FILEr.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

P 20 20 5

WESTERN DIVISION

M... i:1V ... _ ;. . •

.Deout':

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY]

COMMISSION,

]

]

Plaintiff,

]

]

vs.

]

]

HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION ]

AND ENGINEERING COMPANY INC., ]

]

Defendant.

]

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

3: D5C m-A CIVIL ACTION #

VJ'o'1/C'1i -

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to make whole Scott Beasley, Joel Graves and Douglas Smith who were adversely affected by the unlawful practices, as alleged with greater particularity in below. The Defendant discriminated against James Scott Beasley, Joel Graves and Douglas Smith by subjecting them to sexual harassment. This harassment became so intolerable that they were compelled to resign.
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 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful herein were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. The Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an agency of the United Sates of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by § 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). 4. At all relevant times, the Defendant, Hill Brothers Construction and Engineering Company, Inc., (the "Employer"), has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of Mississippi, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, the Defendant Employer has continuously been and is now an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Scott Beasley, Douglas Smith, and Joel Graves filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7. From about February 2001, and continuing until July, 2002, the Defendant

Employer subjected Beasley, Graves and Smith to an atmosphere of sexual

harassment through the conduct of its foreman, Greg Witt.

8. Witt's conduct included:

The use of sexually explicit and provocative language;

Suggestions that Beasley, Graves and Smith engage in sexual

conduct; and

The unwelcome sexual touching of them by Witt.

9.

Beasley, Graves, and Smith told Foreman Witt that his conduct was

offensive and objectionable.

10.

The conduct continued despite the objections.

11.

Defendant Employer knew or should have known of the extent of the

sexually harassing atmosphere and failed to take adequate steps to correct it.

12.

This atmosphere of sexual harassment was so severe and pervasive

that it altered Beasley's, Graves', and Smith's conditions of employment and created an

abusive working environment.

13.

As a consequence, Beasley, Graves and Smith were compelled to

resign.

14.

The conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person, situated

as Beasley, Graves, and Smith, would have felt compelled to resign.

15.

The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive the

above named individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely

affect their status as employees because of their sex, male.

16.

The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

17.

The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with

malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Scott Beasley, Joel

Graves, and Douglas Smith.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant employer, its owners, officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate against male employees by subjecting them to a sexually hostile environment. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order the Defendant Employer to make any affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole the aggrieved former employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, resulting from the unlawful employment practices complained of above, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole the aggrieved former employees, by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses, resulting from the unlawful employment practices complained of above, including emotional pain,

suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

F. Order the Defendant to pay the aggrieved former employees punitive

damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in an amount to be

determined a trial.

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

H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised in this

complaint involving intentional violations of Title VII.

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

1801 - L Street, Northwest

" gton, DC 20507

:/

,

Alabama Bar #ASB-1127-W-70-V
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1900 Third Avenue, North Birmingham, AL 35203-2397 Telephone Number: 205/212-2046

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION )

AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. )

)

Defendant

)

)

*

*

*

)

)

SCOTT BEASLEY,

)

)

Intervenor

)

DOCKET NO. 3:05-cv-122-M-A

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

The intervenor Scott Beasley, by and through his attorneys Rutherford

Calder and Branch, Thompson, Philhours & Warmath, P.A., and for his

Complaint in Intervention, states:

A. Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

1. The intervenor Scott Beasley (hereinafter “Beasley”) is an individual

and a resident of Paragould, Arkansas.

2. The defendant Hill Brothers Construction and Engineering

Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Hill Brothers”), is a corporation with its primary place

of business in Mississippi, with more than 15 employees at all times relevant to

this matter.

Complaint in Intervention – Page 1

3. From 1999 to July 2002, Beasley was an employee of Hill Brothers in Faulkner, Mississippi.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action, and venue is proper in this Court.
B. Factual Statement 5. As employee of Hill Brothers, Beasley’s primary job duties involved driving trucks and transporting equipment and parts for Hill Brothers. Beasley’s supervisor at Hill Brothers was Greg Witt. 6. During the period of Beasley’s employment, Beasley was subjected to repeated and continued sexual harassment by Witt. Witt’s actions included exposing his penis in the presence of Beasley, suggesting to Beasley that he engage in sexual activity with Witt, touching Beasley in a sexually provocative manner, and making repeated sexual comments to Beasley. None of Witt’s actions were welcome or elicited by Beasley. 7. Beasley requested that Witt cease this conduct, and Witt refused. Shortly before Beasley left Hill Brothers, Witt summoned Beasley and two other employees to a hotel room to receive their paychecks. In the hotel room, Witt exposed his penis to the employees, touched Beasley and another male employee in a sexually provocative way, and touched a third male employee with his penis. 8. Beasley advised Witt this conduct was unwelcome, but it continued. Beasley also made a complaint to an employee at Hill Brothers named Tina
Complaint in Intervention – Page 2

Robertson, who was designated to receive claims and concerns involving employment discrimination. This complaint was ignored.
9. Beasley’s working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person similarly situated would have felt compelled to resign. Beasley did resign from Hill Brothers and moved to northeast Arkansas.
D. Claim for Relief 10. This Court should hold Hill Brothers liable to Beasley for sexual harassment pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 11. Beasley filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 90 days of his constructive termination from Hill Brothers. All administrative prerequisites to the filing of this lawsuit have been exhausted. 12. This Court should award Beasley the following relief: backpay, compensatory damages for emotional distress and humiliation, equitable relief including front pay, attorneys fees, and court costs. 13. The actions of Hill Brothers were intentional, willful, wanton, reckless, and malicious. This Court should award Beasley punitive damages.
E. Jury Trial Demand 14. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Beasley requests a jury trial on any and all issues so triable. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff Scott Beasley prays that this Court grant all relief requested in this Complaint in Intervention; prays that this Court hold the defendant liable for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; prays that this Court
Complaint in Intervention – Page 3

award him backpay, compensatory damages for emotional distress and humiliation, equitable relief including front pay, and punitive damages; and prays that this Court award him attorneys fees, court costs and all other proper relief.

Robert F. Thompson III (Ark. Bar No. 97232)

Kimberly B. Dale (Ark. Bar No. 2003195)

BRANCH, THOMPSON, PHILHOURS & WARMATH, P.A.

414

West Court Street

Paragould,

Arkansas 72450

870-239-9581

and

RUTHERFORD CALDER P.O. Box 1381 Oxford, MS 38655 662-513-3901

By: /s/ David L. Calder David L. Calder (Mississippi Bar No. 7686) Attorneys for intervenor Scott Beasley

Complaint in Intervention – Page 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David L. Calder, certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing by electronic filing and by posting a copy, postage prepaid, to the following addresses on this 4th day of November, 2005: Valerie Hicks Poe, Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1900 Third Avenue, North Birmingham, AL 35203-2397 Thomas A. Wicker Holland, Ray, Upchurch & Hillen, P.A. P.O. Drawer 409 Tupelo, MS 38802-0409
/s/David L. Calder ____________ David L. Calder, MSB No. 7686
Complaint in Intervention – Page 5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
V.
HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
SCOTT BEASLEY

PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 3:05CV122
DEFENDANT INTERVENOR

VERDICT FORM: DOUGLAS SMITH

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant was subjected to a hostile work environment caused by sexual harassment?

,L-YES

NO

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant was constructively discharged?

-LYES

NO

If your answer to both of the preceding questions was no, do not continue. If your answer to either of the preceding questions was yes, please calculate the total amount of damages you find that the claimant has suffered, if any.
$__-Frt'----_ Compensatory !
$_---JrJlL-_ Back Pay
I

!

(j

JURY FOREPERSON

VERDICT FORM: JOEL GRAVES

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant was subjected to a hostile work environment caused by sexual harassment?

- LYES

NO

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant was constructively discharged?

--,LLYES

NO

If your answer to both of the preceding questions was no, do not continue. If your answer to either of the preceding questions was yes, please calculate the total amount of damages you find that the claimant has suffered, if any.
$---4'[6"",--- Compensatory
$--r/'F---- Back Pay
$ 7S;/JOIJ .o..E Punitive

q#1 This the

day of February, 2007.

L k JkuLl '

P£< L

· . '

VERDICT FORM: SCOTT BEASLEY

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant was subjected to a hostile work environment caused by sexual harassment?

+YES

NO

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant was constructively discharged?
NO

If your answer to both of the preceding questions was no, do not continue. If your answer to either of the preceding questions was yes, please calculate the total amount of damages you find that the claimant has suffered, if any.
$---¥f"--- Compensatory
$-------'I"f«-'-- Back Pay
$ 1~OOD ~ Punitive

This the ~ day of February, 2007.
~-Lk~

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

PLAINTIFF

V.

CASE NO. 3:05CV122

HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.

DEFENDANT

SCOTT BEASLEY

INTERVENER

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, Honorable Michael P. Mills,

U.S. District Judge, presiding, and the issues having been duly tried and the jury having duly

rendered its verdict,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: That the plaintiff, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and
INTERVENER SCOTT BEASLEY, do have of and recover from the defendant, HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC., the SUM TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($225,000.00) in punitive damages with an interest rate thereon at the rate of 5.10 percent as provided by law, and its costs of action.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 12TH day of February, 2007.

