A. LUIS LUCERO, JR., REGIONAL ATTORNEY

KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY

2 DAMIEN LEE, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

3 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400

SEATTLE, WA 98104

4 TEL: (206) 220-6915 FAX: (206) 220-6911
5 Damien.Lee@eeoc.gov

FlurrOS

SEP

3("J

t3 '"\l\,IC.OC·CRP leVIN

6
ATTORNEYS FORPLAINTWF
7

8

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
\0

11

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

12 COMMISSION

CIVIL ACTION NO.

13

CV'05 1521 HU

14

Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT

v.
15
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

16

17

Defendant.

18

19

NATURE OF THE ACTION

20

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

21 Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin and

22 to provide appropriate relief to Gabriel Parra, Tracy J. Hebert, and Tony Rodriguez, Jr., each

23 who was adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

24 alleges that Qwest Communications, Inc. subjected Mr. Parra and Mr. Rodriguez to 25 discriminatory discipline and termination based on their national origin (Mexican) and subjected

COMPLAINT- Page 1 of5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104·1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220·6911 TDD: (206) 220·6882

Mr. Hebert to discriminatory discipline and tennination based on his association with Mr. Parra 2 and Mr. Rodriguez. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, including pecuniary and nonpecuniary 3 compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, on behalf ofMr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and 4 Mr. Rodriguez.

5
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6
1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337,
7
1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(£)(1) and (3) of
8
9 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e-5(£)(1) and (3)

10 ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §1981a.

II

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

12
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
13
PARTIES
14
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is
15

16 the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and

17 enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(£)(1) of

18 Title VII, 42 U.S.c. §2000e-5(£)(1).

19

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Qwest Communications, Inc. ("Qwest") has been

20
a corporation continuously doing business in the State of Oregon and has continuously had at
21
least 15 employees.
22

23

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Qwest has continuously been an employer

24 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of

25 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b), (g) and (h).

COMPLAINT-Page 2 of 5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TOD: (206) 220-6882

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

2

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert

3 and Mr. Rodriguez each filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by

4 Defendant Qwest. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

5

7. From at least March 2004, Defendant Qwest at its Eugene, Oregon facility has

6
engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of §§ 703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42
7
U.S.c. §§ 2000e-2(a) and -3(a). Defendant subjected Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez
8
to discriminatory discipline and termination.
9

10

8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to

II deprive Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez of equal employment opportunities.

12

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were

13
intentional.
14
lO. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were
15
done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Parra, Mr.
16
17 Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez.

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

20

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, agents,

21
assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any
22
employment practices which discriminate or retaliate.
23

24

25

COMPLAINT- Page 3 of5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104·1061 Telephone: (206) 22(1.6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TOD: (206) 220-6882

B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which

2 provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the effects of its 3 past and present unlawful employment practices.

4

C. Order Defendant to make whole Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez by

5 providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial,
6
and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment
7
practices.
8
D. Order Defendant to make whole Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez by
9
10 providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

11 employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-of-pocket

12 expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

13
E. Order Defendant to make whole Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez by
14
providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful
15
practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including without limitation emotional pain,
16
suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
17

18

F. Order Defendant to pay Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez punitive

19 damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be

20 determined at trial.

21
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
22
interest.
23
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
24

25

II

COMPLAINT- Page 4 of5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue. Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 roD: (206) 220-6882

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2

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

3

DATED this 29th day of September, 2005.

4

5 A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. Regional Attorney
6
KATHRYN OLSON 7 Supervisory Trial Attorney

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel

8 DAMIENLEE

9 10

BY~~~ Senior Trial Attorney

EQUA MPLOY ENT OPPORTUNITY 11 COMMISSION

Seattle District Office
12
909 First Avenue, Suite 400

13 Seattle, Washington 98104

Telephone (206) 220-6915

14 Facsimile (206) 220-6911

Damien.Lee@eeoc.gov
15

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

16

Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT- Page 5 of5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTVNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104·1061 Tdephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

 
 A. LUIS LUCERO, JR., REGIONAL ATTORNEY 1 KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY 2 DAMIEN LEE, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 3 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98104 4 TEL: (206) 220-6915
FAX: (206) 220-6911 5 Damien.Lee@eeoc.gov
6
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
7

8

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
10

11

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

12 COMMISSION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-1521

13

Plaintiff,
14
v. 15 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

16

17

Defendant.

18

19

NATURE OF THE ACTION

20

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

21 Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin and

22 to provide appropriate relief to Gabriel Parra, Tracy J. Hebert, and Tony Rodriguez, Jr., each

23 who was adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

24 alleges that Qwest Communications, Inc. subjected Mr. Parra and Mr. Rodriguez to 25 discriminatory discipline and termination based on their national origin (Mexican) and subjected

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- Page 1 of 5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

1 Mr. Hebert to discriminatory discipline and termination based on his association with Mr. Parra 2 and Mr. Rodriguez. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, including pecuniary and nonpecuniary 3 compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, on behalf of Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and 4 Mr. Rodriguez.

5
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337,
7
8 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of
9 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3)

10 ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

11

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

12
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
13
PARTIES
14
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is
15
16 the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and

17 enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) of

18 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1).

19

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Qwest Communications, Inc. (“Qwest”) has been

20
a corporation continuously doing business in the State of Oregon and has continuously had at
21
least 15 employees.
22

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Qwest has continuously been an employer
23

24 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of

25 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b), (g) and (h).

