: evanmoppes@workplacecounselor.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth L Van Moppes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory A Hendershott (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kandis M Baldwin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael W Droke

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?993414809060315-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 5 of 12

Defendant Timothy O'Dell
Defendant Eldorado Stone Operations LLC

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M Clinton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth L Van Moppes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory A Hendershott (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kandis M Baldwin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael W Droke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M Clinton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory A Hendershott (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth L Van Moppes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/05/2003
10/08/2003
10/09/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMAND against defendant Eldorado Stone LLC (Summons(es) issued) (Receipt # fee waived - USA) , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(PM, ) (Entered: 09/11/2003)

2 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT Joint Status Report due by 11/19/2003. by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (Goldberg, Rachel) (Entered: 10/08/2003)

3 SERVICE OF SUMMONS and Complaint returned executed upon

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?993414809060315-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 6 of 12

11/28/2003 12/01/2003 12/04/2003 12/08/2003 12/11/2003
01/12/2004 01/12/2004
01/27/2004 01/29/2004 02/10/2004 02/25/2004 02/27/2004
03/22/2004

defendant Eldorado Stone LLC on 10/7/2003. (MD, ) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
4 ORDER Joint Status Report due by 12/10/2003. by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (Goldberg, Rachel) (Entered: 11/28/2003)
6 ANSWER to Complaint by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC.(AF, ) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
5 MOTION to Intervene. Noting Date 12/26/2003. (Friedman, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
8 JOINT STATUS REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN filed by all parties. Est. Trial Days: 10 - 12 days. (LS, ) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
7 ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES; Length of Trial: 10-12 days. Jury Trial set for 12/13/2004 before Hon. Marsha J. Pechman; Joinder of Parties due by 1/8/2004; Amended Pleadings due by 6/11/2004; Expert Witness Disclosure due by 6/16/2004; Motions due by 7/16/2004; Discovery due by 8/16/2004; Dispositive motions due by 9/14/2004; Settlement conference to be held by 10/14/2004; 39.1 Settlement Report due by 11/15/2004; Motions in Limine due by 11/17/2004; Pretrial Order due by 12/1/2004; Pretrial Conference set for 12/3/2004 10:00 AM before Hon. Marsha J. Pechman; Trial briefs to be submitted by 12/8/2004; Voir dire/jury instructions due by 12/8/2004; by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (AF, ) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
9 ORDER granting 5 Motion to Intervene by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (AF, ) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
10 Intervenor COMPLAINT against Eldorado Stone LLC, Timothy O'Dell, and Elmer Rodriquez, filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Maria Chavez, Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty, and Andrea Weber. (AF, ) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
11 NOTICE of Unavailability for Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC from 1/26/04 to 2/8/04 (MD, ) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
12 PRAECIPE to issue summons to defendant by Intervenor Plaintiffs. (AF, ) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
13 SERVICE OF SUMMONS and Complaint of Plaintiffs-Intervenors returned executed upon defendant Elmer Rodriquez on 2/7/2004. (Temp1, ) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
14 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC. (MD,Trish ) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Kandis M Baldwin, Richard M Clinton, Michael W Droke, Gregory A Hendershott on behalf of Defendants Eldorado Stone LLC, Timothy O'Dell, Elmer Rodriquez (AE, ) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
17 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Defendant Elmer Rodriquez.

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?993414809060315-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 7 of 12

03/25/2004 03/26/2004 06/03/2004
06/03/2004 06/10/2004 06/10/2004 06/10/2004 06/10/2004 06/15/2004 06/15/2004 06/15/2004 06/15/2004

(MD, ) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
16 STIPULATION of parties for Protective Order. (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
18 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD, ) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
19 First MOTION to Amend 10 Intervenor Complaint by Intervenor Plaintiffs Maria Chavez, Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty, Andrea Weber. Noting Date 6/18/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed First Amended Complaint# 2 Proposed Order)(Friedman, Kenneth) Modified docket text (named attachments) on 6/4/2004 (AF, ). (Entered: 06/03/2004)
20 DECLARATION of Terry A. Venneberg filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Maria Chavez, Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty, Andrea Weber re 19 First MOTION to Amend 10 Intervenor Complaint (Friedman, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
21 STIPULATION of parties and (Proposed) Order Extending Deadline for Expert Witness Reports. (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
22 Stipulated MOTION and [Proposed] Order ON EEOC'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Noting Date 6/10/2004. (Flores, Carmen) Modified text on 6/14/2004 (AF, ). (Entered: 06/10/2004)
23 [Proposed] First AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant Eldorado Stone LLC, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Flores, Carmen) Modified text on 6/14/2004 (AF, ). (Entered: 06/10/2004)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 22 Stipulated MOTION ON EEOC'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 23 Amended Complaint. (Flores, Carmen) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
25 STIPULATION AND ORDER on EEOC's first amended complaint and adding of the additional deft without prejudice re 21 Stipulation by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD, ) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
26 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant Eldorado Stone Operations LLC, Eldorado Stone LLC , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(MD, ) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
27 RESPONSE Defendants' Conditional Opposition to Motion to Amend filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 19 First MOTION to Amend 10 Intervenor Complaint (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
28 DECLARATION of Gregory A. Hendershott in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 27 Response to Motion Defendants' Conditional Opposition to Motion to Amend (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-D# 2

