• •
A. LUIS LUCERO, JR., REGIONAL ATTORNEY BARBARA J_ STANDAL, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY WESLEY KATAHIRA, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 TEL: (206) 220-6864

ORIGINAL

U,S, COURTS

01 SEP 26 M111: 40

Ri:C·[) _____ ' 1:_ ~_:L~=--

CAMEhO!i ':;. BUllKE

CLERK

IDAHO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION, d/b/a SUN VALLEY COMPANY
Defendants.

) '::IV 0 1 ' 0 4 q 9 - S- BUN
) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) ) COMPLAINT ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND ) ) ) ) )
)

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 Jennifer Crick who was adversely affected by such practices. The

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that defendants retaliated against

Ms. Crick by failing to rehire her because she participated in an investigation of sexual

harassment by defendants' manager The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

alleges that defendants' retaliatory conduct caused loss of a job opportunity for Ms_

COMPLAINT - Page 1

ll.S. I!:Qll..\1... F'.IVJPI.OYMi".NT OPPORTlINITV COMMISSION
Scatdc District Office 909 rir~L Avenue, Suit'!! 400
ti~Auh.\ Wl\Bllillf:1011 ')~1I)4_1fl('1 Telephone: (206) 220_688)
Facllimilt<: (206) no 6911
TDI) (:j.()(,) ~2()-61111?

• •
Crick. Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief, including pecuniary and nonpecuniary compensatory damages and punitive damages.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 704(a), 706(f)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-3(a), 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1). 4. At all relevant times. defendants, Sinclair Oil Corporation d/b/a Sun Valley Company, incorporated in the State of Wyoming, have continuously been corporations doing business in the State of Idaho and have continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, defendants have continuously been employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Jennifer Crick

COMPLAINT - Page 2

lJ.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OpPOR'TlINITY COMI't1ISSIOIlo,'
S~~.\lWf. Ilidril::t ()ml:~ <J()<) !lim A\len~, Suile 400 Sealtll!, WlIl:ihillJ,:11.1l1 9~104-\()('1
1'¢I~llh"l1e: (:Wtl) 220_6&83 Pacsimile: (206) 220-6911
r[)[), pur,) 11.()..(,/l1\1

• •
filed a charge, initially with the Idaho Human Rights Commission, which was transferred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging violations of Title VII by defendants, Sinclair Oil Corporation, d/b/a Sun Valley Company. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
7. From at least September 1999, through July 2000, defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Sun Valley, Idaho facility in violation of §§ 703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a). Defendants retaliated against Jennifer Crick by failing to rehire her because she had participated in an internal investigation of sexual harassment of a female supervisor by her male supervisor.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Jennifer Crick of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee of Sun Valley Company because of retaliation.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Jennifer Crick.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendants, their officers,
successors, agents, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any other employment practice which discriminates and

COMPLAINT - Page 3

U.S, EQUA.L F,MPI.OYMt:NT Ol'l'OftTUNITY COMMISSION Suttle Dlslrlct Offlc~
909 Finl A"'~lIu~. Sllil~ 40n tic:mt1o::, Wa~hil'lgll1n <)SI04_1061
Teleph!me: (206) 220·6883 F;m:;irnik: (2()~) ZZl)-rtjll
Tl)D: (;0(,) 2io"(;Mio;i

• •
retaliates on the basis of sex. B. Order defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and
programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order defendants to make whole Jennifer Crick by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices.
D. Order defendants to make whole Jennifer Crick by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out~ofpocket expenses,in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order defendants to make whole Jennifer Crick by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including without limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order defendants to pay Jennifer Crick punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

COMPLAINT ~ Page 4

V,S. EQllAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTIJ"ITV COMMISf.!ION SeRttle Dl5tl'"ict Ot"fi~~
9Q~ ri!'~\ A~(;tl\l¢> S~li\¢ 4(HI ~e/lttlf, W~hington !OI8104·j061
Td~VI1l.1I1o;, (206) n.()-6~~~ I'~~imil~: pOti) :HO_ti911
TDD: (206) 220-I.iSn

. .

•

•

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

complaint.

~T~ DATED this

day of

-c2e~\eoa ber

,2001.

A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. Regional Attorney

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

BARBARAJ.STANDAL Supelifisory Trial Attorney

WESLEY KATAHIRA

Senior Tri~ At~o~mey

i . 0 .

BY:@ EQUAL

~ ~O~NT~10

~
f

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 220-6864

Office of the General Counsel 1801 "L" Street NW Washington, D.C. 20507

Attorneys for Plaintiff

COMPLAINT - Page 5

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPURTIIi"rirrV COMMISSION
St~RttI\~ Oi$tri.,:t Oflil::e 909 ~·ii'SI Avet"llle, S\lil~ 4()O !j(:mll~> Wru;hingtnn 98104_1061
Telephon~: (206) 220-6883 F;i<.;~iIllik: (206} 2~')-(1')11
1"1)1): (:lOb) i20_61182

 
 ••

•

•

IN THE UNTTED STATES DlSTRICT COURT

I,! r~

,f'1 {-: T ! 1"\ -)' ::'

., ~."

"

,,)

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

,,::::_,_~-~': n~.; it

[1'~0 I ::.~...

I·, I .:;.

3";1 _

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNTTY COMMISSION,

'.,""!"j

)

"_...J : ,"'. 'I

)

Case No. CV-Ol-0499-S-B:LW

: I•• ; ,1_,..

_

I ; , ' .:_
" .'.,
-. I

)

Plaintift:

)

ORDER

)

v.

)

)

SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION, dib/a! )

SUN VALLEY COMPANY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

-------}

The C(leui has helore it Plaintiff-Intervenor Jennifer Crick's Motion to Intervene (Docket No.4) and a Stipulated Motion t(l Intervene and to File Complaint in Intervention (Docket No. 12). Ms. Crick filed her Motion to Intervene on October 29,2001. On December 7, 2001, Ms. Crick and the parties to the above-entitled lawsuit filed the Stipulated Motion to Intervene requesting the lollowing: (I) that Ms. Crick be allowed to intervene in the lawsuit; (2) that the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims against Sinclair Oil Corporation, Sun VaHey Company, and Mike and Amy Federko; and (3) that the Court pem1it Ms. Crick to file and serve her Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
The Court has considered the Motion to Intervene and the Complaint attached as Exhihit "A" thereto, and has recognized that the parties have stipUlated t(l the Motion. As a result, the Court finds: (I) Ms. Crick has a right to intervene in this matter; (2) this Court has suppJemental jurisdiction over Ms. Crick's state law claims; and (3) Ms. Crick is entitled to serve and file her

Order -1

•

•

Complaint. Accordingly,

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Plaintiff-lntervenor's Motion (0

Intervene (Docket No.4) shall be, and the same is hereby, deemed MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, (hat the Stipulated Motion to lntervene and (0 File

Complaint in Intervention (Docket No. 12) shall be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, (hat Ms. Crick shall be allowed to intervene in (he above-

entitled matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that tllis Court shall exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over Ms. Crick's state law claims.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Ms. Click shall be allowed to serve and file her

Complaint, whieh is attached to the Stipulated Motion to Intervene as Exhihit "A".

[2th DATED this

day ofDecember, 2001.

