IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC., d/b/a The Home Depot, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order concerning certain confidential information and documents to be disclosed during discovery, and it appearing to the Court that sufficient cause exists for the issuance of such Order, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information, including without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. As used in this Protective Order, “document” is defined as provided in Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term.
3. Information designated “CONFIDENTIAL” shall be information in which the parties have common law and statutory privacy and/or confidentiality interests and that falls
1

within the exemptions from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act as set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)-(9),such as: (a) personnel records of current or former employees of Defendant (b) Defendant’s trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is either privileged or confidential (c) Connie Hainline’s tax returns; and (d) Connie Hainline’s medical records. CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except for the preparation and trial of this case.
4. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively “CONFIDENTIAL information”) shall not, without the consent of the party producing it or further Order of the Court, be disclosed except that such information may be disclosed, solely for the purposes of this case, to: attorneys actively working on this case; persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys actively working on the case whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial, or at other proceedings in this case; the parties, including the designated representatives for Defendants; any current or former officers, directors of employees of Defendant who are needed to assist Defendant’s counsel in this case; expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this proceeding, to the extent such disclosure is necessary for preparation, trial or other proceedings in this case; the Court and its employees (“Court Personnel”); stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily incident to the conduct of this action; outside vendors who perform microfiching, photocopying or similar clerical functions (“outside vendors”); deponents, witnesses, or potential witnesses; at trial, or at any appeal or other court proceeding in this case; and to other persons by written agreement of the parties.
2

5. Prior to disclosing any CONFIDENTIAL information to any person listed above (other than counsel, persons employed by counsel, Court Personnel, stenographic reporters and outside vendors), counsel shall provide such person with a copy of this Protective Order and obtain from such person a written acknowledgment stating that he or she has read this Protective Order and agrees to be bound by its provisions. All such acknowledgments shall be retained by counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated by opposing counsel.
6. Documents are designated as CONFIDENTIAL by placing or affixing on them (in a manner that will not interfere with their legibility) the following or other appropriate notice: “CONFIDENTIAL.”
7. Before any information is designated “CONFIDENTIAL,” counsel of record for the designating party must first review the information and make a determination, in good faith, that the documents and/or information are confidential or otherwise entitled to protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
8. Inadvertent failure to designate CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be construed as a waiver, in whole or in part, and may be corrected by the producing party by written notification to the receiving party promptly upon discovery of the failure to designate. Where the producing party inadvertently fails to designate information as CONFIDENTIAL at the time it is produced to the receiving party, the terms of this Protective Order will apply only to those disclosures by the receiving party which occur after the information as been designated as confidential.
3

9. Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL information, the deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as CONFIDENTIAL and shall be subject to the provisions of this Protective Order. Such designation shall be made on the record during the deposition whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of depositions as CONFIDENTIAL after transcription, provided written notice of the designation is promptly given to all counsel of record within thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript. The stenographic reporter shall not furnish copies of testimony or exhibits designated as CONFIDENTIAL to anyone other than counsel of record for the parties herein and the witness (and/or the witness’ counsel) whose testimony has been designated as CONFIDENTIAL.
10. Materials designated as CONFIDENTIAL under this Protective Order shall not be filed in the public record of this litigation. When materials that have been designated CONFIDENTIAL are filed with the Court, they shall be electronically filed under Seal, and accompanied by a Motion to File Document Under Seal.
11. A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL information by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed information. The written notice shall identify the information to which the objection is made. If the parties cannot resolve the objection within ten (10) business days after the time the notice is received, it shall be the obligation of the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL to file an appropriate motion, within thirty (30) days after the time the notice is received, requesting that the Court determine whether the disputed information should be subject to the terms of this Protective Order. If such a motion is timely filed, the disputed information shall be treated as
4

CONFIDENTIAL under the terms of this Protective Order until the Court rules on the motion. If the designating party fails to file such a motion within the prescribed time, the disputed information shall lose its designation as CONFIDENTIAL and shall not thereafter be treated as CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with this Protective Order. In connection with a motion filed under this provision, the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL shall bear the burden of establishing that good cause exists for the disputed information to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL.
12. Nothing in this Protective Order shall (a) restrict either party’s rights with respect to its/her own documents or information; (b) restrict either party’s rights with regard to discovery material that have not been designated as CONFIDENTIAL; (c) prejudice either party’s rights to object to the production or disclosure of documents or other information that it considers not subject to discovery; or (d) prejudice either party’s right to seek, either by agreement or by application to the Court, greater protection than that provided herein.
13. In the event that other parties may be added to this Action, no CONFIDENTIAL information previously exchanged, produced or used herein shall be disclosed to such additional parties or their counsel except upon their agreeing to be bound by the provisions of this Protective Order.
14. At the conclusion of this litigation, the EEOC will retain copies of all information designated as confidential by Defendant, in compliance with its obligations under the Federal Records Act and Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). CONFIDENTIAL documents will be packed separately from the other litigation records in this case, inside sealed envelopes within a sealed box. The EEOC will place a copy of this Protective Order inside each sealed envelope,
5

with a notice affixed to the front of each envelope that contains the following instructions: “Pursuant to the Protective Order herein, the information contained in this envelope has been designated as confidential and shall not be disclosed or used except in connection with the litigation of the case EEOC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Civil Action No. 06-cv-01950-LTBCBS. Documents and information contained within this envelope are not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or by subpoena, except pursuant to a Court Order. Please contact Defendant’s counsel immediately at (720) 904-6000 to provide Defendant with notice of any subpoena or Freedom of Information Act request, so that Defendant will have 10 business days to determine whether it will object to such production or disclosure.”
15. If the EEOC receives a subpoena or request under the Freedom of Information Act for CONFIDENTIAL information, the EEOC will notify counsel for the Defendant at the time the EEOC retrieves and begins reviewing the documents in order to process the subpoena or Freedom of Information Act request, identifying the documents or information sought and enclosing a copy of the subpoena or request. When notification is made pursuant to this paragraph, the EEOC shall afford Defendant ten business days after notification is made to provide it with a detailed statement of objections to disclosure, identifying the information which Defendant objects to the production of, and the basis for Defendant’s objection(s). The EEOC shall not produce or disclose CONFIDENTIAL information or documents before the ten day notice period has expired. If, within ten business days of receiving such notice, Defendant provides the EEOC with a statement of its objections to disclosure, the EEOC shall cooperate reasonably with the Defendant in seeking to quash the subpoena or request and shall not make such production or disclosure except pursuant to a Court Order requiring compliance.
6

16. If a receiving party discloses CONFIDENTIAL information in a manner not authorized herein, the receiving party must immediately and in writing notify the producing party of all pertinent facts relating to such disclosure, and, without prejudice to other rights and remedies of the producing party, make every effort to prevent further disclosure by the receiving party or the person to whom the receiving party disclosed such information.
17. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard.
18. The terms of this Protective Order are unique to the particular facts and circumstances of this case.
19. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16 of this Protective Order shall continue to be binding after the conclusion of this Action, including any appeals.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 7th day of September, 2007. BY THE COURT:
s/Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge
7

AGREED AND APPROVED: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
By: s/Jennifer Randall_________________ Jennifer Randall Denver Field Office 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-1378 jennifer.randall@eeoc.gov Fax: 303.866.1375
Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC
HALE FRIESEN LLP
By: s/Shayne M. Spalten________________ Shayne M. Spalten 1430 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 904-6000 Facsimile: (720) 904-6006
Attorneys for Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
8

 
 Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC., d/b/a The Home Depot, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMAND ______________________________________________________________________________
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is a public enforcement action to correct the unlawful employment practice of retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. This action seeks to provide appropriate relief to Connie Hainline, who was adversely affected by such practice. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), contends Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., d/b/a The Home Depot (“Home Depot”) has discriminated against Connie Hainline by suspending and terminating her employment because she exercised her rights under Title VII by filing and resolving a charge of discrimination.
1