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?993414809060315-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 8 of 12

06/15/2004 06/16/2004 06/16/2004
06/16/2004 06/16/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/18/2004 06/23/2004

Exhibits E-I)(Hendershott, Gregory) Modified text on 6/17/2004; named attachments (AF, ). (Entered: 06/15/2004)
29 PRAECIPE to attach document re 27 Response to Motion Defendants' Conditional Opposition to Motion to Amend (PROPOSED ORDER ) by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC. (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 28 Declaration, : per phone call from counsel, attachments 1 & 2 will be redacted and refiled. (KN, ) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
30 DECLARATION of Gregory A. Hendershott in SUpport of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 27 Response to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended# 2 Exhibit Amended)(Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
31 REPLY, filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Maria Chavez, Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty, Andrea Weber, to Response to 19 First MOTION to Amend 10 Intervenor Complaint (Venneberg, Terry) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
32 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS re 21 Stipulation Expert Witness Disclosure due by 8/2/2004; by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD, ) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
33 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC. Noting Date 7/9/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
34 DECLARATION of Gregory A. Hendershott in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
35 DECLARATION of Elizabeth Roche in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
36 DECLARATION of John Bennett in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
37 PRAECIPE re 36 Declaration of John Bennett please substitute the attached in place of the unsigned copy filed yesterday by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC. (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
38 NOTICE by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC that the following is RENOTED: 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC Noting Date 7/16/2004. (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered:

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?993414809060315-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 9 of 12

06/24/2004 06/28/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/02/2004 07/13/2004 07/13/2004 07/13/2004

06/23/2004)
39 Answer of Defendants Eldorado Stone, LLC and Eldorado Stone Operations, LLC to First Amended Complaint of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Eldorado Stone LLC.(Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
40 ORDER GRANTING re 19 DEFTS' CONDITIONAL OPPOSITION TO First MOTION to Amend 10 Intervenor Complaint filed by Greg Johnson, Maria Chavez, Karen Hunt, Eva Cortez, Brady Prouty, Andrea Weber by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD, ) (Entered: 06/28/2004)
41 First MOTION for Extension of Time Pursuant to Rule 56(f) by Intervenor Plaintiffs Maria Chavez, Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty, Andrea Weber. Noting Date 7/16/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Venneberg, Terry) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
42 First DECLARATION of Terry A. Venneberg filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Maria Chavez, Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty, Andrea Weber re 41 First MOTION for Extension of Time Pursuant to Rule 56(f) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Venneberg, Terry) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
43 NOTICE by Intervenor Plaintiffs Maria Chavez, Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty, Andrea Weber of Filing First Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attached First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff-Intervenors)(Venneberg, Terry) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
45 Intervenor AMENDED COMPLAINT , filed by Abigay Fulgencio Belmonte, Maria Chavez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Andrea Weber. (MD, ) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
44 NOTICE OF JOINDER by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission JOINING 41 First MOTION for Extension of Time Pursuant to Rule 56(f) for Continuance to Respond to Defendant Eldorado Stone's Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Flores, Carmen) (Entered: 07/02/2004)
46 RESPONSE, by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC, to 41 First MOTION for Extension of Time Pursuant to Rule 56(f) (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
47 DECLARATION of Gregory A. Hendershott in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension Under Rule 56(f) filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 46 Response to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B# 2 Exhibit C# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D)(Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
48 PRAECIPE to attach document (Proposed Order) Denying Plaintiffs' Rule 56(f) Motion re 46 Response to Motion by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order Denying Plaintiffs' Rule 56(f) Motion)(Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 07/13/2004)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?993414809060315-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 10 of 12

07/15/2004
07/15/2004 07/15/2004 07/16/2004 07/16/2004
07/16/2004 07/21/2004
08/02/2004 08/02/2004 08/09/2004
08/11/2004

