IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. JOBEC, INC. d/b/a MCDONALD’S,
Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMAND ______________________________________________________________________________
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is a public enforcement action to correct the unlawful employment practice of maintaining a hostile work environment based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. This action seeks to provide appropriate relief to Charging Parties and similarly situated individuals adversely affected by such practice. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), contends Defendant, Jobec, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s (“McDonald’s”) has discriminated against Charging Parties and a class of similarly situated individuals, because of their gender, female, by subjecting them to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the sexual harassment.
1

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 703(a), 706(f)(1), 706(f)(3), of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-5(f)(1), 2000e-5(f)(3), 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 Colorado.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Colorado and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b), (g) and (h). 6. The female employees who filed the charge of discrimination with the EEOC will be hereafter referred to as “Shenefield” and “Michel.”
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Tiawna Shenefield and Brandi Michel, female former employees of Defendant, filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
2

First Claim: Sexual Harassment 8. Since at least 2002, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its 209 E. Jenkins Ranch Road location in Durango, Colorado, in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), by allowing its employees, including but not limited to management-level officials, to sexually harass Shenefield, Michel, and other female employees. This harassment altered the terms and conditions of employment and created a hostile work environment for Shenefield, Michel and other female employees. 9. The unlawful sexual harassment was partially physical in nature. 10. The physical sexual harassment included, but was not limited to, the following acts:
(a) groping the inner thigh and buttocks of female employees; (b) lifting the shirts of female employees and biting their breasts; (c) spying on female employees while they were changing into their uniforms;
and (d) pulling female employees onto male’s laps and placing their arms around
their waists and shoulders. 11. The unlawful sexual harassment was partially verbal in nature. 12. The verbal harassment included, but was not limited to, the following acts:
(a) offering keys, credit cards, and a wallet in exchange for sex; (b) telling female employees that they had a “nice ass” and that their “breasts
had gotten larger”; (c) ridiculing female employees’ attempts to resist inappropriate physical
harassment in the workplace by making comments such as “do that some
3

more” and “that turns me on.” 13. The offensive sexual conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employees subjected to the conduct. 14. The offensive sexual conduct in the workplace initiated and/or participated in by McDonald’s employees, including but not limited to managers, constitutes sexual harassment. 15. The sexual harassment in the work place created a hostile work environment based on gender. 16. Defendant was aware of the sexual harassment, both because some employees complained to management and because some managers participated in the harassment. 17. Defendant failed to take reasonable measures to prevent and promptly correct sexual harassment in the workplace. Defendant violated its own sexual harassment policy by its inaction. 18. The effect of the events described above, including the sexual harassment by managers and Defendant’s failure to promptly and adequately respond to employee complaints of sexual harassment pursuant to its sexual harassment policies and procedures, has been to deprive Shenefield and Michel and other similarly situated female employees of equal employment opportunities. 19. The unlawful employment practices described above were intentional. 20. The unlawful employment practices described above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Shenefield and Michel and other similarly situated female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
4

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, Jobec, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment policy or practice which creates a sexually hostile work environment or otherwise discriminates on the basis of gender, and from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination;
B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices;
C. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Parties and other similarly situated female employees, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above;
D. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Parties and other similarly situated female employees, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation;
E. Order Defendant to pay Charging Parties and other similarly situated female employees, punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
F. Order Defendant and its successors to provide training to its officers, managers and employees regarding discriminatory harassment and retaliation in the workplace;
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
5

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Dated: September 18, 2006
Respectfully submitted,
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
MARY JO O’NEILL Regional Attorney Phoenix District Office
s/ Nancy A. Weeks NANCY A. WEEKS Supervisory Trial Attorney EEOC Denver Field Office 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov 303-866-1947
s/Kim R. Rogers KIM R. ROGERS (LEAD ATTORNEY) Trial Attorney kim.rogers@eeoc.gov (303) 866-1361
s/Loretta F. Medina______________ LORETTA F. MEDINA Trial Attorney loretta.medina@eeoc.gov (505)248-5230
PLEASE NOTE: For the purposes of service upon the EEOC, it is sufficient that pleadings, notices, and court documents be served upon the Trial Attorneys.
6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 06-CV-01871-MSK-CBS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. JOBEC, INC. d/b/a MCDONALD’S,
Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMAND ______________________________________________________________________________
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is a public enforcement action to correct the unlawful employment practice of maintaining a hostile work environment based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. This action seeks to provide appropriate relief to Charging Parties and similarly situated individuals adversely affected by such practice. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), contends Defendant, Jobec, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s (“McDonald’s”) has discriminated against Charging Parties and a class of similarly situated individuals, because of their gender, female, by subjecting them to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the sexual harassment.
1

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 703(a), 706(f)(1), 706(f)(3), of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-5(f)(1), 2000e-5(f)(3), 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 Colorado.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Colorado and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b), (g) and (h). 6. The female employees who filed the charge of discrimination with the EEOC will be hereafter referred to as “Shenefield” and “Michal.”
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Tiawna Shenefield and Brandi Michal, female former employees of Defendant, filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
2

First Claim: Sexual Harassment 8. Since at least 2002, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its 201 W. College location in Durango, Colorado, in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), by allowing its employees, including but not limited to management-level officials, to sexually harass Shenefield, Michal, and other female employees. This harassment altered the terms and conditions of employment and created a hostile work environment for Shenefield, Michal and other female employees. 9. The unlawful sexual harassment was partially physical in nature. 10. The physical sexual harassment included, but was not limited to, the following acts:
(a) groping the inner thigh and buttocks of female employees; (b) lifting the shirts of female employees and biting their breasts; (c) spying on female employees while they were changing into their uniforms;
and (d) pulling female employees onto males’ laps and placing their arms around
their waists and shoulders. 11. The unlawful sexual harassment was partially verbal in nature. 12. The verbal harassment included, but was not limited to, the following acts:
(a) offering keys, credit cards, and a wallet in exchange for sex; (b) telling female employees that they had a “nice ass” and that their “breasts
had gotten larger”; (c) ridiculing female employees’ attempts to resist inappropriate physical
harassment in the workplace by making comments such as “do that some
3

more” and “that turns me on.” 13. The offensive sexual conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employees subjected to the conduct. 14. The offensive sexual conduct in the workplace initiated and/or participated in by McDonald’s employees, including but not limited to managers, constitutes sexual harassment. 15. The sexual harassment in the work place created a hostile work environment based on gender. 16. Defendant was aware of the sexual harassment, both because some employees complained to management and because some managers participated in the harassment. 17. Defendant failed to take reasonable measures to prevent and promptly correct sexual harassment in the workplace. Defendant violated its own sexual harassment policy by its inaction. 18. The effect of the events described above, including the sexual harassment by managers and Defendant’s failure to promptly and adequately respond to employee complaints of sexual harassment pursuant to its sexual harassment policies and procedures, has been to deprive Shenefield and Michal and other similarly situated female employees of equal employment opportunities. 19. The unlawful employment practices described above were intentional. 20. The unlawful employment practices described above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Shenefield and Michal and other similarly situated female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
4

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, Jobec, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment policy or practice which creates a sexually hostile work environment or otherwise discriminates on the basis of gender, and from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination;
B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices;
C. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Parties and other similarly situated female employees, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above;
D. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Parties and other similarly situated female employees, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation;
E. Order Defendant to pay Charging Parties and other similarly situated female employees, punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
F. Order Defendant and its successors to provide training to its officers, managers and employees regarding discriminatory harassment and retaliation in the workplace;
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
5