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 2 of 6
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 703(a), 704(a), 706(f)(1), 706(f)(3), of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3(a), 2000e-5(f)(1), 2000e-5(f)(3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Colorado and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Connie Hainline (“Hainline”), a former employee of Defendant, filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. 7. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. On or about March 13, 2002, Connie Hainline filed EEOC Charge No. 320-2002-
2

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 3 of 6
00891 against Home Depot, alleging discrimination based on gender and retaliation. 9. On or August 25, 2004, EEOC filed a lawsuit captioned EEOC v. Home Depot,
Civil Action No. 04-cv-01776, consolidated with Thompson v. Home Depot, Civil Action No. 03-cv-00126, alleging that Home Depot discriminated against a class of individuals by maintaining a hostile work environment based on gender, national origin and race, and that the company retaliated against employees who complained of discrimination.
10. Concurrent with filing the EEOC lawsuit, Home Depot and EEOC entered into a Consent Decree, which included settlement of Ms. Hainline’s claims.
11. During 2004, Ms. Hainline was employed by Home Depot as an Assistant Store Manager in its Evergreen, Colorado store.
12. On or about September 17, 2004, Ms. Hainline signed a settlement agreement with Home Depot agreeing to a monetary settlement and resolving Charge no. 320-2002-00891. On or about October 26, 2004, a representative of Home Depot signed its part of the aforementioned settlement agreement.
13. On September 24, 2004, the Court approved the Consent Decree resolving the claims asserted in the EEOC litigation, including Ms. Hainline’s charge.
14. On or about November 2, 2004, Home Depot sent the three settlement checks to Ms. Hainline.
15. On November 24, 2004, Ms. Hainline was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation into alleged violations of Home Depot's alleged policies or practices.
16. At the time of the alleged violations in August 2004 and September 2004, Home Depot took no action to either investigate or to counsel Ms. Hainline about any alleged wrongdoing.
3

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 4 of 6
17. Ms. Hainline was discharged by Home Depot effective December 3, 2004, based on two alleged events in August and September 2004, which Home Depot has asserted were policy violations.
18. Until her discharge, Ms. Hainline's performance as an Assistant Store Manager at the Evergreen store had been satisfactory.
19. Several of the Home Depot representatives who participated in and made the termination decision, including District Manager, Jason Grasser, and Regional Human Resources Manager, Jean Farrington, knew that Ms. Hainline had filed a charge of discrimination, which was in the process of being resolved during the period from September 2004 to November 2004.
20. Ms. Hainline’s suspension occurred approximately three weeks after Home Depot mailed her a settlement check.
21. Ms. Hainline was fired on or about December 3, 2004, by Home Depot, less than five weeks after receiving her settlement check.
22. On information and belief, no other Assistant Store Manager, other that Ms. Hainline, has been discharged for the same or similar alleged policy violations.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Retaliation)
23. Since at least October, 2004, Defendant has engaged in unlawful retaliatory practices in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by suspending and terminating the employment of Ms. Hainline because she opposed discriminatory practices and participated in an EEOC proceeding.
24. The effect of the events described above has been to deprive Ms. Hainline of equal employment opportunities in retaliation for exercising her federally protected rights.
4

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 5 of 6
25. The unlawful employment practices described above were intentional. 26. The unlawful employment practices described above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Hainline.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which retaliates against employees who complain about discrimination; B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for employees who exercise their federally protected rights to complain about discrimination and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Hainline by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, and other affirmative and equitable relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, rightful-place reinstatement or front pay; D. Order Defendant to make whole Hainline by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including but not limited to job search expenses and medical expenses; E. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Hainline by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation; F. Order Defendant to pay Ms. Hainline punitive damages for its malicious and/or
5

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 6 of 6

reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Order Defendant to provide training to its officers, managers and employees regarding discriminatory harassment and retaliation in the workplace;
H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
I. Award the Commission its costs in this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.

Dated: September 29, 2006

Respectfully submitted,
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
MARY JO O’NEILL Regional Attorney Phoenix District Office
s/ Nancy A. Weeks NANCY A. WEEKS Supervisory Trial Attorney EEOC Denver Field Office 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov 303-866-1947
s/ Rita Byrnes Kittle RITA BYRNES KITTLE Senior Trial Attorney rita.kittle@eeoc.gov 303-866-1347

6

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 1 of 2

OJS 44 (Rev. 11/04)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INS TR UC TIO NS ON TH E R EV ER SE O F TH E FO RM .)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., d/b/a The Home Depot, a Delaware corporation

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Jefferson County, CO
( IN U . S. PL A IN T IF F C A S ES O N LY ) N O T E : IN L A N D CO N D E M N A T I O N CA SE S, U SE T H E LO C A TIO N O F TH E
L A N D IN V O L V ED .

(c) Attorney’s (Firm Na me, A ddres s, and Telep hone N umbe r)

Attorneys (If Known)

Rita Byrnes Kittle, Trial Attorney, EEOC, 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 510, Denver, CO 80203 (303)866-1347

II. B A SIS O F J U RIS D IC T IO N (Place an “X ” in One B ox Only)

1

U.S. G overnment Pla intiff

 3 Federal Question
(U.S. G overnment Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Pla ce an “ X” in O ne B ox fo r Pla intiff

(For Diversity Cases O nly)

and O ne Bo x for De fendant)

PTF Citizen of This State

1

DEF
1

Incorporated or Principal Place of Business In This State

PTF
4

DEF
4

2

U.S. G overnment Defenda nt

 4 Diversity
(Indicate C itizenship of Parties in Item III)

Citizen of Another State

2

 2 Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State

 5 5

IV. NATURE OF SU IT (Place an “X ” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT

TORTS

Citizen or Subje ct o f a Foreign C ountry

 3  3 Foreign Nation

F O R F E I TU R E /P E N A L T Y

BANKRUPTCY

 6 6
OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance 120 M arine 130 Miller Act 140 N egotiable Instrument 150 R ecovery of O verpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans (Excl. Veterans) 153 R ecovery of O verpayment of Ve teran’s Bene fits 160 Stock holders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Co ntract Pro duct Liab ility 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 R ent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property

P E R S O N A L IN J U R Y 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 A ssa ult, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Liability 340 M arine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 M oto r V ehic le 355 M oto r V ehic le Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury C I V IL R I G H T S 441 V oting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Acco mmod ations 444 W elfare 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employme nt 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 440 Other Civil Rights

P E R S O N A L IN J U R Y 362 Personal Injury -
Med. M alpractice 365 Personal Injury -
Product Liability 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 370 O ther Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property Damage 385 Property Damage Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS 510 M otions to V acate S e n t e n ce Habeas Corpus: 530 General 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition

610 Agriculture 620 O ther Food & Drug 625 Drug Related Se izure
of Property 21 USC 881 6 3 0 L iq uo r L aw s 640 R.R. & Truck 650 Airline Regs. 660 Occupational
Safety/H ealth 690 Other
LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 730 Labor/Mgmt.Repo rting
& Disclosure Act 740 Railway Labor Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Empl. Ret. Inc.
Security Act

422 Appeal 28 USC 158 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 840 Trademark
S O C IA L S E C U R IT Y 861 H IA (13 95ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIW C/D IW W (405(g)) 8 6 4 S S ID T it le X V I 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 T axe s (U .S. Plaintiff
or Defendant) 871 IRS— Third Pa rty
26 USC 7609

400 State Reap portionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and B anking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 R acketeer Influenced and
Corrupt O rganizations 48 0 C ons ume r C red it 490 Cable/Sat TV 810 Selective Service 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange 875 C ustomer Challenge
12 USC 3410 890 O ther Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Ac ts 892 Economic Stabilization Act 893 Environm ental M atters 894 Energy Allocation Act 895 Freedom of Information
Act 900Appeal of Fee Determination
Under Equal Access to Justice 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

V. ORIGIN
 1 Original
Proceeding

(Place an “X ” in One Box Only)

 2 Removed from

 3 Remanded from

State Court

Appellate Court

 4 Reinstated or



5

Transferred from another district

 6 Multidistrict

Reopened

(specify)

Litigation

Appeal to District

7

Judge from Magistrate

Judgment

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e, and Title I, Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1981a V I. C A U SE O F A C TIO N Brief description of cause:

This is an action to correct the unlawful employment practice of retaliation.