DAVID CREWS Clerk of the Court
/s/ Sallie Wilkerson (By) Deputy Clerk

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 111 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
V.
HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
SCOTT BEASLEY

PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 3:05CV122
DEFENDANT INTERVENOR

MEMORANDUM OPINION This cause comes before the court on motions of intervenor Scott Beasley and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to amend the judgment of the jury verdict returned on February 9, 2007 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 59(e) or in the alternative for a new trial on back pay and damages, and for additur, as well as the motion of the Defendant Hill Brothers Construction and Engineering Company, Inc. (hereinafter Hill Brothers) for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability or for a vacation of punitive damages, or in the alternative for a new trial. The court has reviewed the briefs and submissions and is prepared to rule.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW When considering a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e), relief should only be granted when there is: (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) new and previously unavailable evidence is now available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). The granting of such a motion is an extraordinary measure which the court should exercise sparingly. See, 11 Charles A.

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 111 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 2 of 10
Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1, 124.
A motion for judgment as a matter of law in an action tried by a jury is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. Hiltgen v. Sumrall, 47 F.3d 695, 699 (5th Cir. 1995). A jury verdict must be upheld unless there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find as it did. Id. at 700 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1)). A jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and those inferences may constitute sufficient proof to support a verdict. Id. Even though the court might have reached a different conclusion if it had been the trier of fact, it is not free to reweigh the evidence or to re-evaluate credibility of witnesses. Id. The court must not substitute its judgment for the jury's reasonable factual inferences to reach other inferences that it may regard as more reasonable. Id.
The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial is generally within the sound discretion of the trial court, and is reversible only for an abuse of discretion. Shows v. Jamison Bedding, Inc., 671 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir. 1982). A trial court should not grant a new trial on evidentiary grounds unless the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. Whitehead v. Food Max of Mississippi, Inc., 163 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Pryor v. Trane Co., 138 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 1998)). In passing on a motion for a new trial, a trial court does not need to take the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict winner, but may weigh the evidence. Shows, 671 F.3d at 269 (quoting Bazile v. Bizzo Marine Co., Inc., 600 F. 2d 101, 105 (5th Cir. 1979)). This does not mean that a judge may order a new trial simply because he or she disagrees with the jury verdict. Id. The judge must be convinced that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. Id.
2

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 111 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 3 of 10
II. MOTIONS FOR POST-JUDGMENT RELIEF A. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that it shall be unlawful “to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). This statutory language creates a cause of action “[w]hen the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 78 (1998) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)). Title VII prohibits discrimination against men as well as women. Id. (citing Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669, 682 (1983)). In deciding whether a violation of Title VII has occurred a court must determine “whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed.” Id. (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 25 (Ginsburg, J., concurring)). There exists under Title VII no specific forms or categories of harassment which must be proved, but a plaintiff must always prove that the events complained of were not simply tinged with sexual connotations, but were actually sex-based discrimination. Id. at 80-81. As applicable in the present case, the correct standard for finding a violation of Title VII is the finding of an “objectively hostile or abusive work environment-an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.” Id. at 81 (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 21). In this circuit, a claim for hostile work environment requires the plaintiff to prove five factors: (1) membership in a protected group; (2) subjection to unprovoked sexual advances, or
3

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 111 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 4 of 10
request for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature; (3) but for their sex, the claimant would not have been the object of harassment; (4) the harassment was sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive or hostile working environment; (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action. Cortes v. Maxus Exploration, 977 F.2d 195, 199-200 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing Jones v. Flagship Int'l, 793 F.2d 714, 710-20 (5th Cir. 1986).
In order to establish constructive discharge, the plaintiff must prove that "working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would have felt compelled to resign." Id. (citing Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 968 F.2d 427, 429 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted)).
This Court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination that Hill Brothers subjected the Plaintiffs and Intervenor to a sexually hostile work environment and constructively discharged them. Such examination dictates that the Court find that the jury determination is reasonable and is supported by a sufficient evidentiary basis.
As is generally the case, this court is hesitant to disturb the carefully-considered verdict of a duly empaneled jury. In this case the verdict was supported by substantial evidence. Joel Graves testified that he was subjected to daily incidents by Greg Witt, a Hill Brothers supervisor, of either "hunching," or exposing his penis to Mr. Graves. Melanie Peacock, a witness with no interest in the outcome of the case, testified to witnessing one such incident of "hunching." Graves testified that Witt would stand on the job site exposing his penis to passing trucks "ninety percent (90%) of the time." Graves further testified that Witt attempted to touch him with his penis. Darren
4

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 111 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 5 of 10
McLemore testified that he saw Witt slap Graves on the backside as Graves was entering a van used to transport truck drivers.
Scott Beasley testified that Witt, on numerous occasions, attempted to grope or grab at his crotch. Douglas Eric Smith testified that on one occasion Witt made fun of his tongue ring stating that it "felt good." This testimony allowed the jury to infer that Witt was referring to Smith performing a sex act on him. Smith further testified to witnessing Witt in his underwear fondling himself. Graves testified that this same event occurred every time that Graves picked up his paycheck. Smith and Beasley both testified that Witt tried to force their heads into his lap. The testimony showed that these activities occurred solely in relation to male employees. Peacock testified that she reported activities that made up the basis of this claim to the company, but no action was taken. Additionally, there was testimony that the men themselves contacted Tina Robinson from Hill Brothers’ office in an attempt to relate the events they perceived as sexual harassment. Robinson testified that she received complaints of sexual harassment, but did not investigate them. In combination with Hill Brothers’ failure to correctly identify their EEO officer, a reasonable jury was able to determine that Hill Brothers was both aware of the conduct and failed to take action to stop it.
Hill Brothers was permitted to put on witnesses that contradicted this testimony. Additionally, Hill Brothers cross-examined each witness and raised some inconsistencies that went to the witnesses'credibility. However, it is clear from the jury's verdict that the jury found the witnesses presented by the Plaintiffs and Intervenor to be more credible than the defense witnesses. This may not be the only rational conclusion that the jury could have reached, but it is a rational conclusion and must stand. A reasonable jury could have determined (1) the men were part of a protected group; (2)
5

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 111 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 6 of 10
they were subjected to unprovoked sexual advances, or request for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature; (3) but for their sex, the Plaintiffs and Intervenor would not have been the object of harassment; (4) the harassment was sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive or hostile working environment; and, (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action. Further a jury could have rationally found that in the face of this activity that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. Therefore the jury's verdict must stand and the Defendant is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied. B. Motion for a New Trial
While this court is hesitant to disturb the carefully-considered verdict of a duly empaneled jury, it is within the court's sound discretion to grant a motion for a new trial. A motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to view all of the evidence and determine the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the jury's verdict. If an error at trial requires a new trial on one issue, but this issue is separate from the other issues in the case and the error did not affect the determination of the other issues, the scope of the new trial may be limited to the single issue, e.g., the new trial may be limited to the issue of liability or damages. C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2814, p. 150 (citing Kemp v. Balboa, 23 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 1994 )). However, a new trial on the issue of damages alone is not proper if there is reason to think that the verdict may represent a compromise among jurors with different views on whether defendant was liable or if for some other reason it appears that the error on the damage issue may have affected the determination
6

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 111 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 7 of 10
of liability. Hatfield v. Seaboard Airline R. Co., 396 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1968). This Court must consider the totality of the circumstances in determining realistically whether all issues need to be retried, even if the immediate impact of the error complained of was on a particular issue. The test governing conflicts between the jury's answers is whether the answers may fairly be said to represent a logical and probable decision on the relevant issues as submitted. Griffin v. Matherne, 471 F.2d 911, 915 (5th Cir. 1973).
A compromise verdict occurs when a jury is unable to agree on liability and therefore compromises between their disagreements by awarding inadequate damages. Pagan v. Shoney's, Inc., 931 F.2d 334, 339 (5th Cir. 1991). In determining whether a jury reached a compromise verdict, the court examines the “totality of the circumstances” and considers any indicia of compromise apparent from the record, as well as other factors that may indicate compromise. Yarbrough v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 964 F.2d 376, 379 (5th Cir. 1992). Factors a court may consider include: (1) an inadequate award of damages, (2) whether the issues of liability were strongly contested, (3) whether the jury was confused, (4) whether the parties are satisfied with the verdict, (5) how long the jury deliberated, (6) whether the jury requested additional instructions, and (7) whether the jury had attempted to qualify its award in any way. Pagan, 931 F.2d at 339. However, there is no compromise verdict if the court can find a legitimate explanation for an inconsistent award of damages. Id.
In this case, the jury declared itself hopelessly deadlocked after a few hours of deliberation. After being instructed by this Court to continue deliberations, the jury quickly returned a verdict finding Hill Brothers liable for both submitted claims. The jury, however, awarded no compensatory damages or back pay, instead awarding each
7

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 111 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 8 of 10
claimant $75,000 in punitive damages amounting to a total judgment of $225,000 in punitive damages against Hill Brothers.1
In the present case, the jury's award simply does not conform to their verdict. Based on the jury's finding of liability, the damages awarded were inadequate. An award of back pay is proper whenever an employee is impermissibly constructively discharged. Jurgens v. EEOC, 903 F.2d 386, 389-90 (5th Cir. 1990). Exceptions to awards of back pay are narrow once an economic loss has been established. Carpenter v. Stephen F. Austin State University, 706 F.2d 608, 631 (5th Cir. 1983). Here the evidence of economic loss is undisputed. Both the Plaintiff and Intervenor request an additur2 based on individual testimony that went to lost wages. This testimony was not challenged by the Defendant, nor was evidence put on that would tend to show that the affected men did not reasonably mitigate their damages. This point is at least partially conceded by Hill Brothers which puts forth the theory that the jury simply did not believe the Claimants' testimony as it relates to economic damages. See, Reply Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, to Alter the Judgment or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial at 8. However, the jury's finding of liability shows that they gave credence to the Claimants'testimony. Thus it is inconsistent and against the great weight of the evidence for the jury to believe the Claimants'testimony as to the heavily litigated issue of liability, but not to accept their testimony as it relates to the undisputed issue of economic loss.
Further, the issues of liability were hotly contested in this case. There was significant argument as to whether the alleged events occurred, and if those events did
1 The Court does not reach the question of whether punitive damages may stand in Title VII actions where the jury makes a finding of no actual injury as that question is rendered moot by the Court's other rulings. 2 The Court does not reach the question of whether additur is a proper remedy as the finding that the jury's verdict was an impermissible compromise requires a new trial and renders moot the issue.
8