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint. Dated: October 2, 2006
Respectfully submitted,
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
MARY JO O’NEILL Regional Attorney Phoenix District Office
s/ Nancy A. Weeks NANCY A. WEEKS Supervisory Trial Attorney EEOC Denver Field Office 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov (303) 866-1947
s/Kim R. Rogers KIM R. ROGERS (LEAD ATTORNEY) Trial Attorney kim.rogers@eeoc.gov (303) 866-1361
s/Loretta F. Medina______________ LORETTA F. MEDINA Trial Attorney loretta.medina@eeoc.gov (505) 248-5230
6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-CV-01871-MSK-CBS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and TIAWNA SHENEFIELD and BRANDI MICHAL,
Proposed Intervening Plaintiffs, v. JOBEC, INC., d/b/a MCDONALD’S
Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS TIAWNA SHENEFIELD AND BRANDI MICHAL _____________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Intervening Plaintiffs Tiawna Shenefield (“Shenefield”) and Brandi Michal (“Michal”), through their counsel, The Law Office of Lynne Sholler, state as their complaint as follows:
JURISDICTION, VENUE AND NATURE OF CASE 1. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has brought suit against Jobec, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s (“McDonald’s”) for discrimination against Shenefield and Michal, and a class of similarly situated individuals because of gender, by subjecting them to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, and by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the sexual harassment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq (“Title VII”) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

Shenefield and Michal are the charging parties referred to in the EEOC’s complaint and are the persons who filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC.
2. Jurisdiction of this court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. Venue is proper here, because the unlawful employment practices at issue occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, District of Colorado.
3. All conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit have occurred or have otherwise been satisfied.
PARTIES 4. Shenefield and Michal are Plaintiffs are individuals, who, at the time of all matters relevant to the complaint, were minor employees employed by Defendant’s McDonald’s restaurant in Durango, CO. 5. Jobec, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s (“McDonald’s”) is a Colorado Corporation, which maintains a place of business in La Plata County, Colorado and has, at all times relevant to the complaint, continuously and currently employed at least fifteen (15) employees. At all times relevant to the complaint, McDonald’s has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(b), (g), and (h). 6. The EEOC is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and brought a complaint against McDonald’s pursuant to Sections 703(a), 706(f)(1), 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42. U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a), 2000e-5(f)(1), 2000e5(f)(3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (SEXUAL HARASSMENT) 7. Shenefield and Michal incorporate all allegations previously asserted.

8. Since at least 2002, McDonald’s has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its 201 W. College location in Durango, CO in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e2(a), by allowing its employees, including but not limited to management-level officials, to sexually harass Shenefield and Michal. Ths harassment altered the terms and condition of employment and created a hostile work environment for Shenefield, Michal and other female employees.
9. The unlawful sexual harassment was partially physical in nature, which included, but was not limited to, the following acts:
A. Groping the inner thigh and buttocks; B. Lifting shirts and biting breasts; C. Spying on female employees while they were changing into their uniforms; and D. Pulling female employees onto males’ laps and placing their arms around their waists and shoulders. 10. The unlawful sexual harassment was partially verbal in nature, including, but not limited to, the following acts: A. Offering keys, credit cards and a wallet in exchange for sex; B. Telling female employees they had a “nice ass” and that their “breasts had gotten larger”; C. Ridiculing female employees’ attempts to resist inappropriate physical harassment in the workplace by making comments such as “do that some more” and “that turns me on.” 11. The offensive sexual conduct was sufficiently sever or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employment for Shenefield and Michal. 12. The offensive sexual conduct in the workplace initiated and/or participated in by McDonald’s employees, including but not limited to managers, constitutes sexual harassment.

13. The sexual harassment in the workplace created a hostile work environment based on gender.
14. McDonald’s was aware of the sexual harassment, both because some employees complained to management, and because some managers participated in the harassment.
15. McDonald’s failed to take reasonable measures to prevent and promptly correct sexual harassment in the workplace. Defendant violated its own sexual harassment policy by its inaction.
16. The effect of the events described above, including the sexual harassment by mangers and McDonald’s failure to promptly and adequately respond to employee complaints os sexual harassment pursuant to its sexual harassment policies and procedures, has been to deprive Shenefield and Michal of equal employment opportunities.
17. The unlawful employment practices described above were intentional. 18. The unlawful employment practices described above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Shenefield and Michal. WHEREFORE, Shenefield and Michal respectfully request that this Court order: A. McDonald’s to make Shenefield and Michal whole by providing compensation for past and future monetary losses resulting from the conduct described in this complaint, in amounts to be established at trial; B. McDonald’s to make Shenefield and Michal whole by providing compensation for past and future non-monetary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, resulting from the conduct described in this complaint, in amounts to be established at trial; C. McDonald’s to pay punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described in this complaint, in amounts to be established at trial;

D. McDonald’s and its successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation
with it, be permanently enjoined from engaging in any employment policy or practice which creates
a sexually hostile work environment or otherwise discriminates on the basis or gender, and from
retaliating against employees who complain about, or corroborate the discrimination; E. McDonald’s to institute and enforce policies, practices, and programs which provide equal
employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful
employment practices; F. McDonald’s to provide training to its officers, managers, and employees regarding
discriminatory harassment and retaliation in the workplace;
G. Award Shenefield and Michal pre and post judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law;
H. Order that Shenefield and Michal be awarded their costs and attorney’s fees, including
expert witness fees, as permitted under Title VII or otherwise, to the fullest extent allowed by law;
I. Award Shenefield and Michal costs and attorney’s fees incurred to collect on the judgment from the date it is entered until the judgment is paid in full; and
J. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the
circumstances.
Respectfully submitted on December 11, 2006. s/Lynne Sholler Lynne Sholler, #19971 Law Office of Lynne Sholler 707 Clovis Drive Durango, CO 81301 (970) 375-7756 - telephone (970) 375-7756 - fax lmsholler@bresnan.net

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01871-MSK-CBS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
and TIAWNA SHENEFIELD, and BRANDI MICHAL,
Plaintiff/Interveners, v. COLORADO HAMBURGER COMPANY, INC., FARMINGTON HAMBURGER COMPANY, INC., and JOBEC, INC.,
Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMAND ______________________________________________________________________________
Comes now, Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and pursuant to the Court’s Order permitting the amendment of pleadings and joinder of parties (Doc. 27), and hereby submits this Second Amended Complaint.
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is a public enforcement action to correct the unlawful employment practice of maintaining a hostile work environment based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. This action seeks to provide appropriate relief to

Charging Parties and similarly situated individuals adversely affected by such practice. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), contends that Defendants, as an integrated enterprise, have discriminated against Charging Parties and a class of similarly situated individuals, including but not limited to, at least Laura Loose Thompson, because of their gender, female, by subjecting them to sexual harassment, including, a hostile work environment and by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to prevent or eliminate the sexual harassment.
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 703(a), 706(f)(1), 706(f)(3), of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a). 2000e-5(f) (1), 2000e-5(f) (3), 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 Colorado.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., a Colorado Corporation has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Colorado and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.
2

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of New Mexico and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.
6. At all relevant times, Defendant JOBEC, Inc., a Colorado Corporation has been a Management Company that provides management services to both Defendant Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., and Defendant Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc.
7. At all relevant times, the Defendants have been an integrated enterprise doing business together as McDonalds franchise restaurants in both Colorado and northwest New Mexico. At all relevant times, JOBEC, Inc., has been part of an integrated enterprise with Defendants that is liable for relief under Title VII and JOBEC, Inc. is an indispensable party pursuant to Rule 19(a) Fed. R. Civ. Pro., in whose absence, complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, and who has an interest in the subject of this action.
8. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
9. The female employees who filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC will be hereafter referred to as “Shenefield” and Michal.”
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 10. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Tiawna Shenefield and Brandi Michal, female former employees of Defendants filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
3