VII. REQUESTED IN

 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

COMPLAINT:

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

JURY DEMAND:  Yes  No

DATE
September 29, 2006
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

S IG N A T U R E O F A TT O R N E Y O F R E C O R D
s/ Rita Byrnes Kittle, Senior Trial Attorney

RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APPLY ING IFP

JUDGE

M A G . JU D G E

Save a Copy Print a Copy

Reset

JS 44 Reverse Case (Rev. 11/04) 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 1-2 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 2 of 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title.

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section “(see attachment)”.

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.

Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.

Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes

unless diversity.

Example:

U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.

Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Lewis T. Babcock, Judge
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01950 - LTB - CBS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC., d/b/a The Home Depot, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before me on Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s (“Home Depot”) Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc # 40]. After consideration of the motion and all related pleadings, as well as the case file, I deny the motion for the following reasons.
I. Facts In this lawsuit, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) asserts a claim for retaliatory discharge under Title VII based on Home Depot’s termination of Connie Hainline (“Hainline”) in December of 2004. The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Hainline began working for Home Depot as a cashier in 1992. From 1999 to 2001, Hainline worked for Home Depot in the position of regional installation manager. Hainline lost her position as regional installation manager in 2001 when Home Depot changed the requirements for that position to require store manager experience that Hainline did not have. After losing this position, Hainline became a operations assistant store manager for Home Depot.

In March of 2002, Hainline filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC. Among other things, Hainline alleged that Home Depot changed the requirements of the regional installations manager position as a pretext to remove her and other female employees from that position. Hainline retained counsel and attended a mediation session at the EEOC in 2003. Hainline’s charge was settled in 2004 as part of a public enforcement action that the EEOC filed against Home Depot. Hainline received her settlement checks from Home Depot in early November of 2004.
In 2004, Hainline was employed by Home Depot as the operations assistant store manager for its store in Evergreen, Colorado. Pat Swaney (“Swaney”) was the store manager at the Evergreen, Colorado store, and Amy Burger (“Burger”) was the human resources manager. In her position as operations assistant store manager, Hainline was responsible for recruiting, interviewing applicants, and making recommendations to the store manager about hiring for open positions, but the store manager had the ultimate responsibility for all hiring decisions. The human resources manager was responsible for managing the hiring process.
In late August of 2004, Hainline interviewed Michelle Addison (Addison”) for a cashier position. Addison was given a conditional offer of employment pending completion of her background check and drug test. Without first checking to see if Addison’s background check had been completed, Hainline contacted her and asked her to come to the Evergreen Store so she could complete her new hire paperwork. Addison completed her new hire paperwork on August 30, 2004 and was scheduled to attend orientation the following day. Later that same day, Hainline asserts that she learned for the first time that Addison’s background check results had not yet come back. Hainline asserts that she offered to tell Addison not to report to orientation
2

the following day but was told not do so by Burger on the grounds that doing so would make Home Depot look stupid. Burger seemingly does not recall this conversation, or at least parts of it. On August 31, 2004, the same day that she reported for her first day of orientation, Addison’s background check results came back showing that she was ineligible for hire due to a felony conviction.
On September 13, 2004, Hainline interviewed Asa Newhouse (“Newhouse”) for a night freight team position at Home Depot. At the time of the interview, Hainline asserts that she was not aware that Newhouse had not passed the sales test required for this position. Hainline recommended that Newhouse be hired for the night freight team position but in attempting to order his background check Burger determined that Newhouse was not eligible for this position as a result of failing the sales test. Burger retracted Newhouse’s conditional offer of employment, and Home Depot subsequently hired Newhouse as a lot attendant.
Home Depot’s Code of Conduct sets forth “major work rule violations” which are defined as “prohibited conduct that will normally result in termination for a first offense.” The party imposing discipline for such a violation is, however, to “consider if it might be appropriate under the circumstances to discipline the violations as minor.” Included in the examples of major work rule violations are the following hiring practices:
• Assigning an associate to a position before the associate has qualified for the position and passed any appropriate test • Intentionally allowing new hires to begin work prior to receiving all required pre-employment paperwork, (i.e. negative drug or background screening or before the hire is processed in the AIMS [Associate Information Management] system
3

A “minor work rule violation” includes “[v]iolating [Home Depot’s] policies and procedures as contained in SOP and Compliance Policies that are not otherwise considered a major work rule violation.”
Home Depot’s Code of Conduct provides that suspicions of code violations must be investigated to determine “whether or not a violation occurred, the nature of the violation, and who committed the violation.” In conducting an investigation of code violations, the Code of Conduct advises Home Depot employees to be thorough “so that the determination is based upon facts and not perception, hearsay, or speculation” and to “[b]e sure to give the associate who has been accused of wrongdoing an opportunity to tell his/her side of the situation.”
On September 1, 2004, at a meeting regarding the consent decree that was ultimately entered in the EEOC’s public enforcement action against Home Depot, Burger discussed the Addison incident with other human resources personnel at Home Depot, including divisional human resources manager Dawn Nichols-Sorenson (“Nichols-Sorenson”). The next day, September 2, 2004, Nichols-Sorenson emailed Burger a “termination worksheet” to complete regarding Hainline. On October 15, 2005, Nichols-Sorenson sent an email to Burger and Home Depot’s district manager, Jason Grasser (“Grasser”) wherein she stated that “[Hainline] needs to be terminated.” Because Hainline had been employed by home Depot for over ten years, her termination had to be approved by the vice president of human resources and the divisional vice president.
After Nichols-Soreson’s October 15, 2005 email, Burger obtained witness statements from Addison and Newhouse, among others. Then, on November 24, 2004, Burger, NicholsSorenson, and Grasser met with Hainline to discuss the incidents involving Addison and
4

Newhouse. At this meeting, Hainline indicated that she did not feel she had violated Home Depot’s Code of Conduct with respect to the incident involving Addison because she did not know that her background check had not been completed and that she did not feel that she had violated Home Depot’s Code of Conduct with respect to the incident involving Newhouse because she did not know that he had not passed the required sales test. At the conclusion of the November 24, 2004 meeting, Hainline was placed on administrative leave.
Home Depot terminated Hainline on December 3, 2004. Hainline’s corresponding discipline notice states that she was being terminated for two major Code of Conduct violations:
The first was for knowingly sending an associate to orientation without having received a background check. The second was for involvement in hiring an applicant for a sales position after knowing that the applicant had failed the sales test. Hainline signed the discipline notice and wrote “Do not agree[.] This is a violation of my protected conduct agreement per the EEOC.” Home Depot is unable to identify any other employees who were terminated for similar violation of its Code of Conduct prior to Hainline’s December 3, 2004 termination.
II. Standard for Review The very purpose of a summary judgment motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is to assess whether trial is necessary. White v. York Int'l Corp., 45 F.3d 357, 360 (10th Cir. 1995). Rule 56 provides that summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The nonmoving party has the burden of showing that there are issues of material fact to be determined. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
5