B. LYNN
Chier J ge, United States District Court

Ordcr-2

•

•

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing was mailed this
t: rt4 day of December, 200 I, to the following parties:
A. Luis Lucero, Jr. Barbara J. Standal John F, Stanley US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seallle District Office 909 First Avenue, 11400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Steven C. Bednar Sean A. Monson MANNING CURTIS BRADSHAW & BEDNAR Third Floor Newhouse Building 10 Exchange Place Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Charles Matthew Andersen WINSTON & CASHATT 250 Northwest Boulevard, #107A Coeur d'Alene, 10 83814

Cameron S. Burke, Clerk Unite ates District Court

 
 •

•

•

1 C. MATTHEW ANDERSEN, ISS 3581 WINSTON & CASHATT
2 250 Northwest Blvd., Suite I07A 3 Coem d' Alene, ID 83814
Telephone: (208) 765-2121
4 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jennifer Crick
5

U.S. DISTRICT COUAT""",,..-_ _ U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT=-_
DISTRICT OF IDAHO

JAN - 7 2002

- - - M . REC'D _.,,--_

LODGED

FILED ~

6

7

UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

8

9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

10 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

) )

11

PlaintilT, )

) No. CIV-01-0499-S-BLW/

12

vs.

)

13 SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION, dlb/a!

) COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

14 SUN VALLEY COMPANY,

) )

15

_ .. _-".

. .,,-

16 JENNIFER CRICK,

Defendants. ) )

)

17

Plaintiff, ) District Court No. CV 01-7830

18

vs.

) )

19

)

SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION, a

)

20 Wyoming corporation; SUN VALLEY

)

COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation; and )

21 MIKE FEDERKO and AMY FEDERKO,

)

22 indi viduals, and their marital community,

)

)

23

Defendants. )

24

Plaintiff, Jennifer Crick, hy and through her attomey ofreconl, C. Matthew Andersen of Winston

2S & Cashatt, appears and states hy way of Complaint the following:
26 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTTON AND DEMAND FOR JURY - PAGE 1

LAW OFFICES OF
'1,)k?dlf,i'?A$' 'fj'ddd/
250 NORTHWf.ST fll VD., !5l.1ITF 107A C(}HIH IJ"AI ~NE, IUAHO ~1!14 (208) 667-2103 fAX (208) 765-2121

\ ;3'

• •

1

T.

PARTIES

2

1.1 PlaintitT Jennifer Crick is a single woman aud a resident oCSun Valley, Idaho. Ms. Crick

3 has satisfied all conditions precedent to maintain this action.
4 1.2 Defendant Sinclair Oil Corporation (hereinafter "Sinclair'') is a Wyoming corporation.
5
Sinclair is properly authorized and doing business in the State ofidaho. 6

7

1.3 Defendant Sun Valley Company, a Wyoming COT[wration (hereinafter "Sun Valley") is a

8 dlbla of Sinclair. S\l1l Valley is properly authorized and doing business in the State or Idaho.

9

1.4 Defendant Mike Federko is an individual. Mike and Amy Federko are believed to be

10 husband and wi fe, thereby constituting a marital community. Upon infomlation and bclief, Mike and

11 Amy Fedcrko arc residents of Blaine County, Idaho. All actions taken by Mike Federko were for the

12

benefit ofthe marital community and bind the community assets. 13

14

n. JURISDICTION

15

2.1 Tbis Court has jurisdiction over the parties and over the s\~bject matter of this lawsuit

16 purSlwnt to 28 U.S.c. ~ 1367.

17

2.2 The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction

18 of the United States District Court for the District Mldaho.
19
III. FACTS
20
3.1 In November of 1997, Ms. Crick applied for, and was accepted for, an internship position 21
22 with Sun Valley. On or about December 18, 1997, Ms. Crick began work lor Sun Valley as a Guest

23 Stlrvices hostess. Ms. Crick's expectation was this position would tum into a long-term career.

24

3.2 Atlhis time, Ms. Crick's immediate supervisor was Tim Taylor. Tim Taylor's supervisor

25 was Dem.el Rowland, the Mountain Operations Manager.
26 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY - PAGE 2

lAW OF-f'ICFl::l m·
2'Jh?Id/,m,,§, ?fQdo//
2~O NORrHW~sl' BLVD" SUIT[ lOrA COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO 83814 (200) 667.~103
I-AX (~!)8) 7(;!:'·:.!1':<1

• •

1

3.3 During the 1997-1998 ski season, Ms. Crick performed the normal and customary duties

2 of a Guest Services hostess. Tn addition, she did the ski report two or more times each week and
3 performed some offiee administrative work for Mr. Rowland as directed.
4 3.4 When the 1997-1998 ski season ended and Ms. Crick's intemship was complete, Mr.
5 Rowland offered Ms. Crick a summer/fall position for 1998 with Sun Valley. in that position Ms. Crick
6
7 was 10, amongst other duti.es, make trail signs and maps, re-open the fi)rest lire lookout, prepare

8 mountain bike trails, ride in a promotional video I.br the mountain bike trails, work as a guide on the

9 trails once they were open, recruit new winter-season employees, develop new-employee orientation
10 programs, and perform office administrative duties. Mr. Rowland committed to Ms. Crick that
11 thereafter she would be considered a full-time employee or Sun Valley with the appropriate hencllts.
12 Mr. Rowland represented to Ms. Crick that she would retum to Guest Services during the winter
13 months, beginning the 1998-1999 winter ski season. Based on the representations, Ms. Crick accepted
14
15 the li.tll time position.

16

3.5 During the summer/fall of 1998, Ms. Click reported directly to Ms. Heidi Ottley. Ms.

17 Ottley perfonned administrative duties, amongst other duties. Ms. Ottley's supervisor was Mr.

18 Rowland.

19
3.6 During the summer/fall of 1998, Ms. Crick witnessed first-hand Mr. Rowland sexually
20
harassing Ms. Ottley at the workplace. This occurred numerous times. 21

22

3.7 Tn approximately the late summer or early fall of 1998, Ms. Ottley quit her position with

23 Sun Valley because ofMr. Rowland's harassment. At this time, Mr. Rowland asked Ms. Crick to

24 assume Ms. Ottley's administrative duties while he attempted to convince Ms. Ottley to return to work

25 for Sun Valley. Mr. Rowland infomled Ms. Crick that he did not want to replace Ms. Ottley with a new

26

COMPLAINT iN iNTERVENTiON AND DEMAND FOR JURY - PAGE 3

I,AW QF-f'ICEl:>{J1-
tti.iM<i>n.#' '6Udd/
250 NORTHWEST BLVD" SUITE tOrA COEUR D''''LENf. IrlAHQ 1331314
(<'oa) SEi7.:;!IO::l
":AX (::!08) ftj~·:.!l::!'

•

•

1 administrative assistant because he wanted to be sur~ that the position remained open for Ms. Ottley if

2 she chose to retum. He stated that a new or outside employee would likely expect to remain in the
3 position on a permanent basis, which would make it impossihle to rehire Ms. Ottley.
4 3.8 My. Rowland f,trther promised Ms. Crick that if she would take Ms. Ottley's position, she
5 would be allowed to return to the sUlmner/fali position she had worked in previously. Moreover, in
6
7 accordance with their previous agreement, Mr. Rowland promised that she could return to her position

8 in Guest Services in the winter regardless of when, or even if, Ms. Otlley returned.