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 111 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 9 of 10
occur, whether they rose to the level of violating Title VII. While this Court doubts that the heavily contested nature of this case resulted in jury confusion, it did serve to provide the jury with a difficult and potentially close question. Certainly a reasonable jury could have concluded that Hill Brothers was liable, as discussed above, but the jury could have also reasonably concluded that the work environment, while rough and crude, was not of such a nature to support a finding of sex-based discrimination. The difficulty in answering this question is evidenced by the jury's indication that they were initially hung after several hours of deliberation.
After being instructed to continue deliberating the jury was able to quickly reach a verdict. This verdict, however, pleased neither party. The Claimants argue that the verdict award failed to make them whole by awarding back pay. The Defendant similarly, was displeased not only with the finding of liability, but with the award of punitive damages without the finding of actual damages.
The verdict in this case, which pleased no-one, was reached extremely quickly after the jury’s stated indication that it was hopelessly deadlocked. All things considered, this abrupt change in the jury's decision indicates a compromise verdict. The deliberations stretched into Friday evening. While it is neither possible nor good policy for this Court to read the minds of jurors, it appears under this circumstance of a late end of the week deliberation that a tired and split jury came to a compromise decision. In fact, Intervenor Beasley concedes that the facts "strongly indicate that the jury improperly compromised its verdict." See, Plaintiff Scott Beasley's Rule 59(e) Motion, or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial on the Issues of Back Pay and Damages at 3.
Thus the totality of the circumstances shows that the jury impermissibly compromised its verdict. The jury reached a verdict in a vigorously contested case which
9

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 111 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 10 of 10
provided for inadequate damages, was acceptable to neither party, and was returned in a manner which indicated an improper compromise. In the interests of justice this Court has no recourse except to grant the Defendant's Motion for a New Trial on the issue of liability and damages.
The motions of intervenor Scott Beasley and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the defendant, Hill Brothers, are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court hereby GRANTS a new trial on liability and damages, and DENIES the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The motions of Scott Beasley and the EEOC for additur are dismissed as MOOT. An order to this effect shall issue this day.
It is so ordered. This the 12th day of September, 2007.
/s/ Michael P. Mills CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
10

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 114 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 1 of 5 F#9676

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION )

AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. )

)

Defendant

)

)

*

*

*

)

)

DOUGLAS ERIC SMITH,

)

)

Intervenor

)

DOCKET NO. 3:05-cv-122-M-A

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

The intervenor Douglas Eric Smith, by and through his attorneys Branch,

Thompson, Philhours & Warmath, P.A., and for his Complaint in Intervention,

states:

A. Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

1. The intervenor Douglas Eric Smith (hereinafter “Smith”) is an

individual and a resident of Walnut Mississippi.

2. The defendant Hill Brothers Construction and Engineering

Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Hill Brothers”), is a corporation with its primary place

of business in Mississippi, with more than 15 employees at all times relevant to

this matter.

Page 1

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 114 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 2 of 5 F#9676
3. From 2001 to July 2002, Smith was an employee of Hill Brothers in Faulkner, Mississippi.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action, and venue is proper in this Court.
B. Factual Statement 5. As employee of Hill Brothers, Smith’s primary job duties involved driving trucks and transporting equipment and parts for Hill Brothers. Smith’s supervisor was Greg Witt. 6. During the period of Smith’s employment, Smith was subjected to repeated and continued sexual harassment by Witt. Witt’s actions included exposing his penis in the presence of Smith, suggesting to Smith that he engage in sexual activity with Witt, touching Smith in a sexually provocative manner, and making repeated sexual comments to Smith. None of Witt’s actions were welcome or elicited by Smith. 7. Smith requested that Witt cease this conduct, and Witt refused. Shortly before Smith left Hill Brothers, Witt summoned Smith and three other employees to a hotel room to receive their paychecks, often exposing himself. 8. Smith advised Witt this conduct was unwelcome, but it continued. Smith also made a complaint to an employee at Hill Brothers named Tina Robinson, who was designated to receive claims and concerns involving employment discrimination. This complaint was ignored.
Page 2

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 114 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 3 of 5 F#9676
9. Smith’s working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person similarly situated would have felt compelled to resign. Smith did resign from Hill Brothers.
D. Claim for Relief 10. This Court should hold Hill Brothers liable to Smith for sexual harassment pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 11. Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 90 days of his constructive termination from Hill Brothers. All administrative prerequisites to the filing of this lawsuit have been exhausted. 12. This Court should award Smith the following relief: backpay, compensatory damages for emotional distress and humiliation, equitable relief including front pay, attorneys fees, and court costs. 13. The actions of Hill Brothers were intentional, willful, wanton, reckless, and malicious. This Court should award Smith punitive damages.
E. Jury Trial Demand 14. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Smith requests a jury trial on any and all issues so triable. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff Douglas Eric Smith prays that this Court grant all relief requested in this Complaint in Intervention; prays that this Court hold the defendant liable for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; prays that this Court award him backpay, compensatory damages for emotional distress and
Page 3

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 114 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 4 of 5 F#9676
humiliation, equitable relief including front pay, and punitive damages; prays that this Court award him attorneys fees, court costs and all other proper relief.

VERIFICATION

Comes the undersigned and being first duly sworn states on oath that the above and foregoing matters are true and correct as he verily believes.

__/s/ Douglas Eric Smith_________________ Douglas Eric Smith

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ) COUNTY OF ___________)

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this ____ day of _________________

My Commission Expires:

_______________________

______________________________ Notary Public

BRANCH, THOMPSON, PHILHOURS & WARMATH A Professional Association 414 West Court Street Paragould, Arkansas 72450 870-239-9581
By:_______/s/ Kimberly B. Dale______________________ Robert F. Thompson III (Ark. Bar No. 97232) Kimberly B. Dale (Ark. Bar No. 2003195) Attorneys for intervenor Eric Douglas Smith

Page 4

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 114 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 5 of 5 F#9676
Certificate of Service I, Kimberly B. Dale, certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing by through the ECF system on this 17th day of October 2007: David L. Calder: davidcalder@bellsouth.net, dcalder@bigfoot.com Charles E. Guerrier: charles.guerrier@eeoc.gov Julie Steptoe Lee: Julie.Lee@EEOC.GOV Valerie Hicks Powe: valerie.powe@eeoc.gov, vpowe03@sprintpcs.com Robert F. Thompson , III: rft3@grnco.net, kdale@paragouldlawyer.com Thomas A. Wicker: taw@hruhpa.com, kmd@hruhpa.com, twicker@wickerfarm.com
________/s/ Kimberly B. Dale___________________ Kimberly B. Dale
Page 5

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 121 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 1 of 5 F#9676

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION )

AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. )

)

Defendant

)

)

*

*

*

)

)

JOEL GRAVES,

)

)

Intervenor

)

DOCKET NO. 3:05-cv-122-M-A

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

The intervenor, Joel Graves, by and through his attorneys Branch,

Thompson, Philhours & Warmath, P.A., and for his Complaint in Intervention,

states:

A. Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

1. The Intervenor Joel Graves (hereinafter “Graves”) is an individual

and a resident of Ripley, Mississippi.

2. The Defendant Hill Brothers Construction and Engineering

Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Hill Brothers”), is a corporation with its primary place

of business in Mississippi, with more than 15 employees at all times relevant to

this matter.

EXHIBIT 1 – Motion to Intervene

Page 1

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 121 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 2 of 5 F#9676
3. From 2000 to July 2002, Graves was an employee of Hill Brothers in Faulkner, Mississippi.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action, and venue is proper in this Court.
B. Factual Statement 5. As an employee of Hill Brothers, Graves’ primary job duties involved driving trucks and transporting equipment and parts for Hill Brothers. Graves’ supervisor was Greg Witt. 6. During the period of Graves employment, Graves was subjected to repeated and continued sexual harassment by Witt. Witt’s actions included exposing his penis in the presence of Graves, suggesting to Graves that he engage in sexual activity with Witt, touching Graves in a sexually provocative manner, and making repeated sexual comments to Graves. None of Witt’s actions were welcome or elicited by Graves. 7. Graves requested that Witt cease this conduct, and Witt refused. Shortly before Graves left Hill Brothers, Witt summoned Graves and three other employees to a hotel room to receive their paychecks, often exposing himself. 8. Graves advised Witt this conduct was unwelcome, but it continued. 9. Graves working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person similarly situated would have felt compelled to resign. Graves did resign from Hill Brothers.
D. Claim for Relief

EXHIBIT 1 – Motion to Intervene

Page 2

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 121 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 3 of 5 F#9676
10. This Court should hold Hill Brothers liable to Graves for sexual harassment pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
11. Graves filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 90 days of his constructive termination from Hill Brothers. All administrative prerequisites to the filing of this lawsuit have been exhausted.
12. This Court should award Graves the following relief: backpay, compensatory damages for emotional distress and humiliation, equitable relief including front pay, attorneys fees, and court costs.
13. The actions of Hill Brothers were intentional, willful, wanton, reckless, and malicious. This Court should award Graves punitive damages.
E. Jury Trial Demand 14. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Graves requests a jury trial on any and all issues so triable. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Joel Graves prays that this Court grant all relief requested in this Complaint in Intervention; prays that this Court hold the Defendant liable for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; prays that this Court award him back-pay, compensatory damages for emotional distress and humiliation, equitable relief including front pay, and punitive damages; prays that this Court award him attorneys fees, court costs and all other proper relief.