A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, interrogatories, and admissions on file together with affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of genuine issues for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323; Mares v. ConAgra Poultry Co., Inc., 971 F.2d 492, 494 (10th Cir. 1992). Once a properly supported summary judgment motion is made, the opposing party may not rest on the allegations contained in his complaint, but must respond with specific facts showing the existence of a genuine factual issue to be tried. Otteson v. U.S., 622 F.2d 516, 519 (10th Cir. 1980); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). These specific facts may be shown "by any of the kinds of evidentiary materials listed in Rule 56(c), except the pleadings themselves." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
If a reasonable juror could not return a verdict for the non-moving party, summary judgment is proper and there is no need for a trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The operative inquiry is whether, based on all documents submitted, reasonable jurors could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). However, summary judgment should not enter if, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor, a reasonable jury could return a verdict for that party. Anderson Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 252; Mares, 971 F.2d at 494.
III. Analysis To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show (1) that plaintiff engaged in protected opposition to discrimination; (2) that plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) that there is a causal connection between the protected activity and
6

the adverse employment action. O’Neal v. Ferguson Constr. Co., 237 F.3d 1248, 1252 (10th Cir. 2001). Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action . Id. The plaintiff must then respond by demonstrating that the defendant’s asserted reasons for the adverse action are pretextual. Id. So long as the plaintiff presents evidence of pretext upon which a jury could infer retaliatory motive, the case should go to trial. Plotke v. White, 405 F.3d 1092, 1103 (10th Cir. 2005).
Home Depot first argues that the EEOC cannot establish a prima facie case for retaliation because it cannot demonstrate (1) that Hainline engaged in protected activity after filing her initial charge of discrimination in March of 2002, or (2) that there is a causal connection between any protected activity and Hainline’s termination in December of 2002. I disagree.
Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee because that employee has opposed an unlawful employment practice or “made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Home Depot argues that the EEOC cannot satisfy the protected activity requirement for retaliation claims because after filing her initial charge of discrimination in 2002, Hainline merely awaited the resolution of her charge. This argument defies logic because the filing of a charge of discrimination with the EEOC constitutes protected activity in and of itself by the plain language of the governing statute. See also Proctor v. United Parcel Service, 502 F.3d 1200, (10th Cir. 2007) (“[Plaintiff] clearly engaged in protected activity when he filed administrative charges with the ... EEOC ... alleging disability discrimination ....”). Whether Hainline engaged in other protected activity after filing her initial charge of
7

discrimination is relevant to the causation element of a prima facie case for retaliation and will be considered in that context. The EEOC has, however, satisfied the first element of a prima facie case for retaliation against Hainline.
To establish that a causal connection exists between Hainline’s charge of sex discrimination and her termination, the EEOC may proffer “evidence of circumstances that justify an inference of retaliatory motive, such as protected conduct closely followed by adverse action.” Proctor, supra (quoting O’Neal, 237 F.3d at 1253). “Unless there is very close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the retaliatory conduct, the plaintiff must offer additional evidence to establish causation.” O’Neal, 237 F.3d at 1253. “[A] one and onehalf month period between protected activity and adverse action may, by itself, establish causation” but “a three-month period, standing alone, is insufficient to establish causation.” Anderson v. Coors Brewing Co., 181 F.3d 1171, 1179 (10th Cir. 1999).
In determining whether the EEOC may rely solely on temporal proximity to satisfy the causation element of a claim for retaliation, I must first identify the last protected activity in which Hainline engaged. The EEOC argues that the finalization of the settlement of Hainline’s discrimination claim against Home Depot in October of 2004 and Hainline’s receipt of the corresponding settlement checks in November of 2004 constitute protected activity. Home Depot argues that these events do not constitute protected activity because they involved no activity on the part of Hainline. This argument ignores Hainline’s ucontroverted assertion in her affidavit that she “entered [into] a private settlement agreement with Home Depot, as negotiated by [her]counsel” that “was finalized in October 2004.” Hainline’s active involvement, through her attorney, in negotiating a settlement of her discrimination claim as part of the larger
8

settlement of the EEOC’s public enforcement action against home Depot distinguishes this case from Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273 (2001), wherein the Supreme Court noted with approval that court of appeal’s rejection of “respondent’s utterly implausible suggestion that the EEOC’s issuance of a right-to-sue letter - an action in which the employee takes no part - is a protected activity of the employee.”
Home Depot also argues that settlement does not constitute protected activity as a matter of law but it appears that there is no published authority from the Tenth Circuit or elsewhere specifically addressing this question. It is logical to assume, however, that since alleging discrimination constitutes protected activity, then negotiating and securing a settlement that resolves such allegations likewise constitutes protected activity. See Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727 , 731-2 (9th Cir. 1986) (causal connection for prima facie case established, in part, by the fact that plaintiffs’ layoffs occurred less than two months after they negotiated EEOC settlement agreements). I therefore conclude that the negotiation and finalization of Hainline’s discrimination claim in October 2004, though not her receipt of the corresponding settlement checks in November of 2004, constitutes protected activity. As such, a period of 8-9 weeks, at most, passed between Hainline’s protected activity and her termination by Home Depot. This fact, standing alone, may be sufficient to establish causation. See Pastran v. K-Mart Corp., 210 F.3d 1201, 1203-1205 (10th Cir. 2000) (agreeing with district court’s conclusion that plaintiff made prima facie case of retaliation by showing he was terminated approximately 8-10 after complaining of discrimination). I further conclude that the EEOC has presented sufficient additional evidence to establish the requisite causal connection in any event.
In addition to temporal proximity, the EEOC argues that the following evidence supports
9

a finding of a causal connection between Hainline’s protected activity and her termination: ... evidence that Hainline did not commit either major work rule violation for which she was purportedly terminated, that Home Depot did not handle the investigation and termination of Hainline as required by its own policies; that Home Depot acted contrary to company practice in terminating Hainline for the alleged violations of company hiring policy, and that Hainline’s protected activity in participating in the 2004 lawsuit and settlement of the lawsuit was discussed during Home Depot’s investigation of her alleged violations .... Evidence of pretext may be considered in the prima facie stage of a retaliation claim.
Proctor, 502 F.3d at 1209. A plaintiff can show that a defendant-employer’s proffered reasons are a pretext for unlawful retaliation by revealing “such weaknesses, implausibilities, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence.” Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997).
I find and conclude that the EEOC has presented sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable factfinder to reject Home Depot’s assertion that it terminated Hainline because she committed two major work rule violations in her handling of the prospective employment of Addison and Newhouse. Among other things, the fact that discipline for Hainline was first discussed at a meeting regarding the consent decree that resolved the EEOC’s public enforcement action against Home Depot and that Hainline’s involvement in that action was discussed throughout the investigation of her conduct could support a finding of pretext. See Pastran, 210 F.3d at 1206 (discussions concerning events surrounding prior adverse employment action and likelihood that plaintiff would sue during deliberations of whether to terminate plaintiff might be considered circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive). The fact that the decision to terminate Hainline was arguably made prior to a complete investigation and that
10

Home Depot cannot identify any other employees who were terminated for similar violations of Home Depot’s Code of Conduct could also support such a finding.
This evidence, combined with the evidence of temporal proximity previously discussed, is not conclusive but certainly raises an issue of material fact as to whether there was a causal connection between Hainline’s protected activity in pursuing a charge of sex discrimination and her termination. Accordingly, I conclude that Home Depot is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis that the EEOC cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Because I considered evidence of pretext in reaching this conclusion, I likewise conclude that Home Depot is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis that the EEOC cannot establish pretext.
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Home Depot’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc # 40] is DENIED.