11. Since at least 2002, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at the facility located at 201 W. College in Durango, Colorado, in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), by allowing its employees, including but not limited to management-level officials to sexually harass Shenefield, Michal, and other female employees, including but not limited to, at least Laura Loose Thompson. This harassment altered the terms and conditions of employment and created a hostile work environment for Shenefield, Michal and other female employees, including but not limited to, at least Laura Loose Thompson.
12. The unlawful sexual harassment was partially physical in nature. 13. The physical sexual harassment included, but was not limited to, the following acts:
(a) groping the inner thigh and buttocks of female employees; (b) lifting the shirts of female employees and biting their breasts; (c) spying on female employees while they were changing into their uniforms;
and (d) pulling female employees onto males’ laps and placing their arms around
their waists and shoulders. 14. The unlawful sexual harassment was partially verbal in nature. 15. The verbal harassment included, but was not limited to, the following acts:
(a) offering keys, credit cards, and a wallet in exchange for sex; (b) telling female employees that they had a “nice ass” and that their “breasts
had gotten larger”; (c) ridiculing female employees’ attempts to resist inappropriate physical
harassment in the workplace by making comments such as “do that some
4

more” and “that turns me on.” 16. The offensive sexual conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employment for employees subjected to the conduct. 17. The offensive sexual conduct in the workplace initiated and/or participated in by Defendants’ employees, including but not limited to managers, constitutes sexual harassment. 18. The sexual harassment in the work place created a hostile work environment based on gender. 19. Defendants were aware of the sexual harassment, both because some employees complained to management and because some managers participated in the harassment. 20. Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to prevent and promptly correct sexual harassment in the workplace. Defendants violated their own sexual harassment policy by their inaction. 21. The effect of the events described above, including the sexual harassment by managers and Defendants’ failure to promptly and adequately respond to employee complaints of sexual harassment pursuant to their sexual harassment polices and procedures, has been to deprive Shenefield and Michal and other similarly situated female employees of equal employment opportunities. 22. The unlawful employment practices described above were intentional. 23. The unlawful employment practices described above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Shenefield and Michal and other similarly situated female employees, including but not limited to, at least Laura Loose Thompson.
5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, THE Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment policy or practice which creates a sexually hostile work environment or otherwise discriminates on the basis of gender, and from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination; B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its pas unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendants to make whole Charging Parties and other similarly situated female employees, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above; D. Order Defendants to make whole Charging Parties and other similarly situated female employees, including but not limited to, at least Laura Loose Thompson, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation; E. Order Defendants to pay Charging Parties and other similarly situated female employees, including but not limited to, at least Laura Loose Thompson, punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial; F. Order Defendants and their successors to provide training to its offices, managers and employees regarding discriminatory harassment and retaliation in the workplace;
6

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest; and
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Dated: September13, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
MARY JO O’NEILL Regional Attorney Phoenix District Office
RITA BYRNES KITTLE Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney EEOC Denver Field Office 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-1347
s/Loretta Medina____ LORETTA MEDINA Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Albuquerque Area Office 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2189 (505) 248-5230 Loretta.medina@eeoc.gov
7

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-CV-01871-MSK-CBS
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
and
TIAWNA JACOBSON (f/k/a TIAWNA SHENEFIELD) and BRANDI MICHAL,
Intervening Plaintiffs,
v.
COLORADO HAMBURGER COMPANY, INC., FARMINGTON HAMBURGER COMPANY, INC., and JOBEC, INC.,
Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________________
AMENDED COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS ____________________________________________________________________________
Intervening Plaintiffs Tiawna Jacobson f/k/a Tiawna Shenefield (“Jacobson”) and Brandi
Michal (“Michal”), through their counsel, The Law Office of Lynne Sholler, state as their amended
complaint as follows:
JURISDICTION, VENUE AND NATURE OF CASE
1. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has brought suit against
Defendants, which operate McDonald’s franchises in Colorado and New Mexico as an integrated
enterprise, for discrimination against Jacobsonand Michal, and a class of similarly situated individuals
because of gender, by subjecting them to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, and by
failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the sexual harassment, in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq (“Title VII”) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. Jacobson and Michal are the charging parties referred to in the EEOC’s complaint and are the persons who filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC.
2. Jurisdiction of this court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. Venue is proper here, because the employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, District of Colorado.
3. All conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit have been satisfied. PARTIES
4. Intervenors Jacobson and Michal are individuals, who, at the time of all matters relevant to the complaint, were minor employees employed by Defendants McDonald’s restaurant in Durango, CO. Intervenor Tiawna Jacobson was formerly known as, and originally brought her charge of discrimination, under the name Tiawna Shenefield.
5. Intervenors Jacobson and Michal filed charges of discrimination with Plaintiff EEOC, an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII. Plaintiff EEOC brought a complaint against Defendants pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42. U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a), 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3)of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
6. At all relevant times, Defendant Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc. a Colorado corporation, has continuously been, and is now doing business in, the State of Colorado while continuously employing at least fifteen (15) employees.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc., a New Mexico corporation has continuously been, and is now doing business in the State of New Mexico while

continuously employing at least fifteen (15) employees. 8. At all relevant times, Defendant JOBEC, Inc., a Colorado corporation has been a
management company that provides management services to both Defendant Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., and Defendant Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc.
9. At all relevant times, the Defendants have been an integrated enterprise doing business together as McDonald’s franchise restaurants in both Colorado and northwest New Mexico. At all relevant times, JOBEC, Inc., has been part of an integrated enterprise with Defendants that is liable for relief under Title VII and JOBEC is an indispensable party pursuant to Rule 19(a) Fed. R. Civ. Pro. in whose absence, complete relief cannot be accorded.
10. At all times relevant to the complaint, Defendants have continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(b), (g), and (h).
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (SEXUAL HARASSMENT) 11. Jacobson and Michal incorporate all allegations previously asserted. 12. Since at least 2002, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at its 201 W. College location in Durango, CO in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e2(a), by allowing its employees, including but not limited to management-level officials, to sexually harass Jacobson and Michal. Ths harassment altered the terms and condition of employment and created a hostile work environment for Jacobson, Michal and other female employees. 13. The unlawful sexual harassment was partially physical in nature, which included, but was not limited to, the following acts: A. Groping the inner thigh and buttocks;

B. Lifting shirts and biting breasts; C. Spying on female employees while they were changing into their uniforms; and D. Pulling female employees onto males’ laps and placing their arms around their waists and shoulders. 14. The unlawful sexual harassment was partially verbal in nature, including, but not limited to, the following acts: A. Offering keys, credit cards and a wallet in exchange for sex; B. Telling female employees they had a “nice ass” and that their “breasts had gotten larger”; C. Ridiculing female employees’ attempts to resist inappropriate physical harassment in the workplace by making comments such as “do that some more” and “that turns me on.” 15. The offensive sexual conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment for Jacobson and Michal. 16. The offensive sexual conduct in the workplace initiated and/or participated in by Defendants’ employees, including but not limited to managers, constitutes sexual harassment. 17. The sexual harassment in the workplace created a hostile work environment based on gender. 18. Defendants were aware of the sexual harassment, both because some employees complained to management, and because some managers participated in the harassment. 19. Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to prevent and promptly correct sexual harassment in the workplace. Defendants violated their own sexual harassment policy by their inaction. 20. The effect of the events described above, including the sexual harassment by mangers and