9

3.9 Laler in the rail of 1998, Ms. Ottley returned to work for Sun Valley. However, Mr.

10 Rowland promoted Ms. Ottley to a different position. At that time, Mr. Rowland asked Ms. Crick to
11 remain in Ms. Ottley's previous position, promising her that as soon as the 1998-1999 winter ski season
12 started, Ms. Crick would work one-halftime in the office position performing administrative duties and
13
14 one-halftime on the mountain perronning Guest Services hostess duties. Mr. Rowland represented that

15 such a plan was meant to be a promotion and would ultimately result in an increase in salary, authority,

16 and responsibilities. Mr. Rowland stated he would accomplish this plan by hiring a part-time employee

17 who would perroml the administrative duties during the one-halforeach day that Ms. Crick was on the
18 mountain perfoffiling her Guest Services hostess duties. Ms. Crick accepted Mr. Rowland's offer under 19
those tenns.
20
3.10 When the 1998-1999 ski winter season began, Mr. Rowland set up Ms. Crick's work 21
22 schedule as he had agreed. Ms. Crick worked one-haIr of each day in the office perfomling
23 administrative duties and one-half of each day on the mountain performing Guest Services hostess

24 duties. Mr. Rowland hired another person to perfoffil the adnlinistrative duties during the one-half day

25 when Ms. Crick was on the mountain. Ms. Crick's authority and responsibilities increased.

26

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY - PAGE 4

LAW OFFICES OF
9!?iiMdv/",§; ~d<d/
2SO NOH1HWESl BLVD., SUirE lorA COEUR D'ALENC, IDAHO 83814 (208) 687-2103 FAX (208) 765-2121

• •

1

3.11 Almost immediately aller Ms. Ottley returned to work, Mr. Rowland's sexual harassment

2 of her resllmed. Again, Ms. Crick witnessed first-hand numerous incidcnts of sexual harassment.

3

3.12 Mr. Rowland also began to verbally abuse Ms. Crick at the workplace.

4 3.13 In January of 1999, Ms. Ottley reported Mr. Rowland's scxual harassment to Wally
5

Huffman, Sun Valley'S General Manager. Mr. Huffman, Sun Valley and Sinclair conducted an 6

7 investigation. As part oftllis investigation, Ms. Crick was interviewed. She related her expcricnce and

8 observations regarding Mr. Rowland's sexual harassmcnt of Ms. Ottley to Sinclair's counsel. As a

9 result, Ms. Ollley's sexual harassment complaints were corroborated.

10

3.14 As a res\lll orthe investigation, Mr. Rowland was transferred to another ski area owned

11 hy Sinclair. Mike Federko took over Mr. Rowland's duties at Sun Valley as Mountain Opcrations
12 Manager.
13
3.15 Mr. Fcderko, without asking for or obtaining Ms. Crick's conCUlTence and without 14

15 concurring with Ms. Crick's supervisor, Ms. Ottley, modified Ms. Crick's previously agreed-to

16 employment terms. Mr. Federko stripped Ms. Crick orall her Guest Services authority, responsibility,

17 and duties. He confined her to work solely in the office doing administrative work. This was contrary

18 to the employmenttemlS Ms. Crick and Mr. Rowland had agreed to.

19
3.16 Mr. Federko began treating Ms. Crick with extreme and pervasive hostility. Mr. Federko
20
refused to even speak to Ms. Crick. 21

22

3.17 Once the 1999 winter ski season was completed, Mr. Fedcrko similarly stripped Ms.

23 Ottley ofhcr authority and responsibility.

24

3.18 Mr. Federko completely ostracized Ms. Oltley and Ms. Crick in the work place.

25

26
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND ORMAND FOR JURY - PAGE 5

LAW OFFICES OF
1/«71<14<'1'?-.#' 'fj~dt
2~D NORTHWI:ST BLVD" SUIT[ 107A COI:UR D'ALENE, IDAHO 83814 (208) 667-2103
FA;': (:?Ol:l) 7ij~,.:i!':!'

•

•

1

3.19 At the end of the 1998" 1999 winter ski season, Mr. Federko announced that the

2 summer/fall mountain bike trail operation would not be operated and Ms. Crick would not have a

3 position there as she did during the previous summer/fall season. Other employees who had worked on
4 the bike trail operalion heeame angry with Ms. Ottley and Ms. Crick, claiming ifthey had not testified
5
against Mr. Rowland and the sexual harassment, they would still have their summer jobs. 6

7

3.20 Sun Valley became an increasingly hostile workplace for Ms. Crick.

8

3.21 Mr. Fedorko subsequently stripped Ms. Crick of more of her duties. Ms. Crick was nO

9 longer invited to participate in meetings and decisions. It became apparenllhat there was not enough
10 work 10 do in the onlce for both Ms. Ottley and Ms. Crick.
11 3.22 Due to the fact thaI nearly all arMs. Crick's duties had been taken away, that she was
12 stripped of her posilion in Guest Services, that there was not enough work lix her to do in the office 10
13 keep her occupied, and that the workplace was hecoming increasingly hostile, Ms. Crick felt that her
14
15 working conditions were intolerable and decided to seek sumlller employment elsewhere. Ms. OUley

16 and Ms. Crick reached a clear llnderslanding that Ms. Crick was only leaving for the summer and upon

17 her relunl for the 1999-2000 winter ski season, she would be placed back where she was before she

18 testified about the harassment, at Gl~esl Services,
19 3.23 Ms. Crick personally reviewed her separation reporl, which stated that she was a "very
20 good employee but became unhappy with her work conditions." it also stated that she was eligible for
21
22 rehire. The separation report was signed by b(Jlh Ms. Ottley and Peter Steam, the Division Manager.

23

3.24 Tn the fall of 1999, Ms. Crick followed Sun Valley's standard procedure and submitted an

24 application to return to Guest Services as a hosless for the 1999/2000 winter ski season.

25

26
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY - PAGE 6

LAW OFFICE8 Of'
?C:h'2d/£'?ui' 'Chdb//
250 NORTI-fWEST ~I.VO .• $\JITF; 107A t:0H1H [J'Al,I-NE, ILJAHO A;-ISI4 (20B) 6t>'1'21(J~ FAX (;>oal ItS!',':!!::!l

• •

1

3.25 Standard procedure at Sun Valley provided that all applicants are called in for interviews,

2 and that persons eligible for rehire are to be placed above new applicants.
3 3.26 Ms. Crick did not receive a telephone call from anyone at Sun Valley responding to her
4 application. Ms. Crick spoke wilh variolLs Sun Valley employees to determine what the situation was.
5 She was inlornlcd by two Guest Service supervisors, Tim Taylor and Chuck Claflin, that they would be
6
7 happy to have her back working for them a( GlLest Services.

8

3.27 Ms. Crick was also told by various Sun Valley employees (ha( Mr. Federko had openly

9 slaled (hal he wOlLld nol rehire Ms. Crick even though she was eligible because he did not want to deal

10 with any of "that Heidi Ottley situation." Mr. Pederko had issued an edict not to rehire Ms. Crick based
11 on her testimony that she had witnessed Mr. Rowland sexlLally harassing Ms. Ottley.
12 3.28 Concerned about these allegations, Ms. Crick scheduled a meeting with Mr. HulTman, the
13 14 General Manager of Sun Valley, (0 see ifwhal she bad beard was tme. Without Ms. Crick's knowledge
15 or consent, Mr. Huffman directed NOffila Ellison, the Human Resources Director of Sun Valley, to join

16 in the meeting.