Dated: July 11 , 2008 in Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

11

 
 Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-cv-0 1950-LTB-CBS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC., d/b/a The Home Depot, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. RECITALS 1. This public enforcement action was instituted by Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or "Plaintiff' or "EEOC"). The EEOC lawsuit alleges that Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., d/b/a The Home Depot ("Defendant") violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et
seq. ("Title VII"), by suspending and terminating Connie Hainline from her employment
because she exercised her rights under Title VII by filing and resolving a charge of discrimination. Home Depot alleges that it terminated Ms. Hainline's employment for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and denies that it violated Title VII.
2. The Commission and Defendant, desiring to settle this action by an appropriate Settlement Agreement ("Agreement"), agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties and the subject matter of this action, and agree to the power of this Court

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 14
to enter a Settlement Agreement enforceable against the Parties hereto. 3. This Agreement is final and binding upon the parties as to the issues
resolved, as well as upon their successors and assigns. 4. The parties agree that this Agreement fairly resolves the issues alleged in
this lawsuit, and constitutes a complete resolution of all of the Commission's claims of unlawful employment practices under Title VII that arise from the charge of discrimination filed by Connie Hainline, No. 320-2005-00618. It does not constitute an admission of liability by Home Depot of any kind.
5. For the purpose of amicably resolving disputed claims without the risks, uncertainties and expenses of continued litigation, the Defendant joins with the Commission in requesting this Court to adjudge as follows:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: II. JURISDICTION
6. The parties stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court over the parties and subject matter of this action, and have waived the entry of findings of fact and conclusions oflaw.
7. The duration of this Agreement (the "Term") shall be two years from the date of signing by the Court (the "Effective Date").
III. ISSUES RESOLVED 8. This Agreement resolves all claims for damages arising out of the issues and claims set forth in Civil Action No. 06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS. 9. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and all other
2

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 14
persons in active concert or participation with any of them will not interfere with the relief herein ordered, but shall cooperate in the implementation of this Agreement.
IV. MONETARY RELIF 10. Within thirty days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Defendant, in settlement of this dispute and in exchange for a general release, shall pay the sum total of $84,750 to Connie Hainline, $19,750 of which shall be for past lost wages and $65,000 of which shall be for other compensatory damages. Payment shall be mailed directly to Ms. Hainline at the address provided by the EEOC. The manner and terms of payment, and the scope of Ms. Hainline's general release shall be set forth in a separate settlement agreement between Home Depot and Ms. Hainline. 11. A copy of the settlement check(s) and any transmittal documents shall be forwarded to Rita Byrnes Kittle, Supervisory Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 303 East 171h Avenue, Denver Colorado 80203
V. EQUITABLE RELIEF A. Scope
12. The terms of this Agreement shall apply to all Defendant's facilities and employees in the Designated Group. The Designated Group shall consist of the Evergreen Store and other stores in the Denver Metropolitan area. At no time will this Agreement cover less than 10 stores. B. Injunctive Relief
13. During the Term of this Agreement, Defendant, its officers, agents, successors and other persons in active concert or participation with them, or any of them,
3

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 14
are enjoined from engaging in reprisal or retaliation of any kind against any person because of such person's opposition to any practice made unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or because of such person's filing a charge, testifying or participating in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, hearing or lawsuit under Title VII.
14. Further, Defendant is enjoined from engaging in reprisal or retaliation of any kind against any person because such person was identified as a witness or possible witness for the Commission in the present action or the EEOC investigation giving rise to this action, because such person participated in any marmer in this action or in the investigation giving rise to this action, or because such person is designated as an aggrieved individual under this Agreement. C. Non-retaliation Policy
15. During the Term, Defendant shall maintain its Non-Retaliation Policy which is attached as Exhibit A or a similar policy.
16. Defendant shall post and keep posted for the Term, in a conspicuous place in each of its facilities in the Designated Group, where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily kept or posted, a copy of the Non-Retaliation Policy attached as Exhibit A. D. Training
17. During the Term, Defendant shall conduct annual training for all the Department Heads, Assistant Store Managers and Store Managers in the Designated Group on the subjects and in the marmer described below. All training under this
4

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 14
Paragraph shall be at Defendant's expense, conducted by outside vendors, internal employees certified by an outside vendor, or by video training purchased from an outside vendor.
18. The training will be conducted as follows: a. Managerial and Supervisory Employees: Defendant will require
Department Heads, Assistant Store Managers and Store Managers in the Designated Group to receive at least 2 hour of training during the Term. This training may be provided at one time or in two 1 hour sessions. This training will include: (a) employees' rights, under Title VII and the other federal anti-discrimination statutes, with an emphasis on the right to engage in protected activity either by opposing unlawful employment discrimination or by participating in the statutory complaint process by making a Charge of Discrimination, testifying or assisting or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, hearing or litigation; (b) discussion of Defendant's NonRetaliation Policy and Defendant's obligations under the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII and the other federal anti-discrimination statutes; and (c) the penalties for engaging in retaliatory conduct. Additionally, Defendant will require employees newly hired or promoted into a managerial or supervisory position to complete the requisite training within 120 days of being hired or promoted.
b. Human Resource Employees: Defendant will require at least one employee with human resource responsibility for Defendant's employees in Colorado to receive two (2) hours of training annually for the Term. This training will include: (a) employees' rights, nnder Title VII and the other federal anti-discrimination statutes, with
5

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 14
an emphasis on the right to engage in protected activity either by opposing unlawful employment discrimination or by participating in the statutory complaint process by making a Charge of Discrimination, testifying or assisting or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, hearing or litigation; (b) discussion of Defendant's NonRetaliation Policy and Defendant's obligations under the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII and the other federal anti-discrimination statutes; and (c) the penalties for engaging in retaliatory conduct. Additionally, Defendant will require employees newly hired or promoted into a human resource position to complete two (2) hours of training as described herein within 120 days of being hired or promoted into a human resource position.
19. Defendant agrees that the first such training for each employee group identified in Paragraphs 17 and 18 shall take place within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Defendant agrees that all personnel set forth above shall both register and attend the seminar training sessions. In the annual reports required under the Reporting provisions of this Agreement, Defendant shall submit copies of the agenda of the training programs, identify the individuals providing the training, and provide the registries of attendance. E. Posting of Notice
20. Within ten (I 0) business days of the entry of this Agreement, Defendant shall post in a conspicuous place in each of its stores in the Designated Group where notices to employees are customarily kept or posted, the Notice attached as Exhibit B to this Agreement. The Notice shall remain posted for the Term. If the Notice becomes
6

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 14
defaced or illegible, Defendant will replace it with a clean copy. Defendant shall certify to the Commission, in writing, within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement that the Notice has been properly posted and shall provide recertification in each of the annual reports required under the Reporting provision of this Agreement. F. Record Keeping And Reporting Provisions
21. For the duration of this Agreement, Defendant shall maintain all records concerning implementation of this Agreement.
22. Each party shall bear its own costs in conjunction with the maintenance of records, preparation of any report, access or copying of records, or interviews of employees.
23. Defendant shall provide annual reports to the Commission following the Effective Date of this Agreement. The first report shall be due thirty (30) days following 12 months after the Effective Date, and the second repmi shall be due thirty (30) days after the end of the Term.
24. Each report shall provide the following information: a. Complaints of Retaliation: For purposes of this Paragraph 24, the
term "complaint of retaliation" will include all documented complaints and any administrative charges filed with the Commission or equivalent state agency, within the Designated Group, which allege during the Term retaliation for engaging in activity protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Each report shall include: the name of each person making a complaint of retaliation to Defendant (if known) or to any federal, state, or local govermnent agency; a brief summary of each complaint, including
7

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 14
the date of the complaint, the name of the individual(s) who allegedly engaged in the retaliatory conduct, the Defendant's response to the complaint, the name of the person who investigated or responded to the complaint, and what, if any resolution was reached; and copies of any written complaint the Defendants written resolution thereof. While Defendant is not required to provide copies of the Awareline complaints in each report, the EEOC shall have the right to request all Awareline complaints once per year during the Term of this Agreement. The EEOC will hold any names provided by Home Depot in the above reports confidential pursuant to section 7a and 7c ofFOIA (5 USC 552(b)((7)(c)). If someone requests these names from Home Depot, the EEOC will (i) assert the 7a and 7c exemptions and withhold production of the documents, Further, EEOC will notify Home Depot of any other formal efforts to obtain the individual names so that Home Depot may take any necessary legal action to prevent disclosure of these names.
b. Training: For each training program required under Section D of this Agreement, and conducted during the reporting period, Defendant shall submit a registry of attendance.
c. Posting of Notice: Defendant shall re-certify to the Commission, that the Notice required to be posted under Section E of this Agreement has been properly posted, or if removed, was promptly replaced, during the duration of the reporting period.
25. The Commission shall have the right to interview any personnel employed by Defendant in the Designated Group for the purpose of determining Defendant's
8