Defendants failure to promptly and adequately respond to employee complaints of sexual harassment pursuant to its sexual harassment policies and procedures, has been to deprive Jacobson and Michal of equal employment opportunities.
21. The unlawful employment practices described above were intentional. 22. The unlawful employment practices described above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Jacobson and Michal.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (RETALIATION)
23. Jacobson and Michal incorporate all allegations previously asserted. 24. Jacobson and Michalcomplained about and opposed thesexualharassment discrimination of themselves and other female employees. 25. After Jacobson and Michal complained about and opposed the sexual harassment discrimination of themselves and other female employees, Defendants took retaliatory and adverse employment actions against them. 26. Defendants retaliatory and adverse employment actions taken against Jacobson included, but were not limited to:
a. Reducing her scheduled work hours; b. Creating a false disciplinary reprimand for improper touching that was placed in her personnel file and was not given to her; c. Falsely accusing her of not returning phone calls about her work schedule following a fire in the Durango McDonald’s premises; d. Discharging her following an incident where she was the victim of harassment by two other employees;

e. Falsely accusing her of whiting out a work schedule; and f. Constant surveillance for the purpose of making regular performance complaints about any minor policy infraction, for which other employees were not similarly reprimanded. 27. Defendants retaliatory and adverse employment actions taken against Michal included, but were not limited to: a. Refusing to allow her to take time off for a family emergency (the hospitalization of her step-mother) until she located her own replacement; b. Refusing to allow her to take time off for a school function unless she found her own replacement, in violation of company policy; and c. Constant surveillance for the purpose of making regular performance complaints about any minor policy infraction, for which other employees were not similarly reprimanded. 28. The retaliatory employment practices described above were intentional. 29. The retaliatory employment practices described above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Jacobson and Michal WHEREFORE, Jacobson and Michal respectfully request that this Court order: A. Defendants to make Jacobson and Michal whole by providing compensation for past and future monetary losses resulting from the conduct described in this complaint, in amounts to be established at trial; B. Defendants to make Jacobson and Michal whole by providing compensation for past and future non-monetary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, resulting from the conduct described in this complaint, in amounts to be established at trial; C. Defendants to pay punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described

in this complaint, in amounts to be established at trial; D. Defendants and its successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation
with it, be permanently enjoined from engaging in any employment policy or practice which creates a sexually hostile work environment or otherwise discriminates on the basis or gender, and from retaliating against employees who complain about, or corroborate the discrimination;
E. Defendants to institute and enforce policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices;
F. Defendants to provide training to its officers, managers, and employees regarding discriminatory harassment and retaliation in the workplace;
G. Award Jacobson and Michal pre and post judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law;
H. Order that Jacobson and Michal be awarded their costs and attorney’s fees, including expert witness fees, as permitted under Title VII or otherwise, to the fullest extent allowed by law;
I. Award Jacobson and Michal costs and attorney’s fees incurred to collect on the judgment from the date it is entered until the judgment is paid in full; and
J. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted on September 14, 2007. s/Lynne Sholler Law Office of Lynne Sholler 707 Clovis Drive Durango, CO 81301 (970) 375-7756 - telephone (970) 375-7756 - fax lmsholler@bresnan.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on September 14, 2007, I electronically filed this AMENDED COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notification ofsuch filing of the following e-mail addresses:
nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov loretta.medina@eeoc.gov banderson@stetmil.com
s/Lynne Sholler

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01871-MSK-CBS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
and TIAWNA SHENEFIELD, and BRANDI MICHAL,
Plaintiff/Interveners, v. COLORADO HAMBURGER COMPANY, INC., FARMINGTON HAMBURGER COMPANY, INC., and JOBEC, INC.,
Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMAND ______________________________________________________________________________
Comes now, Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and pursuant to the Court’s Order permitting the amendment of pleadings and joinder of parties (Doc. 27), and hereby submits this Second Amended Complaint.
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is a public enforcement action to correct the unlawful employment practice of maintaining a hostile work environment based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. This action seeks to provide appropriate relief to

Charging Parties and similarly situated individuals adversely affected by such practice. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), contends that Defendants, as an integrated enterprise, have discriminated against Charging Parties and a class of similarly situated individuals, including but not limited to, at least Laura Loose Thompson, because of their gender, female, by subjecting them to sexual harassment, including, a hostile work environment and by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to prevent or eliminate the sexual harassment.
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 703(a), 706(f)(1), 706(f)(3), of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a). 2000e-5(f) (1), 2000e-5(f) (3), 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 Colorado.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., a Colorado Corporation has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Colorado and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.
2

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of New Mexico and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.
6. At all relevant times, Defendant JOBEC, Inc., a Colorado Corporation has been a Management Company that provides management services to both Defendant Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., and Defendant Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc.
7. At all relevant times, the Defendants have been an integrated enterprise doing business together as McDonalds franchise restaurants in both Colorado and northwest New Mexico. At all relevant times, JOBEC, Inc., has been part of an integrated enterprise with Defendants that is liable for relief under Title VII and JOBEC, Inc. is an indispensable party pursuant to Rule 19(a) Fed. R. Civ. Pro., in whose absence, complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, and who has an interest in the subject of this action.
8. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
9. The female employees who filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC will be hereafter referred to as “Shenefield” and Michal.”
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 10. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Tiawna Shenefield and Brandi Michal, female former employees of Defendants filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
3

11. Since at least 2002, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at the facility located at 201 W. College in Durango, Colorado, in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), by allowing its employees, including but not limited to management-level officials to sexually harass Shenefield, Michal, and other female employees, including but not limited to, at least Laura Loose Thompson. This harassment altered the terms and conditions of employment and created a hostile work environment for Shenefield, Michal and other female employees, including but not limited to, at least Laura Loose Thompson.
12. The unlawful sexual harassment was partially physical in nature. 13. The physical sexual harassment included, but was not limited to, the following acts:
(a) groping the inner thigh and buttocks of female employees; (b) lifting the shirts of female employees and biting their breasts; (c) spying on female employees while they were changing into their uniforms;
and (d) pulling female employees onto males’ laps and placing their arms around
their waists and shoulders. 14. The unlawful sexual harassment was partially verbal in nature. 15. The verbal harassment included, but was not limited to, the following acts:
(a) offering keys, credit cards, and a wallet in exchange for sex; (b) telling female employees that they had a “nice ass” and that their “breasts
had gotten larger”; (c) ridiculing female employees’ attempts to resist inappropriate physical
harassment in the workplace by making comments such as “do that some
4

more” and “that turns me on.” 16. The offensive sexual conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employment for employees subjected to the conduct. 17. The offensive sexual conduct in the workplace initiated and/or participated in by Defendants’ employees, including but not limited to managers, constitutes sexual harassment. 18. The sexual harassment in the work place created a hostile work environment based on gender. 19. Defendants were aware of the sexual harassment, both because some employees complained to management and because some managers participated in the harassment. 20. Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to prevent and promptly correct sexual harassment in the workplace. Defendants violated their own sexual harassment policy by their inaction. 21. The effect of the events described above, including the sexual harassment by managers and Defendants’ failure to promptly and adequately respond to employee complaints of sexual harassment pursuant to their sexual harassment polices and procedures, has been to deprive Shenefield and Michal and other similarly situated female employees of equal employment opportunities. 22. The unlawful employment practices described above were intentional. 23. The unlawful employment practices described above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Shenefield and Michal and other similarly situated female employees, including but not limited to, at least Laura Loose Thompson.
5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, THE Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment policy or practice which creates a sexually hostile work environment or otherwise discriminates on the basis of gender, and from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination; B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its pas unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendants to make whole Charging Parties and other similarly situated female employees, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above; D. Order Defendants to make whole Charging Parties and other similarly situated female employees, including but not limited to, at least Laura Loose Thompson, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation; E. Order Defendants to pay Charging Parties and other similarly situated female employees, including but not limited to, at least Laura Loose Thompson, punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial; F. Order Defendants and their successors to provide training to its offices, managers and employees regarding discriminatory harassment and retaliation in the workplace;
6