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- Page 2 of 5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
1

2

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert

3 and Mr. Rodriguez each filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by

4 Defendant Qwest. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

5

7. From at least March 2004, Defendant Qwest at its Eugene, Oregon facility has

6
engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §
7
2000e-2(a). Defendant subjected Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez to discriminatory
8
discipline and termination.
9

10

8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to

11 deprive Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez of equal employment opportunities.

12

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were

13 intentional.
14
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were
15
done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Parra, Mr.
16
17 Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez.

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

20

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, agents,

21
assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any
22
employment practices which discriminate or retaliate.
23

24

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- Page 3 of 5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which
1
2 provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the effects of its 3 past and present unlawful employment practices.

4

C. Order Defendant to make whole Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez by

5 providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial,
6
and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment
7
practices.
8
D. Order Defendant to make whole Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez by
9
10 providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

11 employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-of-pocket

12 expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

13

E. Order Defendant to make whole Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez by

14
providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful
15
practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including without limitation emotional pain,
16

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

18

F. Order Defendant to pay Mr. Parra, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rodriguez punitive

19 damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be

20 determined at trial.

21
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
22
interest.
23
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
24

25

//

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- Page 4 of 5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
1

2

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

3

DATED this 5th day of October, 2005.

4

5 A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. Regional Attorney

Deputy

6

KATHRYN OLSON

GW

7 Supervisory Trial Attorney

JAMES L. LEE General Counsel

ENDOLYN Y. REAMS

Associate

General Counsel

8 DAMIEN LEE 9 Senior Trial Attorney

10 BY: s/ A. Luis Lucero, Jr. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
11 COMMISSION 12 Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 13 Seattle, Washington 98104
Telephone (206) 220-6915 14 Facsimile (206) 220-6911
Damien.Lee@eeoc.gov
15

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

16

Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT- Page 5 of 5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

 
 KEVIN T. LAFKY, OSB #85263 klafky @lafky .com LARRY L. LINDER, OSB #01072 llinder@lafky.com Lafky & Lafky 429 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301 tel: (503) 585-2450 fax: (503) 585-0205
Attorneys for Tony Rodriguez Jr.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TONY RODRIGUEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

Docket No. 05-1521-HO

v. QWEST CORPORATION,
Defendant.

INTERVENING COMPLAINT--STATE STATUTORY DISCRIMINATION; VIOLATION O F TITLE VII; VIOLATION O F 42 USC $ 1981 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS and WRONGFUL DISCHARGE (Jury Trial Requested)

Plaintiff alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

Jurisdiction is appropriate for this Court after Plaintiff co-filed a complaint with the

Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ("BOLI") and the Equal Employment Opportunity

Page ]-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE, SAJII,EMO. R 9'301 TELEPHONF ( 5 0 3 ) 585.2450 - FAX (5G3) 585-0205 - Emall ~ n f o Q l a f k ycorn

Commission ("EEOC") and the EEOC filed a civil suit regarding the complaint on September 30, 2005. Plaintiff requests a jury trial in this matter. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
2. Venue is appropriate in this Court because events giving rise to this complaint occurred in Oregon.
3. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 USC $ 1331 and brought pursuant to claims under 42 USC $ 1981 and 2000e from which Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4.
At all relevant times Defendant Qwest Corporation ("Qwest") has been a corporation continuously doing business in the state of Oregon and has continuously had at least 500 employees.
At all relevant times, Qwest has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Title VII.
Plaintiff is a Hispanic male of Mexican national origin. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed by Qwest at its Eugene, Oregon facility. From at least March 2004, Qwest subjected Plaintiff to discriminatory discipline and termination on July 14,2004 based on his race and national origin in violation of state and federal law.
Page 2-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY &r LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
419 CCURT ST NE.SAI-EM, OR 97301 TELEPHONF (503: 585.2450 - FAX ( 5 0 3 ) 585-0205 - Enall ~nfo@lafkycorn

Qwest subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment based on his race and national origin.
8. Qwest retaliated against Plaintiff because he opposed its discriminatory practices.
FIRST CLAIM-VIOLATION OF TITLE VII (Count I-Race and National Origin Discrimination, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e)
9.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-8. 42 U.S.C. 8 2000e-2(a) provides: "it shall be an
unlawful employment practice for an employer" to discharge an individual, "or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
Qwest employed Plaintiff during the time in question. During the course of Plaintiffs employment with Qwest, Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on his race and national origin. Incidents of race discrimination committed by Qwest resulted in Plaintiff being denied compensation, and adversely affected Plaintiffs terms, conditions, and privileges of his
employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. 8 2000e-2(a).
//I
Page 3-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.