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 14
compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The Commission shall provide advance notice to Home Depot of any interviews of management employees or non-management employees during those employees' working hours. G. Reference
26. Defendant agrees Ms. Hainline's termination code in its computer database shall be changed to reflect that she resigned her employment. In response to inquiries or requests for references concerning Ms. Hainline, Defendant will make available to Ms. Hainline a toll-free number through which prospective employers can certify her dates of employment, positions held, and final salary.
VI. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND FILING OF AGREEMENT 27. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause for the Term for purposes
of compliance with this Agreement and entry of such further orders or modifications as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate equal employment opportunities for employees.
VII. ENFORCEMENT 28. There is no private right of action to enforce Defendant's obligations under the Agreement and only the Commission may enforce compliance herewith. 29. Enforcement may be had by the Commission petitioning the Court for enforcement of the terms of this Agreement.
VIII. EEOC AUTHORITY
30. With respect to matters outside the scope of this Agreement or charges not specifically resolved in Paragraphs 4 and 8 above, this Agreement shall in no way limit
9

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 14
the powers of the Commission to seek to eliminate employment practices or acts made unlawful by any of the statutes over which the EEOC has enforcement authority.
IX. COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES 31. Except as specifically set forth herein, each party shall be responsible for and shall pay its own costs and attorney's fees.
X. NOTICE 32. Any notice, report, or communication required under the provisions of this Agreement shall be sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, to Mary Jo O'Neill, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. SO ORDERED this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 2009.
BY THE COURT: United States District Judge
10

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 14

BY CONSENT:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC.

BY:~~~~~~~~~ Mary Jo 0' e' Regional Attorney

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

r I

Stephani~ Struble, Trial Attorney
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 866-1381
Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC

Daniel E. Friesen, Esq. Hale Ilaekstaff Friesen, LLP 1430 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 904-6012
Attorneys for Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.

11

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 14
Exhibit A Home Depot prohibits retaliation against any associate who has opposed, in good
faith, discrimination or harassment made unlawful by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Home Depot also prohibits retaliation against any associate who has participated in the statutory complaint process by filing a Charge of Discrimination with a govermnent agency, or testifying or assisting or participating in any manner in an employment discrimination proceeding, such as an investigation, proceeding, hearing or lawsuit involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Examples of activity protected under Home Depot's Non-Retaliation Policy include: complaining about discrimination or retaliation; requesting reasonable accommodation; threatening to file a Charge of Discrimination with a government agency; filing a Charge of Discrimination with a government agency; and serving as a witness during an investigation, by Home Depot or by a govermnent agency, of a complaint of discrimination.
'Retaliation' means any action that might deter a reasonable person from opposing discrimination or participating in the statutory complaint process. Retaliatory conduct may include an action that impacts an employee at work, such as reassigning an employee to a less desirable position, scheduling changes, or termination. Retaliatory conduct may also include an action against a potential employee, such as refusing to hire an individual because he or she complained of discrimination, or an action against a
12

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 14
former employee, such as telling a potential employer who calls for a reference that the former employee complained of discrimination. Finally, retaliatory conduct may include an action that impacts an employee outside of work, such as an assault or filing unfounded civil or criminal charges against that person.
Home Depot takes complaints of retaliation very seriously. Anyone who condones or engages in retaliation in violation ofl-Iome Depot policy is subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.
13

Case 1:06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS Document 84-1 Filed 07/28/09 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 14
Exhibit B NOTICE
The following notice is being posted pursuant to the terms of a Settlement Agreement reached between the parties in EEOC v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., d/b/a The Home Depot, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS.
Home Depot wishes to emphasize the company's fundamental policy of providing equal employment opportunity in all of its operation and in all areas of employment practices, and to ensure that there shall be no retaliation against any employee who has opposed discrimination made unlawful by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or who has participated in the statutory complaint process by filing a Charge of Discrimination with a government agency, or testifying or assisting or participating in any manner in an employment discrimination proceeding, such as an investigation, proceeding, hearing or lawsuit involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, it is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee because he or she has opposed discriminatory employment practices, or because he or she has participated in the statutory complaint process by filing a Charge of Discrimination with a government agency, or testifying or assisting or participating in any manner in an employment discrimination proceeding, such as an investigation, proceeding, hearing or lawsuit
Any employee who believes that he/she has been retaliated against for opposing unlawful employment discrimination, or for participating in the statutory complaint process, has the right to contact the EEOC directly at 303-866-1300. In compliance with federal law, no official at any Home Depot location will retaliate against an employee who makes an internal complaint of discrimination or who contacts the EEOC or its state counterpart.
This Notice shall remain posted for three years.
14

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-1950 As of: 11/10/2016 09:32 AM MST 1 of 8
NDISPO,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−01950−LTB−CBS

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. Assigned to: Judge Lewis T. Babcock Referred to: Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/29/2006 Date Terminated: 07/29/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Nancy A. Weeks U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1075 Fax: 303−866−1375 Email: nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rita Byrnes Kittle U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1347 Fax: 303−866−1375 Email: rita.kittle@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Ann Randall Social Security Administration−Denver Office of the General Counsel, Region VIII 1961 Stout Street Suite 4169 Denver, CO 80294−4003 303−844−0813 Fax: 303−844−0770 Email: jennifer.randall@ssa.gov TERMINATED: 07/11/2008

Stephanie Struble U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1381 Fax: 303−866−1375 Email: stephanie.struble@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

represented by

Case: 1:06-cv-1950 As of: 11/10/2016 09:32 AM MST 2 of 8

Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. doing business as Home Depot, The

Christine Kessler Lamb Fortis Law Partners LLC d/b/a Friesen Lamb LLP 1900 Wazee Street Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 720−904−6000 Fax: 303−295−9701 Email: clamb@fortislawpartners.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Ernest Friesen Fortis Law Partners LLC d/b/a Friesen Lamb LLP 1900 Wazee Street Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 720−904−6000 Fax: 720−904−6006 Email: dfriesen@friesenlamb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gillian Dale Hall &Evans, LLC−Denver 1001 Seventeenth Street Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 303−628−3328 Fax: 303−628−3368 Email: daleg@hallevans.com TERMINATED: 05/07/2009

Shannon McFarland Henderson Fortis Law Partners LLC d/b/a Friesen Lamb LLP 1900 Wazee Street Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 720−904−6000 Fax: 303−295−9701 Email: shenderson@fortislawpartners.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shayne Michelle Spalten Hale Westfall, LLP 1600 Stout Street Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 720−904−6000 Fax: 720−904−6006 Email: SPALTENUSDC@HALEFRIESEN.COM TERMINATED: 09/24/2007

Date Filed 09/29/2006
12/05/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT and Jury Trial Demand against Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. Summons not issued, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(llr, ) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. waiver sent on 10/26/2006, answer due 12/26/2006. (Kittle, Rita) (Entered: 12/05/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-1950 As of: 11/10/2016 09:32 AM MST 3 of 8

12/22/2006 01/03/2007 01/10/2007 02/27/2007 03/07/2007
03/08/2007
03/12/2007 06/28/2007 07/03/2007 07/11/2007 08/20/2007 08/21/2007 08/23/2007
08/30/2007 09/06/2007 09/06/2007