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest; and
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Dated: September13, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
MARY JO O’NEILL Regional Attorney Phoenix District Office
RITA BYRNES KITTLE Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney EEOC Denver Field Office 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-1347
s/Loretta Medina____ LORETTA MEDINA Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Albuquerque Area Office 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2189 (505) 248-5230 Loretta.medina@eeoc.gov
7

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01871-MSK-CBS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
and TIAWNA JACOBSON, and BRANDI MICHAL,
Plaintiff/Interveners, v. COLORADO HAMBURGER COMPANY, INC., FARMINGTON HAMBURGER COMPANY, INC., and JOBEC, INC., d/b/a McDonalds,
Defendants.
CONSENT DECREE
The Commission filed this action against Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc., and JOBEC, Inc. , collectively referred to herein as “ JOBEC” to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (“Title VII) and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. In the Complaint, the Commission alleged that Charging Parties Tiawna Shenefield n/k/a Tiawna Jacobson and Brandi Michal and a
1

class of females were subjected to a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment in the workplace.
The Defendants have stipulated that they are an integrated enterprise, and that the integrated enterprise has more than 200 employees.
The parties do not object to the jurisdiction of the Court over this action and waive their rights to a hearing and the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. This decree resolves all claims of the Commission against JOBEC on behalf of Tiawna Jacobson and Brandi Michal and the class of females identified in Exhibit, A, including claims for back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs arising out of the issues relating to this lawsuit. 2. The Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties. 3. The terms and provisions of the Consent Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just. The rights of the parties are adequately protected by this Consent Decree. 4. This Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII and is not in derogation of the rights and privileges of any person. The entry of this Consent Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of Defendants, the Commission and the public.
INJUNCTION 5. JOBEC, their owners, stockholders, managers, agents, officers, employees, successors and assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them, are permanently enjoined for the duration of the decree from discriminating against any employee
2

because of his or her sex, including subjecting employees or individuals to sexual harassment. This injunction will remain in effect for the duration of the decree at any restaurant or facility operated by JOBEC in Colorado or New Mexico.
6. JOBEC, their owners, stockholders, managers, agents, officers, employees, successors and assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them, are permanently enjoined for the duration of the decree from retaliating against any employee or individual because the employee or individual has (a) opposed practices made unlawful by Title VII or a state equal employment opportunity statute, (b) filed a charge of discrimination, including sexual harassment, (c) assisted or participated in the filing of a charge of discrimination, including sexual harassment, (d) assisted or participated in an investigation or proceeding under Title VII or a state equal employment opportunity statute, or (e) files an internal complaint of discrimination. This injunction will remain in effect for the duration of the decree at any restaurant or facility operated by JOBEC in Colorado or New Mexico.
RELIEF TO CHARGING PARTIES AND CLASS 7. In accordance with this decree, JOBEC shall pay the total amount of $505,000.00 (“the settlement amount”) to resolve plaintiffs’ claims for monetary relief. Within thirty (30) calendar days of JOBEC’s receipt of fully executed Releases, in the form of Exhibit C, from all claimants, JOBEC shall pay the settlement amount according to the following terms and as indicated in Paragraph 8 of this Decree. Charging Party Tiawna Jacobson shall receive a check in the amount of _$152,000.00 payable to Tiawna Jacobson for compensatory damages. Charging Party Brandi Michal shall receive a check in the amount of $ _$148,000.00 payable to Brandi Michal for compensatory damages. Charging Parties’ attorney shall receive a check in
3

the amount of $150,000.00 payable to Lynne Sholler, Esq. as attorneys’ fees. 8. JOBEC shall pay the remaining settlement amount of $55,000.00 for settlement of
the class claims designated in Exhibit A. For all payments to the Charging Parties and class members representing compensatory damages for personal injuries, JOBEC shall issue each payee a form 1099 in the amount of such payment. The Commission retains the sole discretion to apportion the compensatory damage amounts between the eligible class claimants identified in Exhibit A. Also, any claimant paid in accordance with Exhibit A of this Decree will execute only a Release in the form of Exhibit C. Defendants will not condition the receipt of individual relief on the charging parties’ or class members’ agreement (a) maintain as confidential the terms of this decree, (b) waive their statutory right to file a charge with any federal or state antidiscrimination agency, or (c) waive their right to apply for a position at any JOBEC facility.
9. The checks provided for in Paragraph 8 and pursuant to Exhibit A of this Decree shall be made payable to each of the individuals listed in Exhibit A in the amounts designated by the Commission. The checks shall be mailed directly to the Exhibit A list of claimants at the addresses provided by the Commission.
10. Within five (5) days of issuance of the checks required by Paragraph 7 and 8 of this Decree, JOBEC shall submit a copy of the checks and any related correspondence to the Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Albuquerque Area Office, 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2189.
11. In response to any employment inquiries or reference checks concerning Tiawna Jacobson, Brandi Michal or any class member, JOBEC shall follow its company policy and provide dates of employment; the position held; and job duties. This provision shall remain in
4

force for so long as Ms. Jacobson, Ms. Michal or any class member uses JOBEC as a reference and is not limited to the three-year duration of this decree.
12. JOBEC shall not take any action against Tiawna Jacobson, Brandi Michal, any class member, any witness in this proceeding or any other individual in retaliation for filing a charge of employment discrimination or for participating, assisting or testifying in this action.
13. JOBEC shall provide Tiawna Jacobson, Brandi Michal, and each class member with a letter of apology signed by the owner of JOBEC. The letters of apology shall be issued in the form of Exhibit D to this Decree.
DEFENDANT’S CORRECTIVE POLICIES AND PRACTICES 14. JOBEC shall institute and carry out policies and practices that will provide a work environment free from sex discrimination and retaliation, including policies, procedures and practices to prevent sexual harassment of their employees and other individuals, and that allow employees and other individuals to raise concerns or complaints about matters made unlawful by Title VII, whether alleged, perceived or actual without retaliation. To assist JOBEC in its efforts to provide a work environment free of sex discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation, JOBEC shall take the actions provided for in Paragraphs 15 through 17 and 19. 15. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this decree, JOBEC shall review any existing policies on sex discrimination, including sexual harassment and retaliation, and make any changes necessary so that their policies and procedures comply with Title VII. JOBEC shall ensure their written policy includes a statement that employees have a right to complain directly to EEOC or any state equal opportunity agency. JOBEC shall ensure that its policies and procedures relating to sexual harassment provide for and identify at least one person at each
5