EXHIBIT 1 – Motion to Intervene

Page 3

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 121 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 4 of 5
F#9676
BRANCH, THOMPSON, PHILHOURS & WARMATH A Professional Association 414 West Court Street Paragould, Arkansas 72450 870-239-9581
By:________/s/ Kimberly B. Dale_____________ Robert F. Thompson III (Ark. Bar No. 97232) Kimberly B. Dale (Ark. Bar No. 2003195) Attorneys for Intervenor Joel Graves
Certificate of Service
I, Kimberly B. Dale, certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing by through the ECF system and via first class mail on this ___9th_____ day of January 2008:
David L. Calder Email: davidcalder@bellsouth.net, dcalder@bigfoot.com Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1790 1107 Jefferson Oxford MS 38655
Charles E. Guerrier Email: charles.guerrier@eeoc.gov Mailing Address: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205
Julie Lee Email: Julie.Lee@EEOC.GOV Mailing Address: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205

EXHIBIT 1 – Motion to Intervene

Page 4

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM Document 121 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 5 of 5 F#9676
Robert F. Thompson , III: rft3@grnco.net, kdale@paragouldlawyer.com
Thomas A. Wicker Email: taw@hruhpa.com, kmd@hruhpa.com, twicker@wickerfarm.com Mailing Address: Post Office Drawer 409 Tupelo, MS 38802-0409
__/s/ Kimberly B. Dale_________ Kimberly B. Dale

EXHIBIT 1 – Motion to Intervene

Page 5

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 157 Filed 04/02/2008 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
V.
HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
SCOTT BEASLEY, JOEL GRAVES, and DOUGLAS SMITH

PLAINTIFF CAUSE NO. 3:05CV122
DEFENDANT INTERVENORS

ORDER This cause comes before the court on the multiple motions of Hill Brothers Construction Company, Inc. and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After due consideration, the court finds as follows: Hill Brothers has moved to sever claims for equitable relief made on behalf of the EEOC from claims of the charging parties. The court finds that severance in this instance would cause an unnecessary drain on judicial resources; accordingly, the defendant’s motion [131] is DENIED. Hill Brothers has moved to dismiss Scott Beasley’s claim because he did not sign his initial charge of discrimination with the EEOC. In the first trial, Scott Beasley testified that he called EEOC investigator Dorothy Crawford to confirm that he had authorized Joel Graves to sign his initial charge of discrimination. Beasley later signed an EEOC affidavit supporting the initial charge of discrimination on November 15, 2002. Where a statute or supplemental rule requires an oath, courts have shown a high degree of consistency in accepting later verification as

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 157 Filed 04/02/2008 Page 2 of 4
reaching back to an earlier, unverified filing. Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U.S. 106, 116 (2002). Accordingly, Hill Brothers’ motion [133] in limine to dismiss Scott Beasley’s claim is DENIED.
The court hereby RESERVES RULING on Hill Brothers’ motions [135, 150] in limine to exclude all evidence and testimony of its position statement to the EEOC. The parties may reassert this motion at the commencement of trial.
Hill Brothers has moved to compel the testimony of EEOC investigator Dorothy Crawford, while the EEOC has moved to exclude her testimony. The government’s deliberative process privilege protects predecisional materials reflecting deliberative or policy making processes, but not materials that are purely factual. EEOC v. Fina Oil and Chemical Co., 145 F.R.D. 74, 75 (E.D.Tex. 1992). In this instance, Hill Brothers seeks information about the development of the EEOC’s position with regard to the charges against the defendant, as well as the information regarding Scott Beasley’s signature on his initial charge. The development of the EEOC’s position is subject to the deliberative process privilege, and testimony from two witnesses other than Dorothy Crawford is available to establish the circumstances surrounding the signature on Scott Beasley’s initial charge. Hill Brothers’ motion [137] to compel is DENIED and the EEOC’s motion [151] to exclude is GRANTED.
Hill Brothers has filed a motion [138] in limine to exclude testimony from Melanie Peacock, Ray McClendon, and Darren McLemore. The defendant objects on the grounds that evidence of similar acts is relevant only to the extent that the acts are the same or substantially the same as the acts or practices alleged to constitute discrimination. However, the defendant expects each witness to testify that they observed Mr. Witt engage in the behavior complained of by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the motion to exclude testimony is DENIED.

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 157 Filed 04/02/2008 Page 3 of 4
Hill Brothers’ motion [139] in limine to exclude reference to the outcome of litigation involving Melanie Peacock’s disparate treatment discrimination claim and Jennifer Woodard’s disparate treatment and harassment claim is GRANTED. These claims do not involve supervisor Greg Witt, and are unrelated to the instant action.
Hill Brothers’ motion [140] in limine to exclude from evidence its sexual harassment policies procedures is DENIED. The EEOC remains a party to this action and is entitled to present evidence.
Hill Brothers’ motion [141] in limine to bifurcate the trial of liability and punitive damages is GRANTED. In the event of a finding of liability, the jury will reconvene and assess punitive damages.
Hill Brothers’ motion [143] in limine to preclude questions presuming sexual harassment is GRANTED. The plaintiff/intervenors are permitted to ask questions in order to develop the case, but may not phrase questions as to insinuate that the existence of sexual harassment has already been established.
The court RESERVES RULING on Hill Brothers’ motion [145] in limine to prevent the implication that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14 was manufactured, concealed or otherwise the product of Hill Brothers’ bad or ulterior motives. The parties may reassert this motion at the commencement of trial.
The court RESERVES RULING on Hill Brothers’ motion [146] in limine to exclude testimony regarding alleged sexually harassing behavior by Greg Witt before he was a supervisor. The parties may reassert this motion at the commencement of trial.
Hill Brothers’ motion [147] in limine to preclude reference to Kenneth Hill’s conviction for failure to pay personal taxes in 1984 and 1985 is GRANTED. This conviction occurred more

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 157 Filed 04/02/2008 Page 4 of 4
than ten years ago and Mr. Hill since received a presidential pardon. Hill Brothers’ motion [148] in limine to exclude reference to Greg Witt’s nine-year old
conviction for forgery is DENIED. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 609, evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime within the past ten years is admissible for the purpose of attacking the truthfulness of the witness.
The EEOC’s motion [153] to exclude unrelated evidence from the plaintiff-intervenors company personnel file, such as garnishments, unrelated civil suits, tax dependents claimed, and child support payments is GRANTED.
This the 2nd day of April, 2008.
/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 159 Filed 04/04/2008 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

WESTERN DIVISION


EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION

)

COMPANY, Inc.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)


CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-cv-00122-M-A

CONSENT DECREE The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") filed this action against Hill Brothers Construction Company, Inc. ("HBC" or "Defendant") on September 28,2005, in this Court, to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 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 HBC discriminated against Scott Beasley, Joel Graves and Douglas Smith in violation of Title VII by subjecting them to a sexually hostile work environment which led to their constructive discharge. HBC denies all allegations of unlawful or wrongful conduct raised in the Complaint, and nothing stated in this Decree constitutes an admission of liability or wrongdoing on the part of HBC. 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. Venue is appropriate in the Northern District of Mississippi. The parties agree that this Consent Decree is

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 159 Filed 04/04/2008 Page 2 of 9
fair, reasonable, and does not violate the law or public policy. The rights of Beasley, Graves, Smith, HBC and the Commission are protected by this Decree.
In the interest of resolving this matter, and avoiding the expense of further litigation, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Commission, Beasley, Graves, Smith and HBC have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree. It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. This Decree resolves all claims arising out of the issues between the Commission, Beasley, Graves, Smith and HBC in this lawsuit without limitation to back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorney fees. This Decree expires without further action of the parties twenty-four (24) months commencing six months from the date of its entry, unless there is pending at that time a complaint to the Court alleging violation ofthe terms of this Decree. 2. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it agree and acknowledge that it is unlawful to: (a) discriminate against any employee on the basis of sex, (b) harass any employee on the basis of sex, (c) retaliate against any employee because he or she: (i) opposes or opposed discriminatory conduct made unlawful by Title VII; (ii) filed or filed a charge of discrimination; or assists, assisted, participates or participated in the filing of a charge of discrimination, or (iii) or assists, assisted, participated, or participated in an investigation or proceeding brought under the federal or state laws prohibiting discrimination or retaliation; and (d) alter the terms and conditions of any employee's employment because of sex to the extend required by Federal law.