17

3.29 Ms. Ellison and Mr. Huffman had Ms. Crick's employment application in tbeir

18 possession at the meeting. During the meeting, both Ms. Ellison and Mr. Huffman continued that Ms.
19 Crick's file stated that she was eligible for rehire. Ms. Crick infoffiled (hem Mtbe allegations she had
20
heard, and asked whether they were true; that she was not going to be called back or rehired because she 21
22 had answered tmthful1y during the investigation ofMr. Rowland's sexllal harassment of Ms. Ottley.

23 Ms. Ellison and Mr. HlLffman eonlinlled the allegations, stating that they understood Mr. Federko's

24 reasoning for not wanting to rehire her because they could see wby he would not want to "get into that

25 again," refening to her involvement in lbe Heidi Ottley investigation.
26 COMPT_ATNT TN TNTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY-PAGE 7

LAWCJF-f:ICESOI-
2'tlwMdwtc,tP'tfff.dd/
:!!>(] NORTHWEST 9LVD., SiI,ME. 107/1. COEUR D'AU,NC, !DAi-o!O !i3S14 (208) 667-2103 FAX (206) 765-2121

• •

1

3.30 Mr. Hul'linan and Ms. Ellison then attempted to intimidate Ms. Crick, telling her that she

2 were to blame for what had occurred. They told Ms. Crick that she owed Mr. Federko an apology and

3 directed her to apologize to him. They imp lied that she never should have spoken out during the
4 investigation of Ms. Ottley's allegations of sexual harassment against Mr. Rowland.
5
3.31 As a result oCthe interview Ms. Crick was left with the dear \l11dcrstanding that if she had 6

7 not become involved in the Heidi Ottley situation hy testi lying, then she would be treated like any other

8 Guest Services applicant. However, hecause she had testified against an employee oC Sun Valley, she

9 would be rejected for employment. Furtheml0re, Ms. Ellison and Mr. Huffman insinuated that if Ms.
10 Crick wanted her job back, she would have to apologi1Ce to Mr. Fedcrko and beg for a job because she
11 was in a different category than the other applicants due to her testimony.
12
3.32 Ms. Crick told Ms. Ellison and Mr. Huffman that there was no reason to apologize to 13
anyone or heg for her job back since she had only done the right thing by testifying truthfully ahout the 14
15 sexual harassment. She also stated that she deserved to be called in for an interview, just like anyone

16 else, and she believed she deserved her Guest Services job back in accordance with Mr. Rowland's

17 promise.

18

3.33 Sun Valley relused to even consider Ms. Crick for rehire. Sun Valley never acted upon

19 Ms. Crick's application or even called her in for an interview.
20
3.34 Ms. Crick was at all times an exemplary employee of Sun Valley.
21

22

3.35 Ms. Crick has been harassed and discriminated against because of her testimony. As a

23 direct and proximate result, Ms, Crick has suffered economic and emotional damages all in an amount to

24 be proven at the time oftriaL
25
26
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMANDFORJURY-PAGE8

LAW OFFICES OF
'l(t?&lkw,d' '6;'.dtza
;!e)D NORTHWEST I3LVD., SUIT[ lorA COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO 6·'381.01 (208) 667.~10:3 FAX (20SJ 7[j!>,::!\2\

• •

1

IV. CLAIM AGAINST SUN VALLEY:

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF IDAHO CODE §67-5911
2

3

4.1 Plainli rr Jenni fer Crick reallcges paragraphs 3.1 through 3.35 as if fully set f011h herein.

4

4.2 Ms. Crick testified. assisted, and participated in an investigation or sexual harassment of

5 Mr. Rowland, one of Sun Valky's employees. Ms. Crick testified that she had witnessed first-hand Mr.

6 Rowland sexually harassing Ms. Ottley, another Sun Valley employee, thereby corroborating Ms.
7 Ottley's complaint of sexual harassment.
8
4.3 After Ms. Crick's testimony regarding the sexual harassment, the temlS of her
9
employment were arbitrarily modified and she was placed into a different employment position. 10
11 Thereafter, nearly aU of her authority, responsibility and duties were taken from her without explanation.

12

4.4 The Mountain Operations Manager, Mr. Federko, treated Ms. Crick with extreme and

13 pervasive hostility. Mr. Federko refused to even speak to Ms. Crick. Mr. Federko began to ostracize

14 Ms. Crick in the work place. Ms. Click was no longer invited to participate in meetings and decisions.

15 4.5 It became apparent to Ms. Crick that there was not enough work to do in the office for
16
both Ms. Crick and her supervisor, Ms. Ottley. 17

18

4.6 Ms. Crick's duties, responsibility, and authority were diminished because she had

19 testified in the sexual harassment investigation.

20

4.7 Due to the fact that nearly all of Ms. Crick's duties had been taken away, that she was

21 stripped Mher position in Guest Services, that there was not enough work for her to do in the onlee to
22
keep her occupied, and tbe lact that the workplace was becoming increasingly hostile, Ms. Crick felt that
23 ber working conditions were intolerable and decided to seck summer employment elsewhere. Ms. Crick
24
resigned from her summer position at Sun VaHey. 25

26
COMPLAlNT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMANDFORJURY-PAGE9

LAW OFFICES OF
'l/indM%,~ Wddtz/I
250 NORTHW[ST BLVD., SUITE 107A COEUR D'ALENE, IOAHO 63814 (208) 667-2103 FA:s.: (2013) 76!J-;?121

• •

1

4.8 A few months later, Ms. Crick applied to be rehired at Sun Valley for the winter ski

2 season. She was told by various Sun Valley employees that she would not he rehired because of her

3 invo lvement in the sexual harassment investigation, and her tl1lthful testimony that she had witnessed
4 sexual harassment. A manager at Sun Valley issued an edict not to rehire Ms. Crick based on her
5
testimony. 6

7

4.9 Ms. Crick was told hy the General Manager and the Human Resources Director at Sun

8 Valley that they understood the manager's reasoning for not wanting to rehire her because they could

9 see why he would not want to "get into thal again," referring to her involvement in the Heidi Ottley
10 investigation. Ms. Crick was told she was to blame for what had occurred and she owed Mr. Federko an
11 apology.
12 4.10 Ms. Crick was never rehired or called in for an interview by Sun Valley.
13 4.11 Ms. Crick was not rehired or called in for an interview because she had testified in the
14
15 sexual harassment investigation.

16

4.12 The actions of Sun Valley are in violation of Idaho's laws against discrimination as set

17 forth in I.e. ~ 67-5911.

18

4.13 Ms. Crick has suffered economic and emotional damages in an amount to be proven at

19 trial.
20
21

v. CLAIM AGAINST SUN VALLEY:
BLACKLISTING AN RMPI,OYEE IN VIOLATION OF I.e. §44 20t

22

5.1 PlaintiffJennifer Crick realleges Paragraphs 3.1 through 4.13 as if fully set forth herein.

23

24

25

26
COMPLAlNT IN lNTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JlJRY - PAGE 10

LAWOF+ICE:SOI-
P!t:.{,;/lJ@.nAP't)1T4lid/
2SO NORTHW~!:iT ~LVl)" SUirE 10711. COEuR D'ALENC, IDAliO S3(114
(206) 667-2103 FAX (208l 765-2121

• •

1

5.2 Sun Va11ey, through its employees and agents, hlacklisted Ms. Crick because she had

2 testified in the sexual harassment investigation of another Sun Valley employee. Sun Valley duhbcd her
3 as a troublemaker.
4 5.3 Ms. Crick was eligible for rehire. However, a manager at Sun Valley, Mr. Federko, told
5
other employees at Sun Va11ey not to rehire Ms. Crick because she had testified in the sexual harassment 6
7 investigation of another Sun Va11cy employee.