Qwest discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment on the basis of his race.and national origin. This culminated in Plaintiffs employment being terminated.
12. Plaintiff has suffered non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 as a result of Qwest's race and national origin discrimination. Plaintiff requests economic damages in the form of back pay and front pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. fj 1988.
(Count 11-Retaliation Race and National Origin Discrimination)
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-12. 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e-3 provides in relevant part: "it
shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter."
Plaintiff complained regarding him being treated differently based on his race and national origin. After this complaint, Qwest retaliated against Plaintiff. I//
Page 4-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT ST NE, SAIEM. OR 97301
TELEPHONF (503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Ernall ~nfo@lafkycorn

Qwest's retaliation toward Plaintiff, because he complained about the race and national
origin discrimination, constitutes a violation of 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e-3(a) for which Plaintiff is
entitled to relief.
Plaintiff has suffered non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 as a result of Qwest's retaliation directed against Plaintiff because he complained about the race and national origin discrimination. Plaintiff requests economic damages in the form of front pay and back pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
[Count 111: Hostile Work Environment National O r i ~ i nand Race Discrimination) 17.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1- 16. 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e-2(a) provides: "it shall be an
unlawful employment practice for an employer" to discharge an individual, "or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
Plaintiff is Hispanic and of Mexican national origin. Qwest created and maintained a hostile work environment toward Hispanics and people of Mexican national origin. Qwest's
Page 5-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY & LAFKY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT S T NE, SALEM, OR 9'301
TELEFHONF (503) 585.245C -FAX (503) 585-0205 - Emall ~nfo@lafkycorn

hostile work environment, due to the actions of its employees, as provided in the paragraphs above, affected Plaintiffs ability to perform his job, caused Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress in the performance of his job, and made him subject himself to harassing commentary in order to maintain his employment. All of this adversely affected Plaintiffs terms, conditions, and
privileges of his employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e-2(a).
19. Qwest discriminated against Plaintiff in the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of his employment on the basis of Plaintiffs race and national origin.
20. Plaintiff has suffered non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 as a result of Qwest's hostile work environment directed against Plaintiff because he is Hispanic and of Mexican national origin. Plaintiff requests economic damages in the form of front pay and back pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
SECOND CLAIM-VIOLATION OF 42 USC 6 1981
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-20. Qwest discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his race, national origin, and color in the performance of his employment contract, and in the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, and terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship all
in violation of 42 USC 5 1981.
Page 6-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE,SALEM OR 9'301
- TELEPHONF (503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 Ernall ~nfo@lafkycorr

22. Qwest discriminated against Plaintiff in the performance of his employment contract and in the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship by creating, encouraging, and condoning a hostile work environment in which racist comments and disparate treatment and discipline based on race, national origin, and color were pervasive,
all in violation of 42 USC 5 1981.
23. Qwest discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff in the performance of his employment contract and in the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship because he opposed and reported unlawful discrimination based on race, national origin and color, all in violation of 42 USC § 1981.
24. As a result of Qwest's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has lost wages in an amount to be determined at trial.
As a result of Qwest's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
26. The actions of Qwest were taken in bad faith, maliciously or with reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Page 7-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE, SAI,EM, OR 97301 TELEPHONE (503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Email info@lafky corn

Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 USC gl988.
28. Plaintiff is entitled to such other relief as the Court deems equitable.
THIRD CLAIM-STATE STATUTORY DISCRIMINATION (Count I: Race and National O r i-~ i nDiscrimination) 29.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-28. According to ORS 659A.O3O(a), (b) it is an unlawful employment practice, "for an employer, because of an individual's race, religion, color, sex, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older, . . . to refuse to
hire or employ or to bar or discharge from employment such individual [or] . . . to discriminate
against such an individual in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." Discrimination, because of Plaintiffs race and national origin, committed by Qwest, as alleged above, affected Plaintiffs employment opportunities, compensation, and terms and conditions of employment and culminated in his discharge and is a direct violation of this statute.
Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on his race as described in the paragraphs above. Qwest's discrimination negatively affected Plaintiffs employment in violation of ORS 659A.O3O(b). As a result of Qwest's race and national origin discrimination, Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Page 8-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY & LAFKY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT ST NE, SAJ>EM,OR 3?301
TELEPHONE (50:) 585.2450 - F A X (503) 585-0205 - Email 1nf0@1afky.com

3 1. Pursuant to ORS 659A.885, Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorney fees and costs in this action.
(Count 11-Retaliation Race Discrimination) 32.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-31. According to ORS 659A.O30(f) it is an unlawful employment practice, "for any person to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any other person because that other person has opposed any unlawful practice, or because that other person has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter or has attempted to do so." Discrimination committed by Qwest, as alleged above, affected Plaintiffs employment opportunities, compensation, and terms and conditions of employment and is a direct violation of this statute.
Plaintiff suffered from retaliation based on his complaints of race and national origin discrimination as described in the paragraphs above. Qwest's employees' retaliation toward Plaintiff negatively affected his compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment in violation of ORS 659A.O30(f). Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
34. Pursuant to ORS 659A.885, Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorney fees and costs in this action.
Page 9-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
I.AFKY & LAFKY
A T ~ O X N E Y SAT LAW
429 COURT ST NE, SAI-EM. OR Q7301 TELEPl-(ONF (503) ' 8 5 2 3 0 - t .4X ( 5 0 3 )585-0205 - Emall ,nfo@lafky corn

(Count 111: Race and National Origin Hostile Work Environment Discrimination) 35.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-34. According to ORS 659A.O3O(b), it is an unlawful employment practice, "for an employer, because of an individual's race, religion, color, sex,
national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older, . . . to
discriminate against such an individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment." Discrimination committed by Qwest affected Plaintiffs employment opportunities and terms and conditions of employment and is a direct violation of the statute.
36. Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on his race and national origin. Qwest's actions created a hostile work environment toward Hispanics and individuals of Mexican National Origin that Plaintiff was subjected to. Qwest's hostile work environment and the actions of its employees, as provided in the paragraphs above, affected Plaintiffs ability to perform his job and caused Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress in the performance of her job. Qwest's discrimination negatively affected Plaintiffs employment in violation of ORS 659A.O3O(b). Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Pursuant to ORS 65914.885, Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorney fees and costs in this action. I// /I/
Page 10-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE,SALEM.OR 9'301 TELEPdOIyF(503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Ernall 111fo@lafkycorn