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 159 Filed 04/04/2008 Page 3 of 9
MONETARY RELIEF
 3. HBC shall pay, by check or money order, the total amount of$125,000.00 for all claims pertaining to expenses, attorneys' fees, damages and court costs within seven (7) business days from the date of the entry of this Decree. HBC will issue applicable United States Internal Revenue Service Forms as may be required by law. 4. All payments provided for in paragraph 3 of this Decree shall be mailed by certified mail directly to Kimberly Dale, one of the counsel for Plaintiffs, at 414 West Court Street, Paragould, Arkansas 72450, with copies submitted to United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Regional Attorney, Birmingham District Office, 1130 22nd Street South, Suite 2000, Birmingham, Alabama, 35205-2886.
OTHER RELIEF 5. HBC warrants and represents that the personnel files of Scott Beasley, Joel Graves and Douglas Smith contain none of the following: (a) references to the charges of discrimination filed against Defendant that formed the basis of this action; (b) references to Scott Beasley, Joel Graves and Douglas Smith's participation in this action; or (c) any documents that contain any derogatory information or that refer, make reference, or relate to any alleged performance deficiencies by Scott Beasley, Joel Graves and Douglas Smith, to the degree the information or alleged performance deficiencies were generated, or based on, matters occurring during the period of their supervision by Greg Witt, or after the date on which they first complained of unlawful discrimination, July 21,2002. 6. Defendant will institute and carry out policies and practices at its Mississippi locations that help assure a work environment for its employees that is free from sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation; that allows employees to raise concerns or complaints without

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 159 Filed 04/04/2008 Page 4 of 9
retaliation about matters, whether alleged, perceived or actual, made unlawful by Title VII and that provides procedures for employees to report incidents of sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation. 7. To assist Defendant in achieving and maintaining compliance in the area of anti­ discrimination and equal employment opportunity, within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendant will appoint an appropriate and qualified employee to be responsible for (a) creating, reviewing and/or revising and disseminating to all employees Defendant's anti­ discrimination policies and procedures, particularly, but not exclusively, as they relate to sex­ based discrimination, sexual harassment, same-sex harassment, retaliation, sex-based promotion, hiring and provision of benefits and resources because of an employee's gender; and limiting an employee to a specific assignment, type or category ofjob because of gender; (b) creating, reviewing and/or revising Defendant's policies and procedures with respect to responding to and keeping records regarding complaints received; (c) creating, reviewing and/or revising Defendant's voluntary instruction and training programs on Title VII and Defendant's anti­ discrimination policies and procedures particularly, but not exclusively, as they relate to sex­ based discrimination, sexual harassment, same sex harassment, retaliation, sex-based promotion, hiring and provision of benefits and resources because of an employee's gender, and limiting an employee to specific assignment, type or category ofjob because of gender; (d) receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination and providing notices of complaint to Defendant's owner and/or owner representative (as designated by the owner); (e) evaluating and, if appropriate, disciplining or terminating employees for violation of Defendant' s anti­ discrimination policies and procedures; (f) evaluating employees in the area of anti­ discrimination/equal employment opportunity policies; and (g) preparing and submitting reports

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 159 Filed 04/04/2008 Page 5 of 9
to the Commission, as required by this Decree. A final EEO policy responsive to this Decree
shall be completed and disseminated to all employees within One hundred eighty (180) days
following the date of entry of this Decree.
8. Within one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of entry of this Decree, HBC
shall provide training at its Mississippi locations on Title VII according to the following terms:
A. HBC shall select and retain a consultant or employee to provide annual training during the term of this Decree.
B. The consultant or employee shall be a person(s) with appropriate credentials in the area of EEO compliance, specifically Title VII. HBC shall submit the name, address, telephone number, and resume of the proposed consultant or employee, together with the dates of the proposed training seminars and the details of the contents of the training, to the Regional Attorney of the Birmingham District Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission thirty (30) days prior to the date of each training required by this Decree.
C. The consultant or employee shall provide training to all HBC employees in the State of Mississippi, including, but limited to, all supervisors, managers, management officials, and all Human Resource officials, including employees eligible to pre-screen applicants. All supervisory employees, including, but not limited to, supervisors, managers, management officials, and employees who recruit, hire, promote and discipline employees, and all human resource employees shall attend the training sessions. HBC, at its election, may have more than one training session(s) each year to accommodate staffing needs. The training session shall include classroom instruction by the instructor. The first training session shall be conducted within four months of the entry of Final Judgment in this matter. Thereafter, at least one training session shall be conducted at HBC's Falkner, Mississippi location at least once per year.
D. The training session(s) shall include no less than two (2) hours of instruction, including time permitted for questions and answers. The training shall not include more than sixty minutes of videotape instruction/presentation. The first training session shall include overview of Title VII and its purposes; an explanation of what constitutes discrimination under Title VII; an explanation of types of prohibited activities including, sexual harassment, sex-based promotions, hiring and provision of benefits and resources, and limiting individuals to specific assignments and types and categories ofjobs because of their sex; a detailed discussion that discrimination in the hiring, firing promoting, compensation, assignment or other terms, conditions privileges or employment and retaliation is prohibited and will not be tolerated; HBC's policies and procedures for hiring and promoting individuals; a clear and strong encouragement of persons who believe they have been discriminated or retaliated against to report such concerns as well

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 159 Filed 04/04/2008 Page 6 of 9
as to whom and by what means employees may complain; and if they feel they have been subjected to discrimination because of any basis protected by Title VII; a promise of maximum feasible confidentiality for persons who believe that they have been subjected to unlawful discrimination based on sex or retaliation; a description of the consequences, up to and including termination, that will be imposed upon violators of Defendant's anti­ discrimination policies.
E. At the commencement of each training session, one of Defendant's management officials at or above the level of Vice-President will speak to the employees about their right to be free from workplace discrimination, their right to complain about conduct they believe to be discriminatory, the discipline that can be taken by supervisors, managers and employees who commit acts of discrimination, harassment or retaliation or allow discrimination, harassment or retaliation to occur in the workplace; the importance of maintaining and environment free of discrimination; and defendant's anti-discrimination policy.
9. Within six (6) months of entry of the final Judgment in this matter, HBC shall update its
employee manuals and its anti-discrimination policies as required to improve the ability to
receive reports and respond to allegations of harassment. When these policies are updated, they
shall be disseminated to all employees and management officials. HBC will monitor its policies
regarding anti-discrimination during the pendency of this Consent Decree and make such
changes as are required to ensure elimination of workplace harassment.
10. The Commission, at its discretion, may designate Commission representatives to attend
and participate in the training sessions described in the Order and the representatives shall have
the right to attend and fully participate in the sessions.
10. For a one year period following entry of the final judgment in this matter, a "Notice to
All Employees," attached as Exhibit A, shall be posted in a prominent place frequented by all
personnel ofHBC at each job site in the State of Mississippi. Such Notice shall be the same
type, style and size as the printing on Exhibit A and shall bear the signature of the chief
operating officer of HBC.

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 159 Filed 04/04/2008 Page 7 of 9
12. HBC is enjoined from discriminating against employees and/or applicants because of sex.
All allegations of sex discrimination under Title VII, raised internally or formally by means of
filing a complaint with the EEOC, shall be promptly investigated by an objective and
disinterested person who shall report with regard to the same to the highest levels of
management.
13. HBC shall report in writing and in affidavit form to the Regional Attorney of the
Commission's Birmingham District Office at 113D-22nd Street, South, Suite 2000, Birmingham,
Alabama 35205, beginning six months from the date of the entry of Order, and thereafter every
six months for the duration of the Order the following information:
A. Any changes, modifications, revocations, or revisions to its policies and procedures which concern or affect the subject of sex discrimination and retaliation, including those changes required in this Order.
B. The name, address, position, social security number, and telephone number of any employee who has brought allegations of sex discrimination, or retaliation against HBC personnel in the State of Mississippi including but not limited to management officials, vendors, agents, or employees during the six months preceding the report, and whose allegations are known to HBC management. The nature of the complaint, investigatory efforts made by HBC and the corrective action taken, if any, shall be specified.
C. The registry of persons attending each training seminar required by this Order and a list of current supervisory personnel employed by HBC in the State of Mississippi on the day(s) of the seminar training session(s) within thirty days after each training seminar.
D. A sworn affidavit by an HBC Human Resources representative stating that the Notice required in paragraph 11 of this Judgment was posted and the locations where it was posted.
14. Each party shall bear their own attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action up to the
date of the entry of this Decree.
15. The duration of this Decree shall be twenty-four months commencing six months from
the date of its entry. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of the
Decree, during which the Commission may petition this Court for compliance with this Decree.

Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 159 Filed 04/04/2008 Page 8 of 9

Should the Court determine that Defendant 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. Absent extension, this Decree shall expire by its own terms at the

end on October 4,2010, without further action by the Parties.

16. The parties agree to the entry of this Decree subject to final approval by the Court.

j1.­
So ORDERED this the Jf day of f+.:rt?)'""' (

, 2008.

6b-- 012- c5U-t. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO BY:

,
/Liv~----"I1 Attorney for Defendant

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EEOC


Case 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA Document 159 Filed 04/04/2008 Page 9 of 9

EXHIBIT A


NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF
 HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into between Hill Brothers Construction and the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
It is unlawful under federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, to discriminate against an employee on the basis of race or color. It is also unlawful to retaliate against any person because the person protested discriminatory practices or contacted the EEOC.
Hill Brothers Construction will not discriminate against any employee on the basis of sex and will not retaliate against any employee who participates in a charge of discrimination.

If you believe you have been discriminated against by the Hill Brothers Construction, you have the right to seek assistance from:
(1) EEOC, 1130 22nd Street South, Suite 2000, Birmingham, Alabama 35205, (205) 212-2000; or
(2) EEOC, 100 West Capitol Street, Suite 207, Jackson,
 Mississippi 39269, (601) 948-8400.


or have the right to file a charge with the EEOC if you believe you are being discriminated against.

No Retaliation Clause. No action may be taken against you by any supervisory or management official of the Hill Brothers Construction for (1) opposing discriminatory practices made unlawful by federal law, (2) filing a charge or assisting or participating in the filing of a charge of discrimination, or (3) assisting or participating in an investigation or proceeding brought under Title VII. Should any such retaliatory actions be taken against you, you should immediately contact the EEOC at the address or telephone numbers listed above.

THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED UNTIL March 30, 2009.

