FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

JUL 2 7 2001

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUSTIN COMMERCIAL, INC. Defendant.

§ §
~ ['l. -t~ 1'"'1 f\ Ci~AJon~o~'" ~
§ § COMPLAINT § JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF ACTION This is an action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis ofrace, and to provide appropriate reliefto Dwight Revada who was adversely affected by such practices. Dwight Revada was a victim of unlawful discrimination when he was subjected to racial harassment as an employee of Defendant, Austin Commercial, Inc. (hereinafter "Austin Commercial").
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter "the Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Austin Commercial, a corporation registered to do business in the State ofTexas, has continuously been doing business in the State ofTexas in the city of Austin, Texas and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, the Defendant, Austin Commercial has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSection 701 (b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b), (g), and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Dwight Revada filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle VII by Defendant, Austin Commercial. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least on or about February 28,2000, the Defendant, Austin Commercial, has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Barton Skyway 2 jobsite, located in or around the city of Austin, Texas, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(k) and 2000e-2(a). The unlawful practices were to subject Dwight Revada to discrimination through harassment based on his race, Black. Dwight Revada was discriminated against because ofhis race, Black, when Defendant Austin Commercial's employees and supervisors at the Barton Skyway 2 jobsite engaged in invidious and blatant racial harassment between February 28,2000 and June 1,
2

2000. Revada, Defendant's only Black employee on the job site, complains that he was subjected
to several egregiously racist incidents, including two "noose" incidents.
a. On or about February 28,2000, an unknown person hung a noose between the offices oftwo ofRevada's supervisors. Attached to the noose was a piece of paper with Revada's name. A white co-worker, George King, admitted to putting up the piece of paper, but did not admit to putting up the noose.
b. At a later date, Revada's supervisor, Richard Weems, drew a stick figure hanging from a tree on a blackboard and wrote Revada's name next to the drawing.
c. On several occasions, Tom Reid, the assistant superintendent, invited Revada to KKK meetings.
d. Finally, there were racial slurs and atrocities written on the side of several port-o-potties at the job site (these included KKK symbols, drawings ofhooded men, and statements like "niggers go home," and "no niggers"). Another Black male, Ollie McKinney, who worked for a sub-contractor, Fire Protection Company, complained to Tom Reid about the graffiti and demanded it be removed. There were a few days between when McKinney first saw the racial slurs and when he complained about them to Reid. Reid allowed the racial epithets to remain visible for several days. Eventually, Reid assigned Revada to spray paint over the racial slurs and graffiti. This action by Reid to force Revada, Defendant's only Black employee on the job site, to clean up the racial epithets, was another act of racial harassment against Revada.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph seven above has been to
deprive Dwight Revada of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect his
status as an employee, because of his race, Black.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven above were
and are intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven above were
and are being done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Dwight
Revada.
3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a pennanent injunction enjoining the Defendant, Austin Commercial, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race, including, but not limited to, tolerating the acts described in paragraph seven above; B. Order the Defendant, Austin Commercial, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for persons of all races, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices; C. Order the Defendant, Austin Commercial, to make whole Dwight Revada, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be detennined at trial, and other affinnative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; D. Order the Defendant, Austin Commercial, to make whole Dwight Revada, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph seven above, including, but not limited to, medical expenses and job search expenses, in amounts to be detennined at trial; E. Order the Defendant, Austin Commercial, to make whole Dwight Revada, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph seven above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment oflife, and humiliation, in amounts to be detennined at trial; F. Order the Defendant, Austin Commercial, to pay Dwight Revada punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph seven above, in amounts to be
4

detennined at trial;
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest; and
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Acting Deputy General Counsel
~b~
ROBERT B. HARWIN Regional Attorney State Bar No. 076083 (Dis 'ct of Columbia)
.J
LY',,, .... '-'-I.Z Supervisory Tnal Atto Texas State Bar No.
'al Attorney Texas State Bar No. 00794465
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555 (210) 281-7636 (210) 281-7669 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FORPLAlNTWF
5

 
 I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXA~'

AUSTIN DIVISION

!

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AUSTIN COMMERCIAL, INC., Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. A OlCA 493 SS

§

§

§

§

JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff herein, and Austin

Commercial, Inc., Defendant herein, jointly move this Court for an order dismissing this case

against the Defendant. In support of this motion, the parties state that the matters in dispute

between Plaintiff and Defendant have been resolved.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff and Defendant pray that this Court

enter an order dismissing this suit with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs of court.

JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Page 1

DALLAS:87688.1 017688 1008

~"-

NR.MCCOWN Tex tate Bar No. 134665 0 ROBERT G. LEE Texas State Bar No. 00787888
LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2600 Lock Box 116 Dallas, Texas 75201-2931 214.880.8100 214.880.0181 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AUSTIN COMMERCIAL, INC. ~
GW LYN YOUNG REAMS Actil'lg1)eputy General Counsel ROBERT B. HARWIN Regional Attorney District of Columbia State Bar No. 076083 LINDA GUTIERREZ Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas State Bar No. 08642750 R. CHRIS PITTARD Texas State Bar No. 00794465
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555 210.281.7636 210.281.7669 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE - Page 2
DALLAS:87688.1 017688.1008

 
 - ~-

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

DEC 0 6 2001
CLERK. U.S. OISTRlyt COURT
B~ESTERN OISTcg{J OF TEXAS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, vs. AUSTIN COMMERCIAL, INC.,
Defendant.

§

DEPUTY CLERK

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. A OICA 493 SS

§

§ § §

AGREED ORDER TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Having reviewed the Joint Motion of the parties to dismiss with prejudice in the above-

entitled and numbered cause of action, and having been advised that the parties have fully and

finally resolved all matters of dispute between them, the Court is of the opinion that said Joint

Motion should be in all things be GRANTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that the above-entitled and numbered cause be dismissed with

prejudice against its refiling.

All costs of court are taxed against the party incurring same.

5 SIGNED this

lie.
day

_ _ _~ _ _ _ _,2001.

PRES~~

AGREED ORDER TO DISMISS WIm PREJUDICE - Page 1
DALLAS:87688.2017688.1008

J

.. '...

Te tate Bar No. 13466500 ROBERT G. LEE Texas State Bar No. 00787888
LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2600 Lock Box 116 Dallas, Texas 75201-2931 214.880.8100 214.880.0181 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AUSTIN COMMERCIAL, I
LYN YOUNG REAMS Actin eputy General Counsel ROBERT B. HARWIN Regional Attorney District of Columbia State Bar No. 076083 LINDA GUTIERREZ Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas State Bar No. 08642750 R. CHRIS PITTARD Texas State Bar No. 00794465
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555 210.281.7636 210.281.7669 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
AGREED ORDER TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE - Page 2
DALLAS:87688.2 017688.1008

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txwd - Docket Report

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?206139391811066-L_3...

U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas (Austin) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01-cv-00493-SS

CLOSED

EEOC v. Austin Commercial Assigned to: Honorable Sam Sparks Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race) Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
V.

Date Filed: 07/27/2001 Date Terminated: 12/06/2001 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Linda Gutierrez E.E.O.C. 5410 Fredericksburg Rd. 200 Mockingbird Plaza II San Antonio, TX 78229 (210) 281-7637 Fax: 210/281-7669 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R. Chris Pittard Davis Law Firm 5710 IH 10 West San Antonio, TX 78201 (210)734-3599 Fax: (210) 785-0806 Email: chrisp@jeffdavislawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert B. Harwin Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 (210) 281-7643 Fax: (210) 281-7669 Email: robert.harwin@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 3

6/4/2007 12:23 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txwd - Docket Report

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?206139391811066-L_3...

Defendant Austin Commercial, Inc.

represented by Robert Garland Lee Lee & Braziel, LLP 1801 Lamar Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 Email: lee@l-b-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven R. McCown Littler Mendelson, P.C. 2001 Ross Avenue Suite 1500 Lock Box 116 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 880-8100 Fax: 214/880-0181 Email: smccown@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed
07/27/2001 07/27/2001 07/27/2001 08/14/2001
10/01/2001 10/03/2001
12/03/2001
12/06/2001
12/06/2001

#

Docket Text

Case assigned to Honorable Sam Sparks (fe) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
1 Complaint filed. (Pages: 5) (fe) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
Case file prepared and forwarded to Judge Sparks (fe) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
2 Waiver of Service by Austin Commercial ; Notice and Request Mailed on 8/7/01 (fe) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
3 Answer by Austin Commercial (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
4 Order requiring submission of proposed scheduling order by 12/03/01 (fe) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
5 Joint motion by EEOC, Austin Commercial to dismiss (with prejudice). (mc2) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
6 Order granting joint motion to dismiss (with prejudice) [5-1], all costs taxed against party incurring same. (Noticed 12/6/01.) (mc2) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
Case dismissed (mc2) (Entered: 12/06/2001)

2 of 3

6/4/2007 12:23 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txwd - Docket Report

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?206139391811066-L_3...

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/04/2007 12:25:02

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 1

Cost:

eeoc 1:01-cv-00493-SS 0.08

3 of 3

6/4/2007 12:23 PM