FOURTH CLAIM-INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 38.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-37. Plaintiff had an employer-employee relationship with Qwest. Qwest knew that the aforementioned conduct would cause severe mental or emotional distress or acted despite a high degree of probability that the mental or emotional distress would result.
39. Qwest's conduct caused Plaintiff severe mental or emotional distress from the foreseeable highly unpleasant emotional reactions including fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment, and worry. Plaintiff has also suffered from depression as a result of being subjected to Qwest's discriminatory employment practices.
40. The aforementioned continuing actions of Qwest consisted of an extraordinary transgression of contemporary standards of civilized conduct toward an employee.
41. As a result of Qwest's intentional actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000. FIFTH CLAIM-RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
42. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-41. Plaintiff had an employer-employee relationship with Qwest.
Page 11-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT ST NE, SAI,EM, OR 97301
TELEPHONE (503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Ernail info@lafky.com

Qwest recklessly engaged in the aforementioned actions causing severe mental or emotional distress in the form of fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment, worry, and physical illness.
44. The aforementioned continuing actions of Qwest consisted of an extraordinary transgression of contemporary standards of civilized conduct toward an employee.
45. As a result of Qwest's reckless actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000.
SIXTH CLAIM-WRONGFUL DISCHARGE 46.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-45. Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged from his employment with Qwest.
47. Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged because Plaintiff exercised a legal right that is related to Plaintiffs status or role as an employee that is of important public interest.
48. Plaintiff opposed discriminatory employment practices made illegal by state and federal laws. Opposing these discriminatory employment practices are legal rights that are related to Plaintiffs status or role as an employee. Opposing these discriminatory employment practices is
Page 12-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST. NE, SAI,EM. OR 97301 TELEPHONE (503) 585-2450 - FAX (503) 585-C205 - Ernall info@lafky.com

of important public interest to protect the rights of Plaintiff and other employees. Plaintiff had a societal obligation to oppose these practices.
49. Plaintiff was terminated because he opposed discriminatory employment practices. This constitutes wrongful discharge.
50. As a result of Plaintiffs wrongful discharge, Plaintiff suffered economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the from of mental distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000. Plaintiff requests reinstatement to his former position. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following: For Plaintiff's First Claim For Relief: Count I-Non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 and economic damages in the form of back pay and front pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial along with equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to his reasonable attorney fees
and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 1988.
Count 11-Non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 and economic damages in the form of back pay and front pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial along with equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to his reasonable attorney fees
and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 1988.
/I/
Page 13-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT 8T NE, SAJ,EM, OR 97301
TELEPHONF (503: '85.2450 ..FAX (503) 585.0205 - Email info@latky.com

Count 111-Non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 and economic damages in the form of back pay and front pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial along with equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. fj 1988. For Plaintiffs Second Claim For Relief: Lost wages and non-economic damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial along with equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 USC f j 1988. For Plaintiffs Third Claim For Relief:
Count I: Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to ORS 659A.885.
Count 11: Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to ORS 659A.885.
Count 111: Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to ORS 659A.885. For Plaintiffs Fourth Claim For Relief: Economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000.
Page 14-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS A? LAW 429 COURT ST NE. SALEM. OR 9'301
TELEPHONF (502) ?8j-2150 - FAX (5?!) 585-0205 - Emall ~nfo@lefkycorn

For Plaintiffs Fifth Claim For Relief: Economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000. For Plaintiffs Sixth Claim For Relief: Reinstatement to his former position, economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000.
DATED this -, day of December, 2005.

_ I.

A

<-

-

L'.

,i

I

I

-"L

Larry L. ~ i h d e r Kevin T. Lafky LAFKY & LAFKY 429 Court Street NE

OSB #01072 OSB #85263

Salem, OR 97301 (503)585-2450 Attorneys for Intervening Plaintiff Tony Rodriguez Jr.

Page 15-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TONY RODRIGUEZ JR.
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE. SAJ,EM, OR 97301 TELEPHOW (503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Ernail info@lafky.com

 
 KEVIN T. LAFKY, OSB #85263 klafkv@,lafkv.com LARRY L. LINDER, OSB #01072 llinder@,lafky.com Lafky & Lafky 429 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301 tel: (503) 585-2450 fax: (503) 585-0205 Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GABRIEL PARRA,

Plaintiff,

Docket No. 05-1521-HO

v. QWEST CORPORATION,
Defendant.