Dated:

_

General Manager

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...
CJRA-S, CLOSED, JURY
U.S. District Court Northern District of Mississippi (Western Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. Assigned to: Michael P. Mills Referred to: S. Allan Alexander Cause: 42:1981 Sex Discrimination

Date Filed: 09/28/2005 Date Terminated: 04/04/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Charles E. Guerrier EEOC, BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE 1130 - 22nd Street South Ridge Park Place Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205-2881 (205) 731-2067 Email: charles.guerrier@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Steptoe Lee EEOC, BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE 1130 - 22nd Street South Ridge Park Place Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205-2881 Email: Julie.Lee@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maricia Woodham EEOC, BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE 1130 - 22nd Street South Ridge Park Place Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205-2881 (205) 212-2054 Email: maricia.woodham@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mildred Byrd EEOC, BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE

1 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

Intervenor Plaintiff Scott Beasley

1130 - 22nd Street South Ridge Park Place Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205-2881 (205) 731-2067 Email: mildred.byrd@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 01/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Valerie Hicks Powe ESQUIRE MANAGEMENT TRAINING AND LEGAL SERVICES 2705 4th Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35233 205-965-1900 Email: vhicksemt@gmail.com TERMINATED: 03/17/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C. Emanuel Smith EEOC, BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE 1130 - 22nd Street South Ridge Park Place Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205-2881 (205) 212-2045 Email: emanuel.smith@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kimberly B. Dale BRANCH THOMPSON PHILHOURS & WARMATH, PA 414 West Court Street Paragould, AR 72450 870-239-9581 Email: kdale@paragouldlawyer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert F. Thompson, III BRANCH THOMPSON PHILHOURS & WARMATH, PA 414 West Court Street Paragould, AR 72450 870-239-9581 Email: rft3@grnco.net LEAD ATTORNEY

2 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

Intervenor Plaintiff Joel Graves

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David L. Calder MISSISSIPPI JUSTICE CENTER P.O. Box 1790 Oxford, MS 38655 (662) 238-7770 Email: davidcalder@bellsouth.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kimberly B. Dale (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert F. Thompson, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant Joel Graves
Intervenor Defendant Hill Brothers Construction and Engineering Company, Inc.

represented by Kimberly B. Dale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert M. Williams, Jr. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN & CALDWELL - Memphis 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000 20th Floor First Tennessee Building Memphis, TN 38103 901-577-2215 Email: rwilliams@bakerdonelson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Wicker HOLLAND RAY UPCHURCH & HILLEN P. O. Drawer 409 Tupelo, MS 38802 (662) 842-1721 Email: taw@hruhpa.com LEAD ATTORNEY

3 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

V. Defendant Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.
Intervenor Douglas Smith

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert M. Williams, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Wicker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kimberly B. Dale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/28/2005
09/28/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005
10/12/2005
10/31/2005 11/02/2005 11/02/2005 11/04/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc., Jury Demand, , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(kmt, USDC)
2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Michael Mills and Magistrate Judge Allan Alexander. (kmt, USDC)
3 MOTION to Intervene by Scott Beasley. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Complaint for Intervention)(nsm, USDC) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
4 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice ; Attorney Robert Thompson, III, Receipt # 81971, in amount of $ 25.00, by Scott Beasley. (nsm, USDC) Modified on 10/18/2005 (nsm, USDC). (Entered: 10/17/2005)
5 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice ; Attorney Kimberly Brienne Dale, Receipt # 81971, in amount of $ 25.00, by Scott Beasley. (nsm, USDC) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
6 ORDER granting 3 Motion to Intervene . Signed by Judge S. Allan Alexander on 10/31/05. (kmt, USDC)
7 ORDER denying 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; Attorney Robert Thompson III . Signed by Judge S. Allan Alexander on 11/2/05. (kbt, USDC)
8 ORDER denying 5 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; Attorney Kimberly Brienne Dale . Signed by Judge S. Allan Alexander on 11/2/05. (kbt, USDC)
9 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Scott Beasley.(Calder, David)

4 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

11/15/2005
11/16/2005 12/12/2005 01/24/2006 01/24/2006 01/27/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 03/08/2006 03/08/2006
03/08/2006 03/09/2006 03/14/2006 03/22/2006 03/22/2006

10 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice RECONSIDERATION ; Attorney Robert Thompson III and Kimberly Brienne Dale, by Scott Beasley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate_Good_Standing_Thompson# 2 Exhibit Certificate_Good_Standing_Dale)(Calder, David)
11 ORDER granting 10 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; Attorney Robert Thompson III and Kimberly Brienne Dale . Signed by Judge S. Allan Alexander on 11/16/05. (kmt, USDC)
12 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. (tab, USDC)
13 ANSWER to Complaint by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc..(Wicker, Thomas)
14 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc..(Wicker, Thomas)
15 INITIAL ORDER - RULE 16.1 Case Management Conference set for 3/8/2006 10:00 AM in Judge Alexander Chambers before S. Allan Alexander.. Signed by Judge S. Allan Alexander on 1/27/06. (wsm, USDC)
16 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Pre-Discovery Disclosure of Core Information by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. to All Counsel of Record. (Wicker, Thomas)
17 CORPORATE STATEMENT for Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
18 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge S. Allan Alexander : Case Management Conference held on 3/8/2006. (wsm, USDC)
19 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Case assigned to standard track. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/4/2007 01:30 PM in Judge Alexander Chambers before S. Allan Alexander. Discovery due by 9/21/2006. Amendments/Joinder of Parties due by 4/8/2006. Plaintiffs Designation of Experts due by 6/20/2006. Defendants Designation of Experts due by 7/20/2006. Motions due by 10/5/2006.. Signed by Judge S. Allan Alexander on 3/8/l06. (wsm, USDC)
20 NOTICE of Trial: MVD/Jury Trial set for 2/5/2007 9:40 AM in Oxford Courtroom 1 before Judge Michael P. Mills. (spw, USDC)
21 NOTICE of Conference: Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/4/2007 01:30 PM in Judge Alexander Chambers before S. Allan Alexander. (wsm, USDC)
22 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Scott Beasley by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. (Wicker, Thomas)
23 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Douglas Eric Smith by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. (Wicker, Thomas)
24 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Joel Graves by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. (Wicker, Thomas)

5 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

04/26/2006 06/08/2006 06/20/2006 06/21/2006 07/12/2006 07/12/2006 09/18/2006 09/19/2006 09/29/2006 09/29/2006 09/29/2006 10/02/2006 10/03/2006 10/03/2006 10/03/2006 10/03/2006

25 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Joel Graves by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. (Wicker, Thomas)
26 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Supplemental Disclosure of Core Information by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. to All Counsel of Record. (Wicker, Thomas)
27 MOTION for Extension of Time To Designate an Expert by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie)
NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 27 MOTION for Extension of Time To Designate an Expert (Attorney to re-file with all electronic signatures on pleading) (kmt, USDC)
28 ORDER granting 27 Motion for Extension of Time . Signed by Judge S. Allan Alexander on 7/12/06. (kbt, USDC)
Set/Reset Case Management Order Deadlines: Plaintiffs Designation of Experts due by 7/20/2006. Defendants Designation of Experts due by 8/20/2006. (kbt, USDC)
29 Joint MOTION to Extend CMO Deadlines by Scott Beasley, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Dale, Kimberly)
30 ORDER granting 29 Motion to Extend CMO Discovery due by 10/20/2006. Motions due by 11/5/2006.. Signed by Judge S. Allan Alexander on 9/19/06. (lmf, USDC)
31 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Interrogatories and Requests for Production by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. to Scott Beasley. (Wicker, Thomas)
32 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Interrogatories and Requests for Production by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. to EEOC. (Wicker, Thomas)
33 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Notice of Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. to EEOC and Scott Beasley. (Wicker, Thomas)
34 MOTION for Discovery Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories by Scott Beasley. (Dale, Kimberly)
NOTICE OF CORRECTION Motion for Discovery to be refiled as Notice of Service. (rcm, USDC)
35 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Interrogatories by Kimberly B. Dale on behalf of Scott Beasley to Thomas A. Wicker. (Dale, Kimberly)
36 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Tina Robertson by Valerie Hicks Powe on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Powe, Valerie)
37 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jane Childs by Valerie Hicks Powe on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Powe, Valerie)

6 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

10/03/2006 10/06/2006
10/11/2006 10/12/2006 10/13/2006 12/01/2006
12/01/2006
12/04/2006 12/05/2006 12/05/2006 12/06/2006
12/06/2006 12/20/2006
12/21/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/27/2006

38 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Kenneth Hill by Valerie Hicks Powe on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Powe, Valerie)
39 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA Duces Tecum served on MST Express, Inc. on 9-29-2006 by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
40 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Supoena Duces Tecum by Kimberly B. Dale on behalf of Scott Beasley to MST Express, Inc.. (Dale, Kimberly)
41 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Steve Wallace, Clyde Robertson, Gerald Hill by Kimberly B. Dale on behalf of Scott Beasley (Dale, Kimberly)
42 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Donald Bates by Kimberly B. Dale on behalf of Scott Beasley (Dale, Kimberly)
43 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Second Supplemental Core Disclosures by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. to Plaintiff and Intervenor. (Wicker, Thomas)
44 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Request for Production by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. to Plaintiff and Intervenor. (Wicker, Thomas)
45 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Supplement to Initial Disclosures by Kimberly B. Dale on behalf of Scott Beasley to Defendant and Intervenor. (Dale, Kimberly)
NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 45 Notice of Service (Attorney to re-file with Notice of Service as document) (kmt, USDC)
46 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendant and Intervenor by Kimberly B. Dale on behalf of Scott Beasley to Supplement to Initial Disclosure. (Dale, Kimberly)
NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 46 Notice of Service (Attorney to re-file with the Notice of Service contents in the pleading; Certificate of Service is the only document in the Notice) (kmt, USDC)
47 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Supplement to Initial Disclosure by Kimberly B. Dale on behalf of Scott Beasley to Defendant and Intervenor. (Dale, Kimberly)
48 MOTION in Limine to Exclude any Reference to Beasley's Mental Health Prior to the Allegations Raised by the Claimants and Brief in Support of Motion in Limine by Scott Beasley. (Dale, Kimberly)
49 MOTION in Limine Preserve Front Pay by Scott Beasley. (Dale, Kimberly)
50 MOTION in Limine Intervene to Exclude any Reference to Beasley and Greg Witt's Living Arrangements by Scott Beasley. (Dale, Kimberly)
51 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Jury Verdict in Related Case by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
52 RESPONSE in Opposition re 48 MOTION in Limine to Exclude any Reference to Beasley's Mental Health Prior to the Allegations Raised by the Claimants and Brief in Support of Motion in Limine, 50 MOTION in Limine Intervene to Exclude any Reference to Beasley and Greg Witt's Living Arrangements filed by