3 ANSWER to Complaint by Home Depot U.S.A. Inc..(Henderson, Shannon) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
4 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer by Judge Babcock. (rlp, ) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
5 ORDER setting Scheduling Conference for 3/7/2007 08:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer, signed by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 01/10/07. (rlp, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
6 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
8 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Craig B Shaffer : Scheduling Conference held on 3/7/2007. Trial Preparation Conference set for 7/22/2008 at 08:00 AM before Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock, 5 day Jury Trial set for 8/18/2008 08:30 AM before Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock. (Court Reporter FTR − Geneva Mattei.) (gms, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
7 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 1/10/2008,Dispositive Motions due by 11/30/2007, Settlement Conference set for 8/15/2007 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer, Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/6/2008 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 3/7/07. (gms, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
9 MINUTE ORDER : CONFIRMING Five (5) Day Jury Trial set for 8/18/2008 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 201 before Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock., Trial Preparation Conference set for 7/22/2008 at 08:00 AM before Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/12/07. (dln, ) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
10 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jennifer Ann Randall on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Randall, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
11 MINUTE ORDER Settlement Conference is RESET for 9/7/2007 01:30 PM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer, by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 7/3/07. (mrs, ) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
12 MINUTE ORDER Due to a conflict on the Court's calendar the Final Pretrial Conference is RESET for 5/9/2008 09:15 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer, by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 7/11/07. (mrs, ) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
13 MINUTE ORDER Due to a conflict on the Court's calendar, the start time for the Settlement Conference is RESET for 9/7/2007 09:15 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer, by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 8/20/07. (mrs, ) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
14 MINUTE ORDER A Telephonic Status Conference is set for 8/23/2007 04:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer, by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 8/21/07. (mrs, ) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
15 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Telephonic Status Conference held on 8/23/2007. Discovery Conference set for 8/30/2007 at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. (Court Reporter FTR − Ben Van Dyke) (cbscd) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Craig B Shaffer : Discovery Hearing held on 8/30/2007. (Court Reporter FTR − Nel Steffens.) (mrs, ) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
17 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Telephonic Discovery Conference held on 9/6/2007. (Court Reporter FTR − Ben Van Dyke) (cbscd) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
18 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Spalten, Shayne) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-1950 As of: 11/10/2016 09:32 AM MST 4 of 8

09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/12/2007
09/21/2007 09/24/2007 09/25/2007 10/26/2007 10/26/2007 10/29/2007
10/30/2007 11/06/2007 11/08/2007
11/14/2007
11/14/2007 01/10/2008
01/14/2008

19 MINUTE ORDER GRANTING the Stipulated 18 Motion for Entry of Protective Order. The proposed stipulated protective order is accepted by the court, by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 9/7/07.(mrs, ) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
20 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 9/7/07. (mrs, ) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
21 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Craig B Shaffer : Settlement Conference held on 9/7/2007. Settlement not reached, record not made. (mrs, ) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
22 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Telephonic Discovery Conference held on 9/12/2007: The deadline to complete fact discovery shall be extended to 11/26/2007. (Court Reporter FTR − Ben Van Dyke) (cbscd) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
23 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Shayne Spalten by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. (Spalten, Shayne) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
24 MINUTE ORDER 23 Notice of Withdrawal filed by Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. is granted. Attorney Shayne Michelle Spalten is allowed to withdraw as counsel for defendant, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/24/07. (gms, ) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
25 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney on behalf of Shayne M. Spalten by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Spalten, Shayne) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
26 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Gillian Dale on behalf of Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. (Dale, Gillian) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
27 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Expert Witness Designation by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Lamb, Christine) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
28 MEMORANDUM regarding 27 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Expert Witness Designation filed by Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 10/29/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(mrs) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
29 MINUTE ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Unopposed 27 Motion for Extension of Time to File Expert Witness Designation, by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 10/30/07.(mrs) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
30 Joint MOTION For Extension of Time to Re: Fact Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Randall, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
31 MEMORANDUM regarding 30 Joint MOTION For Extension of Time to Re: Fact Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines filed by Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 11/8/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(mrs) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
32 MINUTE ORDER GRANTING the Joint 30 Motion to Extend Fact Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines. Fact discovery is extended to 1/22/08, dispositive motions deadline is extended to 1/25/08, by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 11/14/07.(mrs) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
33 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Fact Discovery due by 1/22/2008. Dispositive Motions due by 1/25/2008 pursuant to Minute Order dated 11/14/07. Text only entry − no document attached. (mrs, ) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
34 Joint MOTION For Extension of Time to for Limited Extension of Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Lamb, Christine) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
35 MEMORANDUM regarding 34 Joint MOTION For Extension of Time to for Limited Extension of Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines filed by Home

Case: 1:06-cv-1950 As of: 11/10/2016 09:32 AM MST 5 of 8

01/14/2008 01/17/2008 01/23/2008 01/24/2008 02/19/2008
03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/10/2008 03/10/2008

Depot U.S.A. Inc. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 01/14/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(jjh, ) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
36 MINUTE ORDER Setting Hearing on Parties' Joint 34 MOTION For Extension of Time to for Limited Extension of Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines : Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 1/17/2008 at 3:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Counsel shall create a conference call, then contact the Court at (303) 844−2117 to participate in the hearing. Entered by Magistrate Judge Shaffer on 1/14/08. [Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(cbssec) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
37 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 1/17/2008: Granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion for Extension of Time; Fact Discovery deadline extended to 2/1/2008; Dispositive Motions due by 2/18/2008. Expert discovery shall be completed during the first two weeks of April 2008. (Court Reporter FTR − Ben Van Dyke) (cbscd) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
38 MINUTE ORDER Setting Hearing: Telephonic Discovery (Status) Conference is set for 1/24/2008 at 10:45 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Counsel shall create a conference call, then contact the Court at (303) 844−2117 to participate in the hearing. Entered by Magistrate Judge Shaffer on 1/23/08. (Text only entry − no document attached)(cbssec) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
39 MINUTE ORDER vacating Telephonic Discovery (Status) Conference set for 1/24/08, pursuant to telephonic representations by the Plaintiff that the dispute has been resolved. Entered by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 1/24/08. (Text only entry − no document attached)(cbssec) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
40 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Hainline depo excerpts, # 2 Exhibit B−Grasser depo excerpts, # 3 Exhibit C−Code of Conduct, # 4 Exhibit D−External staffing guidelines, # 5 Exhibit E−Background checks, # 6 Exhibit F−Consent Decree, # 7 Exhibit G−Job Description, # 8 Exhibit H−Nichols depo excerpts, # 9 Exhibit I−Bruger depo excerpts, # 10 Exparte Attachment J−Addison computer printout, # 11 Exhibit K−Addison W−4, # 12 Exhibit L−Email re Addison background check, # 13 Exhibit M−ChoicePoint background check, # 14 Exhibit N−Addison tim &attend request, # 15 Exhibit O−Newhouse computer printout, # 16 Exhibit P−Newhouse application, # 17 Exhibit Q−Newhouse interview sheets, # 18 Exhibit R−Hiring Checklist, # 19 Exhibit S−Burger calendar, # 20 Exhibit T−Burger investigative report, # 21 Exhibit U−witness statements, # 22 Exhibit V−McEnroe depo excerpts)(Lamb, Christine) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
41 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Telephonic Discovery Conference held on 3/7/2008: Plaintiff's counsel may file a motion to strike by 3/12/2008, and defendant shall file a response within fifteen (15) days. (Court Reporter FTR − Ben Van Dyke) (cbscd) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
42 MOTION to Strike 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibits J and O by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Vesom unpublished opinion, # 12 Alward unpublished opinion, # 13 Travelers unpublished opinion, # 14 Super Future Equities unpublished opinion, # 15 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Randall, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
43 MINUTE ORDER: Defendant has up to and including 3/30/08 to file a response to 42 Plaintiff's MOTION to Strike 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment; Plaintiff has up to and including 4/9/08 to file a reply. Entered by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/10/08. (pap, ) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
44 BRIEF in Opposition re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A: EEOC Response to Home Depot's Proffered Undisputed Facts, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, #