JOBEC restaurant or facility who will have information about JOBEC’s complaint process, who may be designated to receive complaints, and who is responsible for reporting such complaints in a timely manner to the owners of JOBEC. After reviewing and making any necessary revisions to its policies, JOBEC shall distribute the revised sexual harassment and non-retaliation policies and complaint procedures annually to each of its current full and part-time employees, and to each new employee hired for the duration of this decree. The policy and procedure statements that are provided to JOBEC employees should be designed to present easily understood, convenient, consistent, confidential and reliable procedures for reporting incidents of sexual harassment and retaliation occurring at JOBEC restaurants or facilities in Colorado and New Mexico. These procedures, at a minimum, shall include provisions incorporating the following:
A. Within thirty (30) days of entry of this decree and for the duration of this decree, JOBEC shall designate at least one employee in a supervisory or managerial position to serve as an investigative officer for employees having questions, concerns or complaints about sexual harassment or retaliation. This investigative officer shall be responsible for communicating with employees about JOBEC’s complaint and investigation process, answering employee preliminary inquiries, and investigating complaints of sexual harassment.
B. Within thirty (30) days of entry of this decree and for the duration of this decree, the name(s), responsibilities, work location, and telephone number of the investigative officer(s) will routinely and continuously be posted and provided to all employees so that an employee seeking such name can enjoy anonymity and remain inconspicuous to other employees.
6

C. For the duration of this decree, complaints of sexual harassment or retaliation will be accepted in writing, orally, or anonymously and all complaints will be taken seriously and investigated appropriately.
D. Only those who have an immediate need to know, including the investigative official(s), owner(s), the alleged target of harassment or retaliation, the alleged harasser(s) or retaliator(s) and any witnesses, may find out the identity of the complainant.
E. During an investigation of a sexual harassment complaint of an employee or other individual, investigative officers will have the responsibility for expeditiously and appropriately investigating all complaints.
F. The investigative officers shall endeavor to immediately interview in person all affected individuals and potential witnesses to the alleged harassment without the presence of unnecessary management officials and officials who are specifically implicated by the allegations of harassment.
G. All parties contacted in the course of an investigation will be advised that any retaliation or reprisal against an individual who is an alleged target of harassment or retaliation, who has made a complaint, or who has provided evidence in connection with a complaint will not be tolerated and could result in disciplinary action.
H. Each investigative officer will receive thorough and appropriate training about sexual harassment and sexual harassment investigations. This training shall consist of at least two hours in addition to that provided under paragraph 17 of
7

this decree. I. The investigative officer will recommend remedial measures, if appropriate,
based upon the results of the investigation, and JOBEC will promptly consider and act upon such recommendation. J. The investigative officer will maintain a file on the original complaint(s) and any follow-up investigation. K. JOBEC owners, managers, officials, agents or employees who engage in sexual harassment or retaliation; who fail to cooperate with company-sponsored investigations of sexual harassment or retaliation; or who refuse to implement remedial measures will be advised that they may be sanctioned severely by loss of income, suspension or dismissal. 16. JOBEC shall post within thirty (30) days of the entry of this consent decree, and continuously for the duration of this decree, in prominent places frequented by employees of their Colorado and New Mexico restaurants and facilities, the Notice attached to this decree as Exhibit B. This Notice shall be the same type, style and size as in Exhibit B. 17. JOBEC shall provide training on sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation according to the following terms: A. JOBEC shall provide at least three training sessions during the term of this decree. All owners, managers, supervisors and employees at restaurants or facilities owned or operated by JOBEC in Colorado and New Mexico shall attend the training. Duplicative sessions may be held to accommodate staffing needs. JOBEC shall be responsible for all costs associated with this training.
8

B. During the first year of the decree, the training shall be conducted within ninety (90) days of the entry of this decree. Additional training shall be conducted for all JOBEC employees in Colorado and New Mexico subject to this Decree at least once each remaining year of this Decree.
C. For the duration of this decree, at or around the time of hire, employees hired after the annual training is presented, shall view a video tape of the training and/or a professional training tape which covers the topics set forth in paragraph 17F and shall be given any written material disseminated at the training.
D. JOBEC shall select a qualified trainer or facilitator and shall submit the trainer’s or facilitator’s name, resume, training agenda and the date(s) of the proposed training to the Regional Attorney of the Albuquerque Area Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within thirty (30) days of the entry of this decree. For training sessions during the second and third years of the decree, the above information shall be submitted to the Regional Attorney at least sixty (60) days prior to the seminar-training session. The Commission shall have thirty days from the date of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the proposed trainer or facilitator and/or the contents of the seminar. In the event the Commission does not approve defendants’ designated trainer, JOBEC will be required to submit the name, resume, training agenda and date(s) of proposed training for an alternate trainer(s) or facilitator(s) until the Commission approves a designated trainer or facilitator.
E. The training shall include a minimum of three hours of instruction. All
9

personnel, designated in Paragraph A shall both register and attend the training. The registry of attendance shall be retained by defendants at least for the duration of the decree. F. The training, at a minimum shall include the subjects of: what constitutes sex discrimination, including sexual harassment and retaliation; that sex discrimination in the hiring, firing, compensation, assignment or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment and retaliation violates Title VII; how to prevent sex discrimination and retaliation; how to provide a work environment free from sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation; and to whom and by what means employees may complain if they feel they have been subjected to sex discrimination, sexual harassment or retaliation in the workplace. G. Immediately following the training sessions, the highest ranking JOBEC managerial official in the facility shall speak to the employees about: (1) potential discipline that can be taken against supervisors, managers and employees who commit acts of sex discrimination or retaliation or who allow sex discrimination or retaliation to occur in the workplace; (2) the importance of maintaining an environment free of sex discrimination and retaliation; and (3) the employer’s policies regarding sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation. This time shall not be counted toward the three-hour minimum training required in paragraph 17E. 18. The Commission, at its discretion, may designate Commission representatives to attend and participate in any of the training sessions described above.
10

REPORTING BY DEFENDANT AND ACCESS BY EEOC 19. JOBEC shall separately report in writing and in affidavit form to the Regional Attorney of the Commission's Albuquerque Area Office at 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2189, beginning six months from the date of the Entry of this Decree, and thereafter every six months for the duration of the decree the following information: A. Any changes, modifications, revocations, or revisions to its policies and
procedures which concern or affect the subject of sex discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation. B. The name, address, position, and telephone number of any employee who during the six months preceding the report has brought allegations of sex discrimination, sex harassment, or retaliation arising from activities in JOBEC’s Colorado or New Mexico restaurants or facilities against defendants or its personnel, including but not limited to owners, management officials, vendors, agents, or employees. The nature of the complaint, investigatory efforts made by JOBEC and the corrective action taken, if any, shall be specified. C. The registries of persons attending each of the seminar-training sessions required in paragraphs 15 and 17 of this decree and a list of current employees on the day of the seminar-training session. D. An affidavit by JOBEC’s owner(s): (1) the Notice required in paragraph 16 of this decree was posted and the locations where it was posted, and (2) it has complied with paragraphs 15-17 and 19 of this decree. E. Copies of any video presentations JOBEC utilizes to comply with the
11

requirements of this decree. 20. The Commission upon reasonable notice shall have the right to enter and inspect the premises of JOBEC’s restaurants and facilities in Colorado and New Mexico to insure compliance with this decree and federal anti-discrimination laws.
COSTS AND DURATION 21. Each party shall bear its costs and attorney's fees incurred as a result of this action through the entry of this decree. 22. The duration of this decree shall be three (3) years from its entry. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for the duration of the decree, during which the Commission may petition this Court for compliance with this decree. Should the Court determine that JOBEC has not complied with this decree, appropriate relief, including extension of this decree for such period as may be necessary to remedy its non-compliance, may be ordered. 23. This decree shall expire by its own terms at the end of three (3) years after entry, without further action by the parties. 24. The parties agree to entry of this decree subject to final approval by the Court.

ENTERED AND ORDERED this

day of

2008.