7 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

12/28/2006 12/28/2006
01/04/2007
01/04/2007 01/22/2007 01/23/2007
02/05/2007
02/05/2007 02/06/2007
02/07/2007
02/08/2007
02/09/2007 02/09/2007 02/09/2007 02/09/2007 02/09/2007 02/09/2007 02/09/2007

Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
53 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie)
54 RESPONSE to Motion re 51 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Jury Verdict in Related Case filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie)
55 ORDER granting 53 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Julie Steptoe Lee for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Mildred Byrd terminated . Signed by Judge S. Allan Alexander on 01/03/07. (kmt, USDC)
56 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge S. Allan Alexander : Final Pretrial Conference held on 1/4/2007. Pretrial Order due by 1/18/2007. (wsm, USDC)
57 PRETRIAL ORDER, estimated length of trial: 5 days. Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 1/22/07. (lpm, USDC)
58 ORDER granting 48 Motion in Limine, granting 49 Motion in Limine, denying 50 Motion in Limine, granting 51 Motion in Limine . Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 1/23/07. (lpm, USDC)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael P. Mills : Voir Dire conducted, jury impaneled. Trial begun on 2/5/2007. Trial to resume 1:30 pm, 2/6/2007. (no document attached) (Court Reporter Sisk.) (spw, USDC) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
Jury Impaneled. (no document attached)(spw, USDC) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael P. Mills : Jury Trial held on 2/6/2007. Trial to resume 2/7/2007, 9:00 am. (no document attached) (Court Reporter Sisk.) (spw, USDC) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael P. Mills : Jury Trial held on 2/7/2007. Trial to resume 2/8/2007, 9:30 am. (Court Reporter Sisk.) (spw, USDC) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael P. Mills : Jury Trial held on 2/8/2007. Trial to resume 2/9/2007, 9:00 am. (no document attached) (Court Reporter Sisk.) (spw, USDC) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
59 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael P. Mills : Jury Trial completed on 2/9/2007. (Court Reporter Sisk.) (spw, USDC)
60 Witness List. (spw, USDC)
61 Exhibit List. (exhibits on file in the Oxford Clerk's Office)(spw, USDC)
62 Jury Instructions. (given)(spw, USDC)
63 Jury Instruction. (denied) (spw, USDC)
64 Jury Note. (spw, USDC)
65 JURY VERDICT. (spw, USDC)

8 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

02/12/2007 02/16/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007
02/20/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007
02/20/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007

66 CLERK'S JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendant. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Clerk for Judge Michael P. Mills on February 12, 2007. (spw, USDC)
TRIAL EXHIBITS received placed on shelf in Clerk's Office (2 Folders). (tab, USDC)
67 MOTION to Alter Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) by Scott Beasley. (Calder, David)
68 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 67 MOTION to Alter Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e). (Calder, David)
69 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the Issue of Front Pay by Scott Beasley. (Calder, David)
70 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 69 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the Issue of Front Pay. (Calder, David)
71 MOTION Additur by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie)
72 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 71 MOTION Additur. (Powe, Valerie)
NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 69 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the Issue of Front Pay, 70 Memorandum in Support (Attorney to re-file to correct title of document) (kmt, USDC)
73 MOTION Plaintiff' Scott Beasley's Request for Front Pay by Scott Beasley. (Calder, David)
74 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 73 MOTION Plaintiff' Scott Beasley's Request for Front Pay. (Calder, David)
75 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Scott Beasley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A_David Calder Declaration# 2 Exhibit B_Kimberly Dale Declaration# 3 Exhibit C_Robert Thompson Declaration# 4 Exhibit D_Thompson&Dale Itemization of Hours# 5 Exhibit E_David Calder Itemization of Hours# 6 Exhibit F_Bill of Costs# 7 Exhibit G_Affidavit of James Waide# 8 Exhibit H_Affidavit of David O'Donnell# 9 Exhibit I_Declaration of Greg Park# 10 Exhibit J_Declaration of Victor Fleitas)(Calder, David)
76 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 75 MOTION for Attorney Fees. (Calder, David)
77 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law or to Vacate Punitive Damages by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
78 BRIEF re 77 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law or to Vacate Punitive Damages or for New Trial. (Wicker, Thomas)
79 NOTICE by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. of Filing of Depositions (Attachments: # 1 Deposition of Jane Childs# 2 Deposition of Donald Bates# 3 Deposition of Benton Elliott# 4 Deposition of Joel Graves# 5 Deposition of Kenneth Hill# 6 Deposition of Tina Robertson# 7 Deposition of Scott Beasley# 8 Deposition of Douglas Smith)(Wicker, Thomas)

9 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

02/20/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007 03/01/2007
03/01/2007 03/01/2007
03/02/2007
03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007

80 NOTICE by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. of filing of Deposition Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Elliott Exhibits 1 & 2)(Wicker, Thomas)
81 NOTICE by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. of filing Deposition Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Elliott Exhibit 3 Pages 1-19)(Wicker, Thomas)
82 NOTICE by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. re 79 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Filing Elliott Exhibit 3, Pgs 20-37 (Wicker, Thomas)
83 NOTICE by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. re 79 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Elliott Exhibits 4-10 (Wicker, Thomas)
84 NOTICE by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. re 79 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Elliott Exhibits 11-17 (Wicker, Thomas)
85 RESPONSE to Motion re 77 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law or to Vacate Punitive Damages Brief in Support of Response to Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, to Alter the Judgment of for a New Trial filed by Scott Beasley. (Dale, Kimberly)
86 MOTION to Strike 83 Notice (Other), 80 Notice (Other), 84 Notice (Other), 82 Notice (Other), 79 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 81 Notice (Other) Depositions submitted in Support of Rule 59 Motion by Scott Beasley. (Calder, David)
87 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 86 MOTION to Strike 83 Notice (Other), 80 Notice (Other), 84 Notice (Other), 82 Notice (Other), 79 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 81 Notice (Other) Depositions submitted in Support of Rule 59 Motion. (Calder, David)
88 RESPONSE in Opposition re 86 MOTION to Strike 83 Notice (Other), 80 Notice (Other), 84 Notice (Other), 82 Notice (Other), 79 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 81 Notice (Other) Depositions submitted in Support of Rule 59 Motion filed by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
89 RESPONSE in Opposition re 75 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
90 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 75 MOTION for Attorney Fees. (Wicker, Thomas)
91 RESPONSE in Opposition re 67 MOTION to Alter Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) filed by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
92 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 67 MOTION to Alter Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e). (Wicker, Thomas)
93 RESPONSE in Opposition re 71 MOTION Additur filed by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)

10 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/06/2007 03/07/2007 03/09/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/13/2007 03/14/2007 03/15/2007
03/16/2007
03/21/2007
03/28/2007 03/28/2007

94 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 71 MOTION Additur. (Wicker, Thomas)
95 RESPONSE in Opposition re 73 MOTION Plaintiff' Scott Beasley's Request for Front Pay filed by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
96 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 73 MOTION Plaintiff' Scott Beasley's Request for Front Pay. (Wicker, Thomas)
97 REPLY to Response to Motion re 75 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Scott Beasley. (Calder, David)
98 MOTION for Joinder and Adopt Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Additur by Scott Beasley. (Dale, Kimberly)
99 RESPONSE in Opposition re 77 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law or to Vacate Punitive Damages filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Julie)
100 MOTION For Equitable Relief by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie)
101 MOTION Proposed Findings of Fact re 100 MOTION For Equitable Relief by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie)
NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 101 MOTION Proposed Findings of Fact re 100 MOTION For Equitable Relief (Attorney to e-mail to Judge) (nsm, USDC)
102 REPLY to Response to Motion re 77 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law or to Vacate Punitive Damages or for New Trial filed by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
103 NOTICE by Thomas A. Wicker on behalf of Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc. re 102 Reply to Response to Motion Corrected Reply Brief (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Reply Brief in Support of Motion)(Wicker, Thomas)
104 MOTION to Strike 103 Notice (Other) Defendant's Corrected Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict, alternatively for Motion for a New Trial or the Amend or Alter the Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Julie)
105 RESPONSE in Opposition re 104 MOTION to Strike 103 Notice (Other) Defendant's Corrected Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict, alternatively for Motion for a New Trial or the Amend or Alter the Judgment filed by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
106 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 100 MOTION For Equitable Relief by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
107 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to EEOC Proposed Findings of Fact by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)

11 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

04/11/2007
09/12/2007 09/12/2007
09/12/2007
09/12/2007 09/24/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007 10/29/2007 11/06/2007 12/05/2007 01/09/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008
03/04/2008