Case: 1:06-cv-1950 As of: 11/10/2016 09:32 AM MST 6 of 8

03/10/2008 03/10/2008 03/10/2008 03/24/2008 03/25/2008
03/28/2008
03/28/2008 04/03/2008
04/11/2008 04/17/2008 04/29/2008 05/02/2008 05/09/2008

9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Unpublished Opinion: Greenlee, # 34 Unpublished Opinion: Haggard, # 35 Unpublished Opinion: Rowe, # 36 Unpublished Opinion: McCrary, # 37 Unpublished Opinion: Flitton)(Randall, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
45 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Document by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Randall, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
46 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Randall, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
47 Exhibit #5 to 44 Brief in Opposition to Motion, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Public Entry for 46 SEALED DOCUMENT filed 3/10/2008 − text only entry no document attached. (sahsl, ) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
48 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Reply In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Lamb, Christine) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
49 MINUTE ORDER granting 48 Defendants Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant has up to and including 3/28/2008 to file a reply in support of motion for summary judgment by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 03/25/2008.(sah2, ) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
50 RESPONSE to Motion re 42 MOTION to Strike 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibits J and O MOTION to Strike 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibits J and O MOTION to Strike 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibits J and O filed by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Layton−Root depo excerpts, # 2 Exhibit B − Def's responses to Pl's discovery requests, # 3 Exhibit C − 3/7/08 letter, # 4 Exhibit D − 3/13/08 letter)(Lamb, Christine) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
51 REPLY to Response to Motion re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit W − Complaint in 04−D−1776, # 2 Exhibit X − McEnroe depo excerpts, # 3 Exhibit Y − Nichols−Sorenson depo excerpts)(Lamb, Christine) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
52 REPLY to Response to Motion re 42 MOTION to Strike 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibits J and O MOTION to Strike 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibits J and O MOTION to Strike 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibits J and O filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 11, # 2 Pfizer v. Teva unpublished opinion, # 3 Palmer v. Asarco unpublished opinion)(Randall, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
53 MINUTE ORDER granting 45 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion to File Under Seal by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 04/11/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
54 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jennifer Ann Randall (Randall, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
55 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Stephanie Struble on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Struble, Stephanie) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
56 Proposed Pretrial Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − EEOC witness list, # 2 Exhibit B − EEOC Exhibit List, # 3 Exhibit 1 − Defendant's witness list, # 4 Exhibit 2 − Defendant's exhibit list)(Randall, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
57 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Final Pretrial Conference held on 5/9/2008: Settlement Conference set for 7/1/2008 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate

Case: 1:06-cv-1950 As of: 11/10/2016 09:32 AM MST 7 of 8

05/09/2008 05/27/2008 05/27/2008 06/23/2008 07/01/2008
07/08/2008 07/10/2008 07/11/2008 07/11/2008 07/11/2008 07/14/2008 07/16/2008 01/29/2009 05/04/2009
05/06/2009

Judge Craig B Shaffer. The Final Pretrial Order is signed and entered with interlineations. Plaintiff's exhibit #48 and defendant's exhibits A−92, A−93, A−94, A−98, A−99, B−1, B−28, B−29, B−30, and B−32 are stricken. (Court Reporter FTR − Ben Van Dyke) (cbscd) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
58 FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER, A Settlement Conference is set for 7/1/2008 01:30 PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 05/09/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
59 OBJECTIONS to 56 Proposed Pretrial Order, Defendant's Exhibit List by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Objections)(Randall, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
60 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Def's Objections)(Lamb, Christine) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
61 MINUTE ORDER. The trial set for 8/18/2008 and the trial preparation conference set for 7/22/2008 are VACATED to be reset after ruling on the pending motions by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 06/23/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
62 Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer. Telephonic Status Conference held on 7/1/2008: The settlement conference set for 7/1/2008 is vacated and shall be reset the week of 7/14/2008. (Court Reporter FTR − Ben Van Dyke) (cbscd) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
63 MINUTE ORDER, A Settlement Conference is set for 7/16/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 402 by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 07/08/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
64 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Randall, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
65 MINUTE ORDER granting 64 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Withdrawal of Jennifer Randall. Attorney Jennifer Ann Randall terminated by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 07/11/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
66 ORDER denying 40 Home Depots Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 07/11/2008.(sah, ) Modified on 7/11/2008 to correct the name of the Judge who signed the Order (sah, ). (Entered: 07/11/2008)
67 ORDER denying 42 EEOCs Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 07/11/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
68 AMENDED MINUTE ORDER, A Settlement Conference set for 7/16/2008 08:00 AM in Courtroom A 402 by Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer on 07/14/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
69 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B Shaffer: Settlement Conference held on 7/16/2008 and no settlement was reached. (pap, ) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
70 NOTICE of Change of Address of Defendant's Counsel by Christine Kessler Lamb (Lamb, Christine) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
71 MINUTE ORDER setting hearing at the request of Plaintiff. ORDERED that a telephonic status conference, to discuss setting a settlement conference, will be held on 5/6/2009 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer. Counsel shall coordinate to create a conference call among themselves before contacting the Court (303.844.2117) at the scheduled time. By Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 5/4/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(cbssec) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
72 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Gillian Dale) by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Dale, Gillian) (Entered: 05/06/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-1950 As of: 11/10/2016 09:32 AM MST 8 of 8

05/06/2009
05/07/2009 05/13/2009 06/15/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/29/2009 06/30/2009 07/13/2009 07/14/2009 07/17/2009 07/28/2009 07/29/2009

73 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/6/2009. Parties shall jointly call Magistrate Judge Shaffers chambers on or before MAY 13, 2009 with a Status update regarding settlement issues. If parties have not settled by May 13, 2009, the Court will contact Judge Babcock to set an early trial date. (Court Reporter FTR − Kathleen Finney.) (klmcd, ) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
75 ORDER granting 72 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Gillian Dale shall be permitted to withdraw as attorney for Defendant, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 05/07/2009.(sah, ) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
74 MINUTE ORDER. A stipulated motion to dismiss with related documents shall be submitted to the Court on or before June 15, 2009. All further deadlines and hearings before Magistrate Judge Shaffer are hereby vacated by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 05/13/2009. (sah, ) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
76 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Stipulated Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Friesen, Daniel) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
77 MINUTE ORDER. Defendants Unopposed Motion for Two−Week Extension of Time to File Stipulated Motion to Dismiss 76 is GRANTED up to and including 06/29/2009. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 06/16/2009.(sah, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
78 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to the Minute Order dated 06/16/2009, Dismissal Paper due by 6/29/2009. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (sah2, ) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
79 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Stipulated Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Friesen, Daniel) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
80 MINUTE ORDER. Defendants Unopposed Motion for 10 Day Extension of Time to File Stipulated Motion to Dismiss 79 filed 06/29/2009 is GRANTED up to and including 07/13/2009. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 06/30/2009. (sah, ) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
81 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Stipulated Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Friesen, Daniel) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
82 MINUTE ORDER. Defendants Motion for Extension of Time to File Stipulated Motion to Dismiss 81 is GRANTED up to and including July 28, 2009, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/14/09. (ltbcd, ) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
83 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to the Minute Order dated 07/14/2009, Dismissal Paper due by 7/28/2009. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (sah2, ) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
84 Stipulated MOTION for Order to for Entry of Settlement Agreement by Defendant Home Depot U.S.A. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Settlement Agreement)(Friesen, Daniel) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
85 ORDER. A Stipulated Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement was filed 07/28/2009. The Settlement Agreement is APPROVED and this matter shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to pay their own fees and cost. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 07/29/2009. (sah, ) (Entered: 07/29/2009)