49 REPLY, filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Abigay Fulgencio Belmonte, Maria Chavez, Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty, Andrea Weber, TO RESPONSE to 41 First MOTION for Extension of Time Pursuant to Rule 56(f) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Venneberg, Terry) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
50 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, TO RESPONSE to 41 First MOTION for Extension of Time Pursuant to Rule 56(f) (Flores, Carmen) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
51 REPLY, filed by Defendants Eldorado Stone LLC, Eldorado Stone Operations LLC, Timothy O'Dell, Elmer Rodriquez, TO RESPONSE to 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
52 SURREPLY filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 41 First MOTION for Extension of Time Pursuant to Rule 56(f) (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
53 Supplemental DECLARATION of Terry A. Venneberg filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Abigay Fulgencio Belmonte, Maria Chavez, Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty, Andrea Weber re 41 First MOTION for Extension of Time Pursuant to Rule 56(f) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Venneberg, Terry) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
54 Defendants' ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint 1st Amended by Eldorado Stone LLC.(Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
55 First MOTION for Extension of Time to complete Expert Disclosure and Expert Discovery STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER Extending Deadline for Expert Witness Reports by Intervenor Plaintiffs Abigay Fulgencio Belmonte, Maria Chavez, Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty, Andrea Weber. Noting Date 8/13/2004. (Friedman, Kenneth) Modified on 7/23/2004, corrected description of document, removed from motion calendar. (KN, ). (Entered: 07/21/2004)
56 ORDER granting 41 Motion for Extension of Time and Renoting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment for 9/3/2004; by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RG, ) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
57 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA upon Julie Bishop served on 7/27/04. (MD, ) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge James L Robart for all further proceedings. All future pleadings should reflect the change in the case caption as follows: C03-2768JLR. Judge Marsha J. Pechman no longer assigned to case; by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RG, ) (Entered: 08/09/2004)
58 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Elizabeth L Van Moppes on behalf of Defendants Eldorado Stone LLC, Elmer Rodriquez, Timothy O'Dell, Elmer Rodriquez, Eldorado Stone Operations LLC (Van Moppes,

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?993414809060315-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 11 of 12

08/27/2004
09/02/2004 09/02/2004 09/14/2004 09/14/2004 09/14/2004 09/14/2004 09/29/2004

Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/11/2004)
59 RESPONSE, by Intervenor Plaintiffs Abigay Fulgencio Belmonte, Maria Chavez, Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty, Andrea Weber, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Roche Deposition Excerpts# 2 Exhibit Roche Deposition Exhibits# 3 Exhibit Bennett Deposition Excerpts# 4 Exhibit Bennett Deposition Exhibits# 5 Exhibit 30(b)(6) Deposition Excerpts# 6 Exhibit Dearing Deposition Excerpts# 7 Exhibit Sideris Deposition Excerpts# 8 Exhibit Santana Deposition Excerpts# 9 Exhibit Lewis Deposition Excerpts# 10 Exhibit Lewis Deposition Exhibits# 11 Exhibit Timeline# 12 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Friedman, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
60 REPLY, filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC, TO RESPONSE to 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2nd Declaration of John Bennett)(Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
61 DECLARATION of Gregory A. Hendershott in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-D to Declaration of Hendershott in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment)(Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
62 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Issue of the Applicable Damages Cap by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC. Noting Date 10/8/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hendershott, Gregory) Modified on 9/15/2004 to edit docket text (ECS, ). (Entered: 09/14/2004)
63 DECLARATION of Dave Schaefer filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Executive Payroll# 2 Exhibit Certificates of Formation)(Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
64 DECLARATION of John Bennett filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
65 DECLARATION of Erica McKnight filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit # 12 Exhibit)(Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
66 RESPONSE, by Intervenor Plaintiffs Abigay Fulgencio Belmonte, Maria Chavez, Eva Cortez, Karen Hunt, Greg Johnson, Brady Prouty, Andrea Weber, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kenneth Friedman# 2 Exhibit A-1# 3 Exhibit A-2# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit E# 8 Exhibit F# 9 Exhibit G# 10

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?993414809060315-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 12 of 12

10/07/2004 10/07/2004 11/02/2004
11/12/2004 12/02/2004 12/03/2004 12/10/2004 12/13/2004

Exhibit H# 11 Exhibit I# 12 Exhibit J# 13 Exhibit K# 14 Exhibit L# 15 Exhibit M# 16 Errata N# 17 Exhibit O# 18 Exhibit P# 19 Exhibit Q# 20 Exhibit R# 21 Exhibit S# 22 Exhibit T# 23 Exhibit U# 24 Exhibit V# 25 Exhibit W# 26 Exhibit X# 27 Proposed Order)(Friedman, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
67 REPLY, filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC, TO RESPONSE to 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
68 DECLARATION of Gregory A. Hendershott in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Eldorado Stone LLC re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
69 ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the Court re 33 DENIED AS MOOT- MOTION for Summary Judgment for Defendant Eldorado Stone, LLC filed by Eldorado Stone LLC; 62 GRANTS MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Eldorado Stone LLC, by Judge James L. Robart. (MD, ) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
70 MINUTE ORDER - Having advised the clerk of a tentative settlement, the Court strikes the Dec. 13, 2004 trial date. In the event the case has not settled by Jan. 14,2005, the Court directs counsel to submit a written status report.(CC, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
71 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Consent Decree and Order of Dismissal by parties. (Attachments: # 1 exhibit # 2exhibit)(Flores, Carmen) Modified text on 12/3/2004 (MD, ). (Entered: 12/02/2004)
72 CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge James L. Robart. (MD, ) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
73 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER of Dismissal by parties. (Hendershott, Gregory) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
74 STIPULATION AND ORDER of dismissal with prejudice and without an award of attorneys fees or costs to any party re 73 Stipulation filed by Eldorado Stone Operations LLC, by Judge James L. Robart. (MD, ) (Entered: 12/14/2004)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

07/04/2006 14:17:03

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: peters

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:03-cv-02768-JLR

Billable Pages: 8

Cost:

0.64

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?993414809060315-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006