INTERVENING COMPLAINT--STATE STATUTORY DISCRIMINATION; VIOLATION OF TITLE VII;
VIOLATION OF 42 USC 5 1981
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS and WRONGFUL DISCHARGE (Jury Trial Requested)

Plaintiff alleges: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1.
Jurisdiction is appropriate for this Court after Plaintiff co-filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ("BOLI") and the Equal Employment Opportunity

Page 1-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
- 429 COURT ST NE,SPJ,EM, OR 97301
TELEPHONF (503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 Emall ~nfo@lafkycorn

Commission ("EEOC") and the EEOC filed a civil suit regarding the complaint on September 30,2005. Plaintiff requests a jury trial in this matter. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
2. Venue is appropriate in this Court because events giving rise to this complaint occurred in Oregon.
3.
Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 USC 5 1331 and brought pursuant to claims under 42 USC 5 1981 and 2000e from which Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4.
At all relevant times Defendant Qwest Corporation ("Qwest") has been a corporation continuously doing business in the state of Oregon and has continuously had at least 500 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Qwest has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Title VII.
6. Plaintiff is a Hispanic male of Mexican national origin. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed by Qwest at its Eugene, Oregon facility. From at least March 2004, Qwest subjected Plaintiff to discriminatory discipline and termination on July 14,2004 based on his race and national origin in violation of state and federal law.
Page 2-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
1,AFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COiJRT ST NE, SAT-EM. OR 9?301
TELEPHONF 1503) 585.2450 - F A X (503) 585-0205 - Ernall ~lifo@lafkycorn

Qwest subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment based on his race and national origin.
8. Qwest retaliated against Plaintiff because he opposed its discriminatory practices.
FIRST CLAIM-VIOLATION OF TITLE VII (Count I-Race and National Origin Discrimination)
9.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-8. 42 U.S.C. 8 2000e-2(a) provides: "it shall be an
unlawful employment practice for an employer" to discharge an individual, "or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
5 9
10. Qwest employed Plaintiff during the time in question. During the course of Plaintiffs employment with Qwest, Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on his race and national origin. Incidents of race discrimination committed by Qwest resulted in Plaintiff being denied compensation, and adversely affected Plaintiffs terns, conditions, and privileges of his employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. fj2000e-2(a). //I
I// /I/
Page 3-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT ST NE, SAJ,EM, OR 97301
- TELEPHONF (503) 585.2450 FAX (503) 585-0205 - Ernall ~nfo@lafkycorn

Qwest discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment on the basis of his race and national origin. This culminated in Plaintiffs employment being terminated.
12. Plaintiff has suffered non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 as a result of Qwest's race and national origin discrimination. Plaintiff requests economic damages in the form of back pay and front pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to his reasonable attorney fees
and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 1988.
(Count 11-Retaliation Race and National Origin Discrimination)
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-12. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 provides in relevant part: "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his
employees . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by
this subchapter." 14.
Plaintiff complained regarding him being treated differently based on his race and national origin. After this complaint, Qwest retaliated against Plaintiff. //I
Page 4-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY & LAFKY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT 5T NE,SALEM. OR 97301
TELEPHGNF (503) 585 2450 - F A 3 (503) 585-9205 - Eva11 ~nfo@lafkycorn

15. Qwest's retaliation toward Plaintiff, because he complained about the race and national
origin discrimination, constitutes a violation of 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e-3(a) for which Plaintiff is
entitled to relief. 16.
Plaintiff has suffered non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 as a result of Qwest's retaliation directed against Plaintiff because he complained about the race and national origin discrimination. Plaintiff requests economic damages in the form of front pay and back pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
5 1988.
[Count 111: Hostile Work Environment National O r i-~ i nand Race Discrimination) 17.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-16. 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e-2(a) provides: "it shall be an
unlawful employment practice for an employer" to discharge an individual, "or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
7,
18. Plaintiff is Hispanic and of Mexican national origin. Qwest created and maintained a hostile work environment toward Hispanics and people of Mexican national origin. Qwest's
Page 5-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE,SALEM, OR 97301
TELEPHONE (5C3) 58j.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Ernail info@lafky.ccm

hostile work environment, due to the actions of its employees, as provided in the paragraphs above, affected Plaintiffs ability to perform his job, caused Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress in the performance of his job, and made him subject himself to harassing commentary in order to maintain his employment. All of this adversely affected Plaintiffs terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
Qwest discriminated against Plaintiff in the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of his employment on the basis of Plaintiffs race and national origin.
20. Plaintiff has suffered non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 as a result of Qwest's hostile work environment directed against Plaintiff because he is Hispanic and of Mexican national origin. Plaintiff requests economic damages in the form of front pay and back pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
SECOND CLAIM-VIOLATION OF 42 USC 6 1981 21.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-20. Qwest discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his race, national origin, and color in the performance of his employment contract, and in the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, and terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship all
in violation of 42 USC 9 1981.
Page 6-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT ST NE, SAJ,EM. OR 9?301
- TELEPHONF (503) 585-2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 Ernall ~nfo@lafkycorn

Qwest discriminated against Plaintiff in the performance of his employment contract and in the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship by creating, encouraging, and condoning a hostile work environment in which racist comments and disparate treatment and discipline based on race, national origin, and color were pervasive,
all in violation of 42 USC 5 1981.
23. Qwest discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff in the performance of his employment contract and in the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship because he opposed and reported unlawful discrimination based on race, national origin and color, all in violation of 42 USC fj 1981.
24. As a result of Qwest's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has lost wages in an amount to be determined at trial.
25. As a result of Qwest's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
26. The actions of Qwest were taken in bad faith, maliciously or with reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. //I
Page 7-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT ST. NE, SAI,EM, OR 97301
TELEPHONE (503) 585.2450 -FAX (503) 585-0205 - Email mfo@lafky corn

Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 USC $1988.
28. Plaintiff is entitled to such other relief as the Court deems equitable.
THIRD CLAIM-STATE STATUTORY DISCRIMINATION (Count I: Race and National Origin Discrimination) 29.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-28. According to ORS 659A.O3O(a), (b) it is an unlawful employment practice, "for an employer, because of an individual's race, religion, color, sex,
national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older, . . . to refuse to
hire or employ or to bar or discharge from employment such individual [or] . . . to discriminate against such an individual in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." Discrimination, because of Plaintiffs race and national origin, committed by Qwest, as alleged above, affected Plaintiffs employment opportunities, compensation, and terms and conditions of employment and culminated in his discharge and is a direct violation of this statute.
30. Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on his race as described in the paragraphs above. Qwest's discrimination negatively affected Plaintiffs employment in violation of ORS 659A.O3O(b). As a result of Qwest's race and national origin discrimination, Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Page 8-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY S( LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT ST NE SALEM, OR 9'301
TELEFt.IONt ( 5 8 3 ) 5S5.!4<G - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Ernall nfo@lan\y ccln

31. Pursuant to ORS 659A.885, Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorney fees and costs in this action.
(Count 11-Retaliation Race Discrimination) 32.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-31. According to ORS 659A.O30(f) it is an unlawful employment practice, "for any person to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any other person because that other person has opposed any unlawfid practice, or because that other person has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter or has attempted to do so." Discrimination committed by Qwest, as alleged above, affected Plaintiffs employment opportunities, compensation, and terms and conditions of employment and is a direct violation of this statute.
Plaintiff suffered from retaliation based on his complaints of race and national origin discrimination as described in the paragraphs above. Qwest's employees' retaliation toward Plaintiff negatively affected his compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment in violation of ORS 659A.O30(f). Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
34. Pursuant to ORS 659A.885, Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorney fees and costs in this action. I//
Page 9-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA

(Count 111: Race and National Origin Hostile Work Environment Discrimination)
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-34. According to ORS 659A.O30(b), it is an unlawful employment practice, "for an employer, because of an individual's race, religion, color, sex,
national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older, . . . to
discriminate against such an individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment." Discrimination committed by Qwest affected Plaintiffs employment opportunities and terms and conditions of employment and is a direct violation of the statute.
36. Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on his race and national origin. Qwest's actions created a hostile work environment toward Hispanics and individuals of Mexican National Origin that Plaintiff was subjected to. Qwest's hostile work environment and the actions of its employees, as provided in the paragraphs above, affected Plaintiffs ability to perform his job and caused Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress in the performance of her job. Qwest's discrimination negatively affected Plaintiffs employment in violation of ORS 659A.O3O(b). Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Pursuant to ORS 659A.885, Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorney fees and costs in this action.
Page 10-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE, SALEM,OR 97301 TELEPHONF (503) 535.2450 -FAX (SO?) 585-0205 - Email ilifo@lafky.com

FOURTH CLAIM-INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 38.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-37. Plaintiff had an employer-employee relationship with Qwest. Qwest knew that the aforementioned conduct would cause severe mental or emotional distress or acted despite a high degree of probability that the mental or emotional distress would result.
39. Qwest's conduct caused Plaintiff severe mental or emotional distress from the foreseeable highly unpleasant emotional reactions including fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment, and worry. Plaintiff has also suffered from depression as a result of being subjected to Qwest's discriminatory employment practices.
The aforementioned continuing actions of Qwest consisted of an extraordinary transgression of contemporary standards of civilized conduct toward an employee.
41. As a result of Qwest's intentional actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000. FIFTH CLAIM-RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-41. Plaintiff had an employer-employee relationship with Qwest.
Page 11-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE,SALEM. OR 9?301 TELEPHONE (503) 585.2450 - F A X (503) 585-0205 - Ernail info@lafky.com

Qwest recklessly engaged in the aforementioned actions causing severe mental or emotional distress in the form of fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment, worry, and physical illness.
44. The aforementioned continuing actions of Qwest consisted of an extraordinary transgression of contemporary standards of civilized conduct toward an employee.
45. As a result of Qwest's reckless actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000.
SIXTH CLAIM-WRONGFUL DISCHARGE 46.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-45. Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged from his employment with Qwest.
47. Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged because Plaintiff exercised a legal right that is related to Plaintiffs status or role as an employee that is of important public interest.
48. Plaintiff opposed discriminatory employment practices made illegal by state and federal laws. Opposing these discriminatory employment practices are legal rights that are related to Plaintiffs status or role as an employee. Opposing these discriminatory employment practices is
Page 12-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COlJRT ST NE,SALEM,OR 9?301 TELEPHONE f5C3') 585.2450 - F A X (503) 585-0205 - Ernail info@Isfky corn

of important public interest to protect the rights of Plaintiff and other employees. Plaintiff had a societal obligation to oppose these practices.
49. Plaintiff was terminated because he opposed discriminatory employment practices. This constitutes wrongful discharge.
50. As a result of Plaintiffs wrongful discharge, Plaintiff suffered economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the from of mental distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000. Plaintiff requests reinstatement to his former position. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following: For Plaintiffs First Claim For Relief: Count I-Non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 and economic damages in the form of back pay and front pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial along with equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to his reasonable attorney fees
and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 1988.
Count 11-Non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 and economic damages in the form of back pay and front pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial along with equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to his reasonable attorney fees
and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 1988.
/I/
Page 13-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST. NE, SAJ,EM, OR 97301 TELEPHONE 1503) 585.2450 - F A X (503) 585-0205 - Emall info@lafky corn