_______________________________________ THE HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO:

RONALD COOPER General Counsel
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 L. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
/s/Loretta Medina for MARY JO O’NEILL Regional Attorney
/s/Loretta Medina for SALLY C. SHANLEY Supervisory Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 3300 N. Central Ave., Suite 690
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
/s/Loretta Medina LORETTA MEDINA Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Albuquerque Area Office 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2189
Attorneys for Plaintiff

13

/s/Lynne Sholler Lynne Sholler Law Office of Lynne Sholler, P.C. 707 Clovis Drive Durango, Colorado 81301 (970) 375-7756 Attorney for Plaintiff Interveners
/s/ Bruce Charles Anderson Stettner, Miller, P.C. 1050 17th Street, Ste. #700 Denver, Colorado 80254-2008 banderson@stetmil.com Attorneys for Defendants
14

DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS TO CLASS

Laura Loose Alice Palmer

Compensatory Damages
$ 40,000.00 $15,000.00

EXHIBIT A 15

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF COLORADO HAMBURGER COMPANY, FARMINGTON HAMBURGER COMPANY AND JOBEC

This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into between the Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc., and JOBEC, collectively referred to as “JOBEC” and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

It is unlawful under federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or 1964) and state law to discriminate against an employee on the basis of sex in hiring, firing, compensation or other terms, and conditions or privileges of employment, including sexual harassment. It is also unlawful under federal and state law to retaliate against any individual who complains of harassment.

JOBEC prohibits all forms of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment. Prohibited sexual harassment includes, but is not limited to, the following conduct:
a. unwelcome touching of a sexual nature; b. unwelcome comments, including comments regarding intimate body parts, or
clothing and discussion of sexual jokes or sexual behavior; c. unwelcome requests for dates, sexual favors and propositions d. unwelcome distribution in the workplace of cartoons, pictures of drawings
of a sexual nature; and e. unwelcome display of pornographic material in the workplace.

JOBEC shall not discriminate on the basis of sex and shall not retaliate against any employee who opposes a practice made unlawful under federal law, files, assists or participates in the filing of a charge of discrimination or participates in any investigation under Title VII, or who files a grievance alleging discrimination.

If you believe you are being sexually harassed, discriminated against based on sex or retaliated

against you should report this to the designated investigative officer at your workplace who may

be contacted at

.

If you believe you have been discriminated against or retaliated against in the JOBEC workplaces, you always have the right to seek assistance from:
1) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Denver Field, 303 E. 17th Ave. Suite 510, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 866-1301 or EEOC Albuquerque Area Office, 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, (505) 248-5202. Or
2) Colorado Civil Rights Division, 1560 Broadway #1050, Denver, Co. 80202 (303) 894-2997 and NM Department of Workforce Solution, Human Rights Bureau, 1596 Pacheco St., Suite 103, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505, (505) 827-6838 or 1(800) 5669471.
You have the right to file a charge with the EEOC or the state fair employment practice agencies listed above if you believe you are being discriminated against or retaliated against.
EXHIBIT B

16

RELEASE OF TITLE VII CLAIMS

The undersigned, for the sole consideration of the sum of

, paid to

the undersigned, receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does hereby release

Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., Farmington Hamburger Company Inc., and JOBEC, Inc.,

(“JOBEC”), from any and all claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

which the undersigned has arising out of the lawsuit styled EEOC and Plaintiff/Interveners v.

Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc, Farmington Hamburger Company Inc., and JOBEC, Inc.,,

which is Civil Action No. 06-cv-01871-MSK-CBS in the United States District Court for the

District of Colorado.

In consideration for the lump sum payments referred to in this Release, the undersigned waives any and all Title VII claims she may have arising out of this lawsuit styled EEOC and Plaintiff/Interveners v. Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc, Farmington Hamburger Company Inc., and JOBEC, Inc.,, which is Civil Action No. 06-cv-01871-MSK-CBS in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, except for any rights the undersigned may have arising out of the Consent Decree entered herein.

The undersigned further declares and represents that no promise, inducement or agreement not herein expressed has been made to her, and that this release contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto.

The undersigned has had full and adequate opportunity to discuss this release with the advisers of her choice, including the attorney of her choice, and she has read and fully understands the foregoing Release.

SIGNED this

day of

, 2008.

Signed Name: ____________________________________________

Printed Name: _____________________________________________

EXHIBIT C

17

RE: Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc. and JOBEC, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s

Dear

:

On behalf of JOBEC, I wish to express my sincere regret that you found your experience, while employed at the Durango McDonald’s restaurant in 2004, to be objectionable. It is unfortunate that the former managers of the restaurant did not respond appropriately and promptly to your concerns in accord with our policies. The managers have admitted they knew it was their responsibility to protect employees from inappropriate conduct, but they did not. We are sorry for any perception you may have had that the managers blamed you for what happened to you at the restaurant.

Thank you for the contributions you made while employed a t McDonald’s and we wish you success in your future endeavors.

Sincerely,

John Bronson

EXHIBIT D 18

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:cod

4/22/08 12:05 PM

NDISPO, TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-01871-MSK-CBS

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Jobec, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Marcia S. Krieger Referred to: Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/19/2006 Date Terminated: 04/03/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Kim Rene Rogers U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-Colorado 303 East 17th Avenue #410 Denver, CO 80203 303-866-1361 Fax: 303-866-1375 Email: kim.rogers@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 10/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Loretta Medina U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-New Mexico 505 Marquette, N.W. Albuquerque, NM 87102 505-248-5230 Email: loretta.medina@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy A. Weeks U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-Colorado 303 East 17th Avenue #410 Denver, CO 80203 303-866-1947 Fax: 303-866-1375

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105448748031733-L_950_0-1

Page 1 of 7

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:cod

4/22/08 12:05 PM
Email: nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Tiawana Shenefield
Intervenor Plaintiff Brandi Michal

represented by Lynne Marie Sholler Lynne Sholler, The Law Office of 707 Clovis Drive Durango, CO 81301 970-375-7756 Fax: 970-375-7761 Email: lmsholler@bresnan.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynne Marie Sholler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Jobec, Inc. doing business as McDonald's

represented by Kenneth R. Stettner Stettner Miller, P.C. 1050 17th Street Independence Plaza #700 Denver, CO 80265-2008 303-534-0273 Fax: 303-534-5036 Email: kstettner@stetmil.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Charles Anderson Stettner Miller, P.C. 1050 17th Street Independence Plaza #700 Denver, CO 80265-2008 303-534-0273 Fax: 303-534-5036

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105448748031733-L_950_0-1

Page 2 of 7

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:cod
Defendant Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc. Defendant Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc.