8

5.4 Other management at Sun Valley agreed willi, and implemented, Mr. Federko's decision

9 to blacklist Ms. Crick even though she was eligible for rehire.

10

5.5 Sun Valley did this for the purpose of preventing Ms. Crick from receiving employment.

11 5.6 Sun Valley did this with actual malice and with deliberate intent to mislead.
12
5.7 As a result, Ms. Crick was unable to receive employment from Sun Valley. 13
5.8 Slm Valley's actions are in violation ofJdaho's laws against blacklisting as set forth in
14

15 I.C. §44-201.

16

5.9 Ms. Criek has suffered economic and emotional damages in an amount (0 be proven at

17 trial. 18 19

VI. CLAIM AGAINST SUN VALLEY: BREACH OF COVENANT 01,' GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

20

6.1 Plaintiff Jennifer Crick realleges Paragraphs 3.1 through 5.9 as if' ru11y set forth herein.

21

6.2 Ms. Crick had an employment contract with Sun Valley.

22

G.3 Sun Valley retaliated against Ms. Crick for testifying truthfully in a sexual harassment

23 investigation. Sun Va11ey modified its employment agreement with Ms. Crick after she testified in a
24

sexual harassment investigation. Sun Valley created a hostile and intolerable work environment for Ms.
25

26
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY • PAGE II

LAW OFFICES OF
'l,tind.!v'1'l'~ '&du/l
250 NOI1THW[ST BLVD.• SUITE 107A. COEUR D'ALEr-.JE. IOAHQ 113614 (200) 667·2103 f'AX (:?I)EI) r!,i!':.!121

• •

1 Crick because she testified in a seXllal harassment investigation. Sun Valley refused to consider Ms.

2 Crick for rehire. even though she was eligible for rehire, hecause she testified in a sexual harassment

3 investigation.
4 6.4 Such actions and/or inactions by Sun Valley constitute hreaches of the duty of good faith
5
and fair dealing. 6

7

6.5 Ms. Crick has suffered direct and Gonsequential damages in an anlOunt to be proven at

8 trial.

9 Vll. CLAIM AGAINST FEDERKO AND SUN VALLEY: NEGLIGENT OR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION 01<' EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
10

11

7.1 Plaintiff Jennifer Crick realleges Paragraphs 3.1 through 6.5 as iffully set forth herein.

12

7.2 Mr. Federko and Sun Valley's retaliation against Ms. Crick for testifying truthfully in a

13 sexual harassment investigation was extreme and outrageous conduct.

14

7.3 Mr. Federko and Sun Valley's retaliation was intentional and reckless. It was done with

15 the intent to punish Ms. Crick for testilying truthftl1ly in a sexual harassment investigation and to send a
16 message to Ms. Crick and to other employees not to testilY truthfully during Sun Valley's investigations
17

18 into discrimination, or to suffer the consequences.

19

7.4 Mr. Federko and Sun Valley'S conduct has caused Ms. Crick (0 suiTer severe emotional

20 distr~ss. Ms. Crick has undergone counseling to assist her in dealing with her emotional distress.

21

7.5 Ms. Crick has suffered economic and emotional damages in an amount to be proven at

22
trial.

23 VIII. CLAIM AGAINST FEDERKO;

24

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

25

8.1 Plaintiff Jemlifer Crick reaJleges Paragraphs 3.1 through 7.5 as iffully set forth herein.

26 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY - PAGE 12

LAW OFFICES OF
'lbi)td4wt,,~ '6itdd/
250 NOIlTHWEST BLVD" SUITE lorA COElIR D'AU:'NF-. IrlAHO R::Illt4
(2OS) 667·2103 FAX (:.:!rn:!) ltit.-2'l2'l

• •

1

8.2 Ms. Criek had a potential business relationship with Sun Valley. Ms. Crick would have

2 had a business relationship with Sun Valley if she had the opportunity to be hired.

3

8.3

4 for rehire.
S

8.4 6

Mr. Federko blacklisted Ms. Crick and rerused to rehire her, even though she was eligible Mr. Fcderko refused to rehire Ms. Crick because she testified in a sexual harassment

7 investigation.

8

8.5 Mr. Federko's interference was wrong!ll!. Mr. Fedcrko had an improper objective and

9 purpose of punishing Ms. Crick for testifying truthllllly in a sexual harassment investigation.

10

8.6 Ms. Crick has suffered economic and emotional damages as a res lilt of the wrongful

11 interference in an amount to be proven at trial.

12

IX. CLAIM AGAINST SUN VALLEY:

13

CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE IN CONTRAVENTION OF PUBLIC POLICY

14

9.1 PlaintiffJennifer Crick realleges Paragraphs 3.1 through 8.6 as if fully set forth herein.

15
9.2 After Ms. Criek testified in the sexual harassment investigation, Sun Valley arbitrarily
16
modified the agreed-upon terms of her employment and put her in a different position. 17

18

9.3 Sun Valley stripped Ms. Crick ornearly all of her authority, responsibility, and duties.

19

9.4 Ms. Crick's manager began to treat Ms. Crick with extreme and pervasive hostility. He

20 rcl'used to even speak to Ms. Crick.

21

9.5 Ms. Crick was ostracized in the workplace.

22

9.6 Sun Valley failed to provide Ms. Crick with the summer position it had promised her.

23
9.7 Ms. Crick was no longer invited to participate in meetings and decisions.
24

25

26
COMPLAINT IN lNTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY - PAGE 13

LAW OfFICES OF
9"bi:n44w~,~ '6~dmz
250 NORTIIWEST OLVD., SUITE lOrA COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO 83814 (208) 667-2103 FA"1. (200) 7e5-2121

• •

1

9.8 Nearly all of Ms. Crick's duties and responsibilities had heen stripped, and it became

2 apparent that there was not enough work to do in the office for both Ms. Crick's supervisor, Ms. Ottley,
3 and Ms_ Crick. 4
9.9 Due to the fact that nearly all of Ms. Crick's duties had been taken away, that she was 5
stripped or her position in Guest Services, that there was not enough work for her to do in the office, and
6
7 the fact that the workplace was becoming increasingly hostile, Ms. Crick felt that Sun Valley had made
8 h",r working conditions intolerahle and she decided to seck summer employment elsewhere and

9 resigned.

10

9.10 Ms. Crick has suffered economic and emotional damages in an amount to be proven at

11 trial.
12
13

x. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

14

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jennifer Crick prays lor the following rclicffrom the Court:

15

1. That the Court cnters judgment in favor of Ms. Click for pasl and future lost wages.

16

2. That the Court enter judgment in favor of Ms. Crick for loss of employment

17 prospectively, including, without limitation, !i'ont pay.