Count 111-Non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 and economic damages in the form of back pay and front pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial along with equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to his reasonable attorney fees
and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 1988.
For Plaintiff's Second Claim For Relief: Lost wages and non-economic damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial along with equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by
law in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 USC 5 1988.
For Plaintiffs Third Claim For Relief: Count I: Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position
and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to ORS 659A.885.
Count 11: Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to ORS 659A.885.
Count 111: Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to ORS 659A.885. For Plaintiffs Fourth Claim For Relief: Economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000.
Page 14-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE, SALEM, OR 97301
- TELEPHONE (503) 585.2450- FAX (503) 585-0205 Ernail nfo@lafky corn

For Plaintiffs Fifth Claim For Relief: Economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000. For Plaintiffs Sixth Claim For Relief: Reinstatement to his former position, economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000.
- I
2 DATED this AYof December, 2005.

Kevin T. ~ i a f k y

OSB #85263

LAFKY & LAFKY

429 Court Street NE

Salem, OR 9730 1

(503)585-2450

Attorneys for Intervening Plaintiff Gabriel Parra

Page 15-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL PARRA
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE,SAl>EM,OR 9'301 TELEPHOYF 1503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Ernall ~r~fo@lafkcyonl

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

GABRIEL PARRA, TONY RODRIGUEZ, Jr.,)

and T.J. HEBERT

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenors, )

)

)

v.

)

)

QWEST CORPORATION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

___________________________________)

Civil. No. 05-1521-HO ORDER

Plaintiff EEOC alleges that defendant Qwest discriminated

against plaintiff intervenors because it disciplined and terminated

them on the basis of their national origin. Plaintiff intervenors

each worked as network technicians, driving company vehicles to

service calls throughout the work day. Defendant Qwest claims that its discipline of plaintiff intervenors ensued after it received a customer complaint alerting Qwest to the presence of a company truck located in front of plaintiff intervenor T.J. Hebert’s home during work hours. That customer now seeks to intervene for the purposes of seeking a protective order prohibiting the disclosure of his/her identity.
Customer Doe does not have a sufficient interest in the outcome of this litigation or any common questions of law or fact with the claims in this case to merit intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Accordingly, the motion to intervene is denied. However, lack of party status does not prevent Customer Doe from seeking a protective order.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), the person from whom discovery is sought can, for good cause shown, move the court for a protective order. Customer Doe seeks to prohibit disclosure of his identity based on personal safety fears and fear of harm to his/her family, but Customer Doe has declined to reveal the facts upon which Doe basis his/her fears out of concern that it may alert plaintiff intervenors to his/her identity.
The identity of Customer is discoverable and without an affidavit from Customer Doe detailing the basis for his/her fears, the court cannot determine whether there is good cause for granting a protective order. In an attempt to address Does' concerns, Qwest
2 - ORDER

has submitted, and intervenors have not objected to, a proposed protective prohibiting plaintive intervenor from contacting Customer Doe. However, Doe still requests prohibition of disclosure of his identity and objects to the proposed order. Accordingly, the motion for protective order is denied at this time. Doe may again apply for a protective order and submit an affidavit under seal directly to the court for in camera consideration.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Customer Doe's motion to intervene (#43) and motion for a protective order (#44) are denied. DATED this 4th day of December, 2006.
s/ Michael R. Hogan United States District Judge
3 - ORDER

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

GABRIEL PARRA, TONY RODRIGUEZ, Jr.,)

and T.J. HEBERT

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenors, )

)

)

v.

)

)

QWEST CORPORATION,

)

)

Defendant.

)

___________________________________)

Civil. No. 05-1521-HO ORDER

Plaintiff EEOC alleges that Defendant Qwest discriminated

against Plaintiff Intervenors when it disciplined and terminated

them on the basis of their national origin. Plaintiff Intervenors

each worked as network technicians, driving company vehicles to

service calls throughout the work day. Defendant Qwest claims that its discipline of plaintiff intervenors ensued after it received a customer complaint alerting Qwest to the presence of a company truck located in front of plaintiff intervenor Tracy Hebert’s home during work hours.
The EEOC brings this action alleging that defendant subjected plaintiff-intervenors Gabriel Parra and Tony Rodriguez Jr. to discriminatory discipline and termination based on their national origin (Mexican) and subjected plaintiff intervenor Tracy Herbert to discriminatory discipline and termination based on his association with Parra and Rodriguez in violation of Title VII.1 Plaintiffs Parra, Rodriguez, and Herbert allege race and national origin discrimination, retaliation for asserting race and national origin discrimination, and hostile work environment because of race and national origin pursuant to Title VII. Plaintiffs also allege violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as well as discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment under state law. Additionally, plaintiffs allege intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress and wrongful discharge.
Defendant moves for summary judgment contending that plaintiffs cannot make a prima facie showing of discriminatory discharge and that there is no evidence of pretext. Additionally, defendant contends that the remaining claims fail.
1Plaintiff intervenors and plaintiff EEOC will be referred to as plaintiffs. 2 - ORDER