4/22/08 12:05 PM
Email: banderson@stetmil.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bruce Charles Anderson (See above for address)
represented by Bruce Charles Anderson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/19/2006 09/26/2006 09/26/2006
10/03/2006 10/16/2006 10/17/2006 11/28/2006 12/08/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT and Jury Trial Demand against Jobec, Inc. Summons not issued, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(llr, ) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
2 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer by Judge Krieger. (erv, ) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
3 ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS IT IS ORDERED that, within 30 days after judgment is entered, counsel for the parties shall obtain from the Court any exhibits and depositions used during this case. Counsel shallretain same for 60 days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of all appellate proceedings. Failure to retrieve the exhibits and depositions in this matter in conformance with this Order may result in their destruction. Signed by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/26/06. (erv, ) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
4 AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND against all defendants, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Rogers, Kim) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
5 ORDER setting Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference and Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting set for 12/27/2006 09:15 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 10/16/06. (dln, ) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Jobec, Inc. waiver sent on 10/13/2006, answer due 12/12/2006. (Rogers, Kim) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
7 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Jobec, Inc..(Anderson, Bruce) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
8 MINUTE ORDER : RESETTING Scheduling Conference for 1/23/2007 10:45 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 12/7/06. (dln, ) (Entered: 12/08/2006)

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105448748031733-L_950_0-1

Page 3 of 7

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:cod

4/22/08 12:05 PM

12/11/2006 12/26/2006
12/27/2006
12/27/2006 01/09/2007 01/09/2007
01/09/2007 01/16/2007 01/17/2007 01/23/2007
01/23/2007
01/23/2007

9 MOTION to Intervene by Interested Parties Tiawana Shenefield, Brandi Michal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Intervenor Complaint)(Sholler, Lynne) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
10 MEMORANDUM regarding 9 MOTION to Intervene by Interested Parties Tiawana Shenefield, Brandi Michal. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 12/22/06. (Text Only Entry - No Document Attached)(dln, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
11 MINUTE ORDER granting 9 MOTION to Intervene by Interested Parties Tiawana Shenefield, Brandi Michal and the same is accepted for filing and the case caption shall be modified accordingly by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 12/27/06.(dln, ) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
12 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT against Jobec, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's, filed by Tiawana Shenefield, Brandi Michal.(dln, ) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
13 MOTION for Leave to Appear by Telephone by Intervenor Plaintiffs Tiawana Shenefield, Brandi Michal. (Sholler, Lynne) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
14 MEMORANDUM regarding 13 MOTION for Leave to Appear by Telephone. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/9/07. (Text Only Entry - No Document Attached)(dln, ) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
15 MINUTE ORDER granting 13 MOTION for Leave to Appear by Telephone by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 1/9/07.(dln, ) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
16 Proposed Scheduling Order by all parties. (Rogers, Kim) (Modified on 1/17/2007 to add filers) (dln, ). (Entered: 01/16/2007)
17 Docket Annotation re: 16 Proposed Scheduling Order. [Entry modified to add filers]. Text only entry - no document attached. (dln, ) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
18 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Scheduling Conference held on 1/23/2007: Discovery due by 8/27/2007; Dispositive Motions due by 9/28/2007; Settlement Conference set for 5/7/2007 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. (Court Reporter FTR - Ben Van Dyke) (cbscd) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
19 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 8/27/2007. Dispositive Motions due by 9/28/2007. Settlement Conference set for 5/7/2007 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 1/23/07. (dln, ) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
20 PRE-TRIAL PREPARATION AND TRIAL SETTING ORDER - CIVIL: Eight (8) Day Jury Trial set for 11/3/2008 01:00 PM in Courtroom A 901 before Judge Marcia S. Krieger. This setting is on a trailing docket in 2nd position. Rule 702 motions shall be filed by 09/28/2007. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/25/2008 04:00 PM before Judge Marcia S. Krieger. Trial is scheduled for 11/03/2008 at 1:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/23/07. (dln, ) (Entered:

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105448748031733-L_950_0-1

Page 4 of 7

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:cod

4/22/08 12:05 PM

01/30/2007 02/14/2007 06/01/2007 07/03/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007
07/11/2007 07/11/2007
09/13/2007
09/13/2007 09/14/2007 09/14/2007 09/17/2007

01/23/2007)
21 MINUTE ORDER : Settlement Conference RESET for 6/1/2007 01:30 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 1/30/07. (dln, ) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
22 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Jobec, Inc..(Anderson, Bruce) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Craig B Shaffer : Settlement Conference held on 6/1/2007. No settlement reached, no record made (gms, ) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
24 NOTICE Of Unavailability by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Medina, Loretta) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
25 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 19 Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Medina, Loretta) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
26 MEMORANDUM regarding 25 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 19 Scheduling Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 7/9/07. (Text Only Entry - No Document Attached)(pap2, ) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
27 Minute ORDER granting Joint 25 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Discovery deadline is 10/26/07, dispositive motion deadline is 11/30/07, by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 7/11/07.(gms, ) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
28 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 10/26/2007,Dispositive Motions due by 11/30/2007, pursuant to the minute order of 7/11/07. Text only entry - no document attached. (gms, ) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
29 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Complaint adding Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., and Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc. against Jobec, Inc., filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Medina, Loretta) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
30 STIPULATION REGARDING INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES by Defendant Jobec, Inc.. (Anderson, Bruce) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
31 Docket Annotation re: 29 Amended Complaint. [Document to be refiled by Counsel]. Text only entry - no document attached. (dln, ) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
32 Amended INTERVENOR COMPLAINT against Defendants, filed by Tiawana Shenefield, Brandi Michal.(Sholler, Lynne) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
33 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Complaint and Jury Trial Demand against all defendants, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105448748031733-L_950_0-1

Page 5 of 7

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:cod

4/22/08 12:05 PM

09/20/2007 09/27/2007
10/01/2007
10/01/2007 10/04/2007 10/04/2007 10/04/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007

Commission.(Medina, Loretta) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE EEOC'S First Supplemental Disclosures by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Medina, Loretta) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
35 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 33 Amended Complaint, 32 Intervenor Complaint by Defendants Jobec, Inc., Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Anderson, Bruce) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
36 MEMORANDUM regarding 35 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 33 Amended Complaint, 32 Intervenor Complaint by Defendants. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/1/07. (Text Only Entry - No Document Attached)(dln, ) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
37 Minute ORDER granting to 10/12/2007 35 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 33 Amended Complaint, 32 Intervenor Complaint by Defendants by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 10/1/07.(dln, ) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
38 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Kim R. Rogers As Counsel for Plaintiff EEOC by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Medina, Loretta) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
39 MEMORANDUM regarding 38 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Kim R. Rogers As Counsel for Plaintiff EEOC. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/4/07. (Text Only Entry - No Document Attached)(dln, ) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
40 Minute ORDER granting 38 Motion to Withdraw aAttorney Kim Rene Rogers as Counsel for Plaintiff by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 10/4/07.(dln, ) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
41 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Jobec, Inc., Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc..(Anderson, Bruce) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
42 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Jobec, Inc., Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc..(Anderson, Bruce) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
43 ORDER VACATING Jury Trial set for 11/03/2008. Signed by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/19/07. (dln, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
44 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 19 Scheduling Order by Defendants Jobec, Inc., Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc., Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Anderson, Bruce) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105448748031733-L_950_0-1

Page 6 of 7

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:cod

4/22/08 12:05 PM

11/19/2007
11/19/2007 11/19/2007 12/19/2007 02/27/2008 04/03/2008 04/03/2008

45 MEMORANDUM regarding 44 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 19 Scheduling Order filed by Jobec, Inc., Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc., Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc. Motion is referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/19/07.(Text Only Entry - No Document Attached)(msksec, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
46 Minute ORDER granting 44 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 19 Scheduling Order by Defendant. Dispositive motions extended to 03/31/2008 by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 11/19/07.(dln, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
47 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Dispositive Motions due by 3/31/2008. [Text only entry - no document attached]. (dln, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
48 NOTICE Of Unavailability by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Medina, Loretta) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
49 Unopposed MOTION for Review of Consent Decree by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Consent Decree)(Medina, Loretta) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
50 ORDER approves 49 Consent Decree. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 4/3/08.(jmp, ) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
51 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 4/3/08. (jmp, ) (Entered: 04/03/2008)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

04/22/2008 11:02:22

wu0079

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:06-cv-01871-MSKCBS

4

Cost:

0.32

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105448748031733-L_950_0-1

Page 7 of 7