18

3. Thallhe Courl enler judgment in favor of Ms. Crick for lost benefits;

19 4. That the Court enter judgment in favor of Ms. Crick lor emotional damages and such
20
other general damages proven at trial.
21

22

5. Thallhe Couri enter j lldgment in favor of Ms. Crick for punitive damages as allowed by

23 law_

24

6_ Thatlhe COllrt enter judgment in favor of Ms. Crick for medical bills.

25

26
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY - PAGE 14

LAW OfFICES OF
?i:Sd/&J'I-,# (j}dd#
~50 NORTHWEST BLVD. SUITE 107A. GCJEUH LJ"AL.~NE, IUAHO 11::11114 (2M) 667-210:) fAX (200) 765-2121

• •

1

7. That the Court enter judgment in favor of Ms. Crick for her attorneys fees and costs as

2 allowed by law.

3

~.

Plaintiff Jenni fer Crick reserves the right to ask the Court to enter judgm~nt in favor of

4 Ms. Crick for punitive damages in the maximum amount allowed by law.
5

9. That all issues of fact be tried to a jury of twelve persons. 6

7

10. For such other Ituther relief as the Court deems jllst and equitable.

8

DEMAND FOR JURY

9

Plainti rr Jenni fer Criek requests a jury trial on all questions of fact.

10

DATED this lif", day of December, 2001.

/J

11

_(3 ~~:f- ___

12

C. MA" rIlEW ANDERSEN, ISB 35~1

WINS ON & CASHATT

13

Attorneys lor Plaintiff Jennifer Crick

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY - PAGE 15

l.AWOI-~'IC"-SOF
?/i4M/az.AP'O"dMd/
250 NOATHWEST BLVD.. 5UITE tQ7A COEUR D' ALE:NE-:. II,lAH(J RClflI4 (206) 6f>7.j?ID3 FAX (mR) "G!>":.!1:.!1

 
 07-23-02 02:33pm From-EEOC SEDO

108 m em

T-405 P.002/011 F-004

A. LUIS LUCERO, JR., REGIONAL ATTORNEv,·

JOHN F. STANLEY, ACTING SUPERVIS0.B.Y TRIALATTORN~

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ~MISSION'

909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400

v,·X ?9

.}.
'<S'

~TED STATE~
ISTRICT OF'" IgauRiS

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 ft."

-<1

AHa

TELEPHONE: (206) 220-6896

n ",

9.. 0 7 JUL 282002

Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

>.~ : - - - M

. /""

' . : - LODGED . F/~C'D..';,(

UNITED STATES DISTRICTfcArXFILFILEED_O-:'
DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

PlaintHf,

)

)

)

~

)

)

SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION

)

d/b/a SUN VALLEY COMPANY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

JENNIFER CRICK.

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor.

)

)

v.

)

)

SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION, a Wyoming )

Corporation; SUN VALLEY COMPANY, a

)

Wyoming Corporation; and MIKE FEDERKO )

and AMY FEDERKO, Individuals, and theIr )

marital community,

)

)

Defendants.

)

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

CIVIL NO. 01-0499-S-BLW CONSENT DECREE

CONSENT DECREE -- 1

07-2,-02

01 :"PIlI

From-EEOC SEDO

•

206 220 em
I. INTRODUCTION

• T-405

P.003/01!

F-004

1. This action originated with a charge of discrimination Jennifer Crick filed

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The charge alleged

that defendant Sinclair Oil Corp. dba Sun Valley Co. ("Sinclair"), engaged in unlawful

employment practlCt'ls at Its Sun Valley Resort facility In Idaho in violation of §§ 703 and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2 and -3 (Title ''VII'') by affecting the terms and

conditions of her employment and by failing to rehire Ms. Crick in retaliation for her

engaging in statutorily protected activity.

2. The EEOC sent defendant a letter of Determination with a finding there

was reasonable cause to believe that Ms. Crick's allegations were true as to failure to

rehire but not as to terms and conditions of employment.

3. The Commission filed this lawsuit on September 26, 2001 in the United

States District Court for the District of Idaho. Defendant has denied theSe claims.
4. The parties want to conclude the claims arising out of Ms. Crick's charge,

the EEOC's determination, and this aciion without expendIng further resources in

contested litigation.

II. NONAPMISSION OF LIABILITY AND NONDETERMINATION BY THE COURT

5. This consent decree is not an adjudication or finding on the merit$ of this

case and shall not be construed as an admission by the defendant of a violation of Title

VII.

CONSENT DECREE -- 2

OT-2H2

02:14pm

F,om-EEOC SEDD

•

206 220 e955

III. SETTLEMENT SCOPE

• T-405

P 004/012

F-004

6. This consent decree is the final and complete resolution of all allegations

of unlawful employment practices contained in Jennifer Crfck's discrimination charge,

in the EEOC's Letter of Detennination, and in the EEOC complaint flied in this action,

including all claims by the parties for attorney fees and costs. The terms of this consent

decree apply to defendant's Sun Valley Resort facility only.

IV. MONETARY RELIEF

7. In settlement of this suit, defendant agrees to pay Jennifer Crick $30,000

for nonpecuniary compensatory damages in settlement and satisfaction of all claims for

monetary relief in this action. In return, Ms. Crick is negotiating and will execute a

release agreement with defendant, to which the EeOC is not a party, In full satisfaction

of all claims related to or arising out of her employment.

V. INJUNctiVE RELIEF

A. Ganer.1 provisions

8. The defl'lndant reaffirms Its commitment to comply with the provisions of

Hie VII and all other fl'lderallaws against discrimination In its employment decisions. In

furtherance of this commitment, it will monitor the affinnative obligations of this consent

decree.

9. The defendant will not retaliate against any current or fonner employee for

opposing any practice made unlawful by Title VII. Nor will the defendant retaliate

against any current or former employee for making iii charge or for testifying, assisting,

or participating in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing associated with this action.

CONSENT DECREE - 3

OHI-OI

01 :14pm

Frgm-EEOC SEDO

•

206 220 6955

• T-405

P.001/Ol1 F-004

10_ In recognition of its obligations under Title VII, the defendant will institute

the policies and practices set forth below.

B. Establishment of Policy and Procedures to Prevent Discrimination

11_ Defendant has prior to this litigation implemented and 111'111 continue to

maintain a written equal employment opportunity policy applicable to its Sun Valley

Resort facility ("Sun Valley Resort policy") which sets forth the requirements 01 federal

laws against employment discrimination and specifically those prOVisions which make

retaliatory discrimination unlawful.

12. The Sun Valley Resort policy will include a statement of defendant's

commitment to ensuring that the practices and the conduct of its employees will comply

with the requirements of federal laws against employment discrimination. It includes a

provision staling that those who violate the policy will be subject to appropriate

discipline, up to and including termination.

13. Prior to this litigation the Sun Valley Resort policy contained and will

continue to include an internal complaint procedure for employees to report suspected

incidents of discrimination $0 that the defendant can investigate and take appropriate

action if It determines that any employee has violated its E;E;O policy.

14. The internal complaint procedure does and will continue to inolude the

following provisions:

a. A list of the appropriate persons to whom an individual should

report allegations of discrimination in the workplace.

b. An explanation of how to make a complaint and what an

CONSENT DECREE - 4

07-23-02

02: 34pm

Frgm-EEOC SE DO

•

zoe 220 em

• T-405

P.006/012

F-004

investigation will Involve, Including informing the affected individuals of the outcome of

the i1westlgation.