108 ORDER granting 106and 107 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. The Defendant shall have ten days from the date upon which this court rules upon the post trial motions [67, 71, 77, 98] to respond to the EEOC's motion for equitable relief . Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 4/11/07. (lpm, USDC)
109 ORDER finding as moot 73 Motion for an award of front pay; denying 75 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 9/12/07. (lpm, USDC)
110 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 67 Motion to Alter Judgment; finding as moot 71 Motion for additur; granting in part and denying in part 77 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; finding as moot 98 Motion for Joinder. Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 9/12/07. (lpm, USDC)
111 MEMORANDUM OPINION re 110 Order on Motion to Alter Judgment, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Order on Motion for Joinder,,,,. Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 9/12/07. (lpm, USDC)
112 ORDER finding as moot 100 Motion for Equitable Relief. Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 9/12/07. (lpm, USDC)
113 NOTICE of Trial: MVD/Jury Trial set for 5/12/2008 9:40 AM in Oxford Courtroom 1 before Chief Judge Michael P. Mills. (spw, USDC)
114 Intervenor COMPLAINT for Intervention, filed by Douglas Smith. (Dale, Kimberly)
115 MOTION to Intervene by Douglas Smith. (Dale, Kimberly)
116 ORDER finding as moot 86 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 104 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 10/22/07. (lpm, USDC)
117 ORDER granting 115 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 10/22/07. (lpm, USDC)
118 Intervenor COMPLAINT in Intervention, filed by Douglas Smith. (Dale, Kimberly)
119 MOTION to Intervene by Joel Graves. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Dale, Kimberly)
120 ORDER granting 119 Motion of Joel Graves to Intervene. Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 12/5/07. (lpm, USDC)
121 Intervenor COMPLAINT for Intervention, filed by Joel Graves. (Dale, Kimberly)
122 MOTION Schedule Final Pretrial Conference and Establish Pretrial Deadlines re 113 Notice of Trial by Scott Beasley. (Calder, David)
123 NOTICE by Julie Steptoe Lee on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 122 MOTION Schedule Final Pretrial Conference and Establish Pretrial Deadlines re 113 Notice of Trial (Lee, Julie)
124 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney of Record Valerie Hicks Powe by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Julie)

12 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

03/12/2008 03/13/2008 03/14/2008 03/17/2008 03/18/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008
03/27/2008 03/27/2008
03/27/2008

125 ORDER referring all pretrial matters in this action to the magistrate judge for hearing and determination. Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 3/12/2008. (rcm, USDC)
126 NOTICE of Conference: Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/10/2008 10:00 AM in Judge Alexander Chambers before S. Allan Alexander. (wsm, USDC)
TRANSCRIPT FILED [5 Vols.] of Jury Trial held 2/5-9/07, Oxford before Chief Judge Michael P. Mills. Court Reporter: Rita Davis Sisk. (tab, USDC) Modified on 3/14/2008 (tab, USDC).
127 ORDER granting 124 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Valerie Hicks Powe terminated. Signed by Judge S. Allan Alexander on 3/14/2008. (rcm)
128 NOTICE of Hearing: Mediation Hearing set for 4/4/2008 10:00 AM in Oxford Courtroom 1 before Chief Judge Michael P. Mills. (spw, USDC)
129 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Smith by Hill Brothers Construction and Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
130 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Graves by Hill Brothers Construction and Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
131 MOTION to Sever and Bifurcate Claims by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
132 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 131 MOTION to Sever and Bifurcate Claims. (Wicker, Thomas)
133 MOTION to Dismiss Claim of Beasley by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
134 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 133 MOTION to Dismiss Claim of Beasley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Wicker, Thomas)
135 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Position Statment by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
136 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 135 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Position Statment. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Contents# 2 Appendix Plaintiff's Exhibits# 3 Appendix Defendant's Exhibits# 4 Appendix Trial Transcript Excerpts) (Wicker, Thomas)
137 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Dorothy Crawford by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C) (Wicker, Thomas)
138 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Peacock, McClendon and McLemore by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Peacock Excerpts# 2 Exhibit McClendon Excerpts# 3 Exhibit McLemore Excerpts) (Wicker, Thomas)
139 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Other Claims by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)

13 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008
03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/31/2008
03/31/2008 03/31/2008
03/31/2008
04/01/2008 04/01/2008

140 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Policies and Procedures of Defendant by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
141 MOTION in Limine to Bifurcate Actual and Punitive Damages by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
142 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 141 MOTION in Limine to Bifurcate Actual and Punitive Damages. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Wicker, Thomas)
143 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Questions and Answers Presuming Harassment by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
144 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 143 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Questions and Answers Presuming Harassment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Wicker, Thomas)
145 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Improper Implications Re Trial Exhibit 14 by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
146 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Irrelevant Actions of Witt by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
147 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Reference to Conviction of K. Hill by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
148 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Reference to Convictions of G. Witt by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
149 EXHIBIT re 147 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Reference to Conviction of K. Hill. (Wicker, Thomas)
150 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Position Statement (Corrected) by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Wicker, Thomas)
151 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF EEOC INVESTIGATOR DOROTHY CRAWFORD by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Smith, C.)
152 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 151 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF EEOC INVESTIGATOR DOROTHY CRAWFORD. (Smith, C.)
153 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE FROM PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS COMPANY PERSONNEL FILE CONCERNING UNRELATED CONDUCT, DEBTS ISSUES OR LIENS by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Smith, C.)
154 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 153 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE FROM PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS COMPANY PERSONNEL FILE CONCERNING UNRELATED CONDUCT, DEBTS ISSUES OR LIENS. (Smith, C.)
155 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Maricia Woodham on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Woodham, Maricia)
156 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice ; Attorney Robert M. Williams, Jr., by Hill Brothers Construction & Engineering Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit

14 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi -... https://ecf.msnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?816350124419615-L_...

04/02/2008
04/03/2008 04/04/2008 04/10/2008

Certificate of Good Standing# 2 Exhibit Attorney's Certification# 3 Exhibit Application for CM-ECF) (Wicker, Thomas)
157 ORDER denying 131 Motion to Sever; denying 133 Motion to Dismiss; deferring ruling on 135 Motion in Limine; denying 137 Motion to Compel; denying 138 Motion in Limine; granting 139 Motion in Limine; denying 140 Motion in Limine; granting 141 Motion in Limine; granting 143 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 145 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 146 Motion in Limine; granting 147 Motion in Limine; denying 148 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 150 Motion in Limine; granting 151 Motion in Limine; granting 153 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 4/2/08. (lpm, USDC)
158 ORDER granting 156 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; Attorney Robert M. Williams, Jr. Signed by Judge S. Allan Alexander on 4/2/2008. (rcm)
159 CONSENT DECREE. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Judge Michael P. Mills on 4/4/08. (lpm, USDC)
Pro Hac Vice Fee Paid by Baker Donelson for Robert M. Williams : $ 100.00, receipt number 88485 (kmt, USDC)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

04/22/2008 10:29:05

PACER

wu0079 Client

eeoc

Login:

Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

3:05-cv-00122-MPM-SAA

Billable Pages:

9

Cost:

0.72

15 of 15

4/22/2008 10:29 AM

 
 Hill Brothers Construction To Pay $225,000 For Same-Sex Harrassment...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/2-12-07.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 12, 2007

CONTACT: Delner Franklin-Thomas District Director (205) 212-2148
C. Emanuel Smith Regional Attorney (205) 212-2045
Julie Lee Supervisory Trial Attorney (205) 212-2067
Valerie Hicks-Powe Senior Trial Attorney (205) 212-2046 TTY: (205) 212-2112

HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION TO PAY $225,000 FOR SAME-SEX HARRASSMENT AGAINST MEN

EEOC Obtains Favorable Jury Verdict in Lawsuit Against Faulkner Company
OXFORD, Miss. -- A federal jury here returned a $225,000 verdict Friday against Hill Brothers Construction Company and Engineering Company, Inc. (Hill Brothers) in a rare same-sex harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of male employees who were sexually harassed by other men.
The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that Hill Brothers discriminated against Scott Beasley, Joel Graves and Douglas Smith in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by subjecting them to a sexually hostile work environment. After a week-long trial, the jury awarded $75,000 each to Beasley, Graves and Smith as punitive damages in the case, which was presided over by U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills. Beasley was also represented by private counsel.
“We are pleased with the jury verdict and believe the male victims in this case were vindicated,” said Senior EEOC Trial Attorney Valerie Hicks-Powe, who led the federal agency’s litigation efforts. “Employers must take all complaints of harassment seriously, regardless of the gender of the parties involved.”
Beasley, Graves and Smith were hired as truck drivers for Hill Brothers in September 1999, July 2001 and August 2001 (respectively). All three complained of harassment from Gregg Witt beginning in 2001. EEOC alleged that the harassment was severe, pervasive, and included sexually offensive comments and unwanted physical contact.
EEOC Birmingham District Director Delner Franklin-Thomas said, “Employers need to heighten their awareness of discrimination and take the appropriate action to address and correct it. There is simply no excuse for an employer’s failure to remedy pervasive sexual harassment and physical assault of employees who have complained repeatedly to management. We strongly encourage Mississippi employers to take notice that discrimination is a costly practice and early prevention makes a better, more productive workplace.”
Although the jury did not award any back pay or compensatory damages, the EEOC will request the court to consider the award of additional damages and also will seek injunctive relief against Hill Brothers. The EEOC filed the lawsuit resulting in the jury trial after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement with Hills Brothers.
EEOC Birmingham District C. Emanuel Smith noted: “Some employers may view male-on-male harassment as ‘horseplay’ or ‘boys being boys’ but this kind of intentional discrimination can cause needless suffering and permanent scars for employees – not to mention creating liability issues for employers who violate federal law.”
Hill Brothers describes itself as a full service construction company which has bid and performed all types of construction work, both civil and defense for the Army Corps of Engineers and all types of private and public work. The company is licensed in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

This page was last modified on February 16, 2007.

Return to Home Page

1 of 1

5/30/2007 3:59 PM