16. The defendant will submit a copy of its Sun Valley Resort policy and

procedures for the EEOC within forty-five d!;lYs of the date of entry of this decree. The

defendant will distribute the policy to all present and future employees at the Sun Valley

Resort, both management and non-management.

C. posting Notice

16. The defendant will post the notice attached as Exhibit 1 to this consent

decree. The notice shall be posted on a centrally located bulletin board in defendant's

Sun Valley Resort faciltties where notices to employees are normally posted or where

employees will see the notice for the duration of the consent decree. The defendant

will also post in the same location a copy of the EEO policy referenced in paragraph 11.

D. EXPunging Record§

17. Defendant will not disclose any Information or make references to any

charge of discrimination or this lawsuit in responding to employment reference requests

for Information about Ms. Crick.

18. Defendant will expunge from the personnel file of Ms. Crick any

references to a charge of discrimination against defendant and this lawsuit. Further,

defendant will restore Ms. Crick's personnel file to reflect its contents as of the date of

her reSignation of employment on May 7, 1999. If Ms. Crick wishes to do 80, defendant

will permit her to review her personnel file within thirty (30) days after the entry of this

Consent Decree to Insure that all such references have been expunged. Defendant will

CONSENT DECREE -- 5

OT-ZS-02

02:11pm

• Frgm-EEOC SEDa

208 220 am

• T-401

P,OOTi012 F-004

not add any Information or references to Ms. Crick's personnel file or records regarding

her charge of discrimination and this lawsuit after such references have been

expunged.

E. Training

19. During the term of this consent decree, Sinclair will provide at least six

hours of employment discrimination training annually for its managers at the Sun Valley

Resort. specifically including topics related to retaliation. Defendant may, at its

discretion, concurrently with this training provide instruction on other employment

discrimination issues. The first training will take place within sixty days of entry of this

consent decree. The second training will take place within sixty days after the one-year

period following entry of this consent decree. The form and content of the training

events will be subject to prior review by the EEOC, and the cost of training shall be

borne by defendant.

20. The defendant will provide to the EEOC a list of attendees of the

training provided pursuant to paragraph 19, an evalualion form filled out and signed by

each attendee, and a copy oftha training materials and handouts with the reports

required in paragraph 19.

F. Reporting

21. Six months after entry of this decree, and every six months thereafter

for the term of the decree, the defendant will provide a report to the Commission with

the following information: a. A summary of any complaints alleging conduct at the Sun Valley

CONSENT DECREE - 6

OT-2HZ

02:35pm

• From-EEOC SEDO

206 220 am

• T-40i

P.00S/012

F-004

Resort constituting a violation of laws against discrimination Or'! the basis of retaliation,

age, sex, race, national origin, religion, disability, color or pay disparity under the Equal

Pay Act.

b" The report will also include copies of the attendee lists, evaluations,
and materials generated by the training required by paragraphs 19-20.

c. The defendant will also include In the report a statement listing the

other provisions of this decree that It is required to perform during the preceding period

and certifying that it has complied with the terms of the decree. If the defendant has

not complied with any term oflhe deoree, the statement will specify the areas of

noncompliance, the reason for the noncompliance, and the steps taken to bring the

defendant Into compliance.

VI. ENFORCEMENT

22. The United states District Court for the District of Idaho shall retain

jurisdiction over thIs matter for the duration of the decree. If the E:EOC concludes that

the defendant has breached any of the above provisions, It may bring an action to

enforce this oonsent decree no sooner than thirty days after providing the defendant

written notification of the alleged breaoh. The period following the written notice will be
used by the parties for good faith efforts to reach agreement on how to bring the

defendant Into compliance with the decree.

CONSENT DECREE - 7

07-13-02

02: !Bpm

From-EEOC SEDO

•

208 m 6955

• HOS

P, 008/012 H04

VII. TERMINATION OF DECREE

23. This decree shall be in effect for (2) two years commencing with the

date the decree is entered by the court. If the EEOC petitions the court and the court

finds the defendant to have violated Ihe terms of this consent decree, it may

extend the period of this consent decree and award the Commission its costs In

bringing an enforcement action,

CONSENT DECREE - 8

OT-21-0! 0!:35pm From-EEOC SEDO ~

zoe ZIO em • N05 POIO/OI! F-004

DATED this

day of ~'2002.

Respectfully submitted,

A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. Regional Attorney

GVlJENDOLYN REAMS
Associate General Counsel

JOHN F. STANLEY
Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney

EBQUYAL E&MPLlOYM.EN~T OP~~RTUNITY
COMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 220--6896

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISS[ON
Office of the General Counsel 1801 "L" Street, N,W, Washington, D.C. 20507

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Steven C. Bednar Sean A. Monson MANNING CURTIS BRADSHAW & BEDNAR LLC
10 Exchange Place, 3rd Floor Newhouse Bldg. Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Trudy Hanson Fouser GJORDING & FOUSER, PLLC 509 W. Hays 51.
L P.O. Box 2837
Boise, ID 8~~
Bt §C---=h",] -

Attorneys for Deflilndant

CONSENT DECREE - 9

07-23-02 02:36pm From-EEOC SEDO •

206 220 om

• T-401

P,011/012

F-004

ORDER

The Court having considered the foregoing stipulated agreement of the

parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the foregoing consent decree be, and the

same hereby is, approved as the final decree of this Court in full settlement of this

action. This lewsult Is hE'!reby dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorneys'

fees to any party. The Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for purposes of enforcing

the consent decree approved herein.
DATED this Z.qtt-..day Of_Jl-=--~--7"F_ _ _ _ _ _;' 2002.

UNITED TES DISTRICT JUDGE

CONSENT DECREE -- 10

07-23-02 02:36pm From-EEOC SEDO •

20e 220 am

• T-40!

P.012/012

F-004

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOY~Iii~
This notice is being posted pursuant to an agreement between SINCLAIR OIL CORP. dba SUN VALLEY CO. and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 are enforced by the EEOC and require the following:
That there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because ofthe employee's race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age (over I!lge 40), or disability with respect to hiring, firing, compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against any employees or applicants for employment because they have opposed a practice or because they have made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an Investigation, proceeding or hearing under these statutes.
Sinclair will continue lis program to train managers at the Sun Valley Resort regarding the requirements of the above statutes, with particular emphasis on retaliatory discrimination.
Sinclair has posted this notice because the company supports and will comply with these federal laws In all respects and will not take any retaliatory action against employees because they have exercised their rights under the law.
DATED: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

SINCLAIR OIL CORP. SUN VALLEY CO.

• • United States District Court for the District of Idaho July 29, 2002
* * CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING * *
Re: 1:01-cv-00499

I certify that a copy of the attached document was mailed or faxed to the following named persons:

A Luis Lucero Jr, Esq. US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061

Barbara J Standal, Esq. US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061

John F Stanley, Esq. US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office
909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061

Steven C Bednar, Esq.
MANNING CURTIS BRADSHAW & BEDNAR
Third Floor Newhouse Bldg
10 Exchange PI Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Sean A Monson, Esq.
MANNING CURTIS BRADSHAW & BEDNAR
Third Floor Newhouse Bldg 10 Exchange PI Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Trudy H Fouser, Esq. GJORDING & FOUSER PO Box 2837 Boise, ID 83701

1-208-336-9177

Charles M Andersen, Esq.
WINSTON & CASHATT
250 Northwest Blvd #107A Coeur d'Alene, 10 83814

C Matthew Anderson, Esq.

WINSTON & CASHATT ...
250 Northwest Blvd~07A Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Stephen L Farnell, Esq.
WINSTON & CASHATT
1900 Bank of America Financial Center 601 W Riverside Spokane, WA 99201

•

~ Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill

_____Judge Edward J. Lodge

---cr~'C-hMaiegifstMraatge isJturdagtee

Judge Mikel

Larry M. Boyle H. Williams

Date:

Cameron S. Burke, Clerk
BY: tAJP\ Deputy Clerk)

 
 District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

Page 1 of 6

DSCMHW, MTNDDL, NDPMHW, TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Idaho (LIVE Database)Version 3.0.4 (Boise) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01-cv-00499-BLW

EEOC v. Sinclair Oil Corp Assigned to: Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/26/2001 Date Terminated: 07/29/2002 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by A Luis Lucero, Jr US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 Fax: 1-206-220-6911 Email: luis.lucero@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbara J Standal US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John F Stanley US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 Fax: 1-206-220-6911 Email: john.stanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wesley Katahira US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105601340605182-L_353_0-1

5/14/2007

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

Page 2 of 6

V. Defendant Sinclair Oil Corporation doing business as Sun Valley Company
Intervenor Defendant Sinclair Oil Corporation

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 Fax: 1-206-220-6911 Email: wesley.katahira@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 11/05/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sean A Monson MANNING CURTIS BRADSHAW & BEDNAR Third Floor Newhouse Bldg 10 Exchange Pl Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801) 363-5678 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven C Bednar MANNING CURTIS BRADSHAW & BEDNAR Third Floor Newhouse Bldg 10 Exchange Pl Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801) 363-5678 Fax: (801) 363-5678 Email: sbednar@mc2b.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trudy H Fouser Gjording & Fouser POB 2837 Boise, ID 83701 (208) 336-9777 Email: tfouser@g-g.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Trudy H Fouser (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105601340605182-L_353_0-1

5/14/2007

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

Page 3 of 6

Intervenor Defendant Mike Federko Intervenor Defendant Amy Federko Intervenor Defendant Sun Valley Company Intervenor Plaintiff Jennifer Crick
Intervenor Plaintiff Jennifer Crick

represented by Trudy H Fouser (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Trudy H Fouser (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Trudy H Fouser (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Matthew Andersen WINSTON & CASHATT 250 Northwest Blvd #107A Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 (208) 667-2103 Fax: 1-208-765-2121 Email: cma@winstoncashatt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen L Farnell WINSTON & CASHATT 1900 Bank of America Financial Center
601 W Riverside Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 838-6131 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Matthew Andersen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen L Farnell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105601340605182-L_353_0-1

5/14/2007

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

Page 4 of 6

Date Filed 09/26/2001 09/27/2001 10/19/2001 10/29/2001 10/29/2001 10/30/2001 11/02/2001 11/05/2001
11/13/2001 11/16/2001 11/29/2001 12/07/2001 12/11/2001 12/13/2001
12/13/2001 12/20/2001
01/07/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) (jml) (Entered: 09/27/2001)

2 NOTICE of Availability of Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for plaintiff re complaint [1-1] (jml)

3 RETURN OF SERVICE/PROCESS executed upon def Sinclair Oil Corp through atty R. Wade Curtis on 10/9/01 (wm) (Entered: 10/22/2001)

4 MOTION by pla to intervene (wm)

5 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion to intervene [4-1] (wm)

6 MOTION by def for attorney Steven C Bednar, Sean A Monson to appear pro hac vice (wm) (Entered: 11/02/2001)

7 ORDER granting motion for attorney Steven C Bednar, Sean A Monson to appear pro hac vice [6-1] (cc: all counsel) (wm)

8 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Wesley Katahira for EEOC and substituting attorney John F Stanley (wm) (Entered: 11/07/2001)

9 ANSWER by def Sinclair Oil Corp (wm) (Entered: 11/16/2001)

10 NOTICE of Availability of Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for def Sinclair Oil Corp re answer [9-1] (wm)

11 NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE ; Telephonic Status Conference set for 10:00 12/20/01 before BLW in Boise (wm)

12 STIPULATED MOTION by pla to intervene and to file complaint in intervention (wm) Modified on 12/07/2001

13 STIPULATED SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FORM - LITIGATION PLAN (wm) (Entered: 12/12/2001)

14 ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill finding moot the motion to intervene [4-1], granting motion to intervene and to file complaint in intervention [12-1] (cc: all counsel) (wm)

15 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for def by Trudy H Fouser (wm) (Entered: 12/14/2001)

16 SCHEDULING ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill ; Telephonic Status Conference held 12/20/01 ; Discovery ddl set for 8/30/02 ; Disp Motion ddl set 9/27/02 ; Jury Trial set for 2/24/03 at 1:30 ; Pretrial Conference set for 2/11/03 at 9:00 ; In-court hearing set for 5/16/02 at 1:30 Matters of discovery referred to Judge Mikel H. Williams , Nondispositive motions referred to Judge Mikel H. Williams (cc: all counsel) (wm) (Entered: 12/26/2001)

18 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by intervenor-plaintiff Jennifer Crick (wm) (Entered: 01/09/2002)

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105601340605182-L_353_0-1

5/14/2007

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

Page 5 of 6

01/07/2002 01/09/2002 01/24/2002 01/24/2002
02/06/2002 04/19/2002
04/19/2002
04/22/2002
05/01/2002
05/01/2002 05/06/2002
07/19/2002 07/29/2002

19 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE/PROCESS executed upon def Sinclair Oil Corp on 12/31/01 (wm) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
17 APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE intervenor represented by Stephen L Farnell wm (wm)
20 ANSWER by intervenor defs Sinclair Oil Corp, Mike Federko, Amy Federko, Sun Valley Company (wm)
21 NOTICE of Availability of Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for intv dfs Sinclair Oil Corp, Mike Federko, Amy Federko, Sun Valley Company re answer [20-1] (wm)
22 NOTICE OF NAME CHANGE by def (wm) (Entered: 02/07/2002)
23 MOTION by dfts Sinclair Oil Corp, Sun Valley Company, Mike Federko, Amy Federko for partial judgment on the pleadings on plas complaint-in-intervention (wm)
24 MEMORANDUM by dfts Sinclair Oil Corp, Mike Federko, Amy Federko, Sun Valley Company in support of motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on plas complaint-in-intervention [23-1] (wm)
25 NOTICE OF HEARING motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on plas complaint-in-intervention [23-1] set before BLW in Boise 8:00 8/6/02 (cc: all counsel) (wm)
26 MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE by intervenor-pla Jennifer Crick to motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on plas complaint-inintervention [23-1] (wm)
27 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer Crick regarding motion response [26-1] (wm)
28 ADR PLAN AND REQUEST TO STRIKE ADR HEARING by Sinclair Oil Corp, Mike Federko, Amy Federko, Sun Valley Company (wm) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
29 STIPULATION and joint motion for dismissal with prejudice (wm) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
30 CONSENT DECREE by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill dismissing case with prejudice , each party to bear their own costs and fees (cc: all counsel) (wm)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

05/14/2007 09:45:21

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:01-cv-00499-BLW

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

0.24

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105601340605182-L_353_0-1

5/14/2007

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

Page 6 of 6

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105601340605182-L_353_0-1

5/14/2007