A. Motions to Strike (Defendant (#213) Plaintiffs (#132)) The parties have moved to strike hundreds of factual
assertions. There is of course a lot of hearsay offered as is often the case in an employment case because hostile environments often involve statements made by other employees, etc. However, hostile environments are not about whether those comments are true, what matters is whether they were made. In this case, plaintiffs offer numerous instances of racist statements and graffiti, and even vile actions that may not have been witnessed first hand, but the fact that they occurred is what matters. However, plaintiffs falter much of the time even with respect to statements offered not for the truth because plaintiffs offer statements regarding different kinds of discrimination alleged by different individuals about different managers. Moreover, plaintiffs offer statements from unspecified sources about unspecified phrases (e.g., unidentified co-worker suggested racism or suggesting non-Mexican is viewed with Mexicans as a group). Where hearsay statements are offered, they will not be considered for their truth. Where observations are offered, they will not be allowed into evidence unless the person who personally witnessed them testifies, but to the extent a witness observes the after affects, that will be considered as well. The court declines to grant the motions to strike at this time, but only admissible evidence will be considered where offered for the truth of the matter, etc. Where
3 - ORDER

relevance objections are made, if the evidence is material to summary judgment, then of course it is relevant. Legal conclusions by witnesses will not be accepted and evidence of other instances of discrimination directed against other employees will only be considered to the extent it demonstrates a hostile work environment with respect to plaintiffs. Of course the court will not consider speculation.
Plaintiffs' motion to strike also raises more substantive issues as well. Plaintiffs want to strike all references to the arbitrator's decision in plaintiff Parra's union grievance as inadmissable hearsay, inadmissable character evidence, and inadmissable expert testimony.
The decision addressed the collective bargaining agreement and not Title VII or section 1981. The arbitrator determined that defendant had just cause to fire Parra. Defendant seeks to use this as evidence of absence of discriminatory intent. The Ninth Circuit has not addressed the issue. Courts are not to defer to arbitral decisions on claims of racial discrimination. See Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 56 (1974) (policy of deferral by federal courts to arbitral decisions on claims of racial discrimination would not comport with the congressional objective that federal court should exercise the final responsibility for enforcement of equal employment opportunity provisions and would lead to the arbitrator's emphasis on the law
4 - ORDER

of the shop rather than the law of the land; and fact-finding and other procedures less complete than those followed in a judicial forum). However, the arbitral decision may be admitted as evidence and accorded such weight as the court deems appropriate. See id. at 60. The motion to strike it is denied. What weight the evidence will be given is a matter for the summary judgment motion and does not provide a basis for striking the decision.
B. Summary Judgement Plaintiffs assert that a hostile work environment existed at
defendant's Auction Way Eugene, Oregon facility for more than 10 years. Plaintiffs assert that management knew about severe and pervasive racial and ethnic taunting and allowed an atmosphere of retaliation in response to complaints about racism. Plaintiffs' claims arise out of their termination for conduct they contend was repeatedly ignored when committed by Caucasian workers who did not support the minority workers who complained about the racist environment.
Defendant argues that the terminations resulted from a complaint from a customer on March 4, 2004, regarding plaintiff Herbert spending time at home during work hours and the subsequent investigation that allegedly revealed that plaintiffs visited during company time.
5 - ORDER

Plaintiffs Herbert, Rodriguez Jr. and Parra were network technicians working out of the Auction Way garage. Their jobs consisted of installing and maintaining the network over which defendant provides telephone service. Plaintiffs drove company vehicles to various locations to conduct such work.

1. Discriminatory Discharge Claims Plaintiffs contend that defendant's supervisors explicitly allowed a permissive work culture at the Auction Way garage for years prior to 2004 with regard to out of route and break policies and afterwards, with the sole exception of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that they were the only ones singled out for investigation and termination because they are Hispanic/Mexican (or associated with Hispanics/Mexicans). Defendant's code of conduct applicable to plaintiffs includes a provision that "No false or misleading entries should be made in any way in any of Qwest's books, records or accounts for any reason, including ... falsifying time reporting." Ex. A to Declaration of David Symes (#85) at p. 14. Plaintiffs and other employees were required "not to leave the job or go out of route (1 mile) in order to take a break." E.g., Ex A. to Declaration of Symes (#85) at p. 17.2

2Plaintiffs assert issues of fact regarding what constitutes

out of route by exaggerating supervisors' knowledge of lack of

knowledge of the definition of out of route.

For instance,

(continued...)

6 - ORDER

Plaintiffs Parra and Rodriguez are Mexican-Americans,
Hispanic, and persons of color. Plaintiff Herbert is an American
Caucasian. Herbert is a close friend with Parra.
On March 4, 2004, one of defendant's customers called
regarding plaintiff Herbert:
An anonymous caller reported to Network Management and Security that an employee had been spending time during the day at home. The caller had seen this behavior for at least a two year period and was upset by the fact it appeared that the employee did not have enough work to do. The caller explained he also witnessed at least two other employees at the residence. He said he felt his bill was too high and it appeared our Technicians did not have enough work. .... The caller reported his concerns on March 4, 2004 and identified the employee as TJ [Hebert] with an address of 5139 Trevon Street. The caller explained that TJ was off on March 4, 2004, but believed at least two other Techs visited him on that day. The caller said he saw one Qwest vehicle there from about 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Employee Investigation Report (attached as Ex. 46 to the Deposition
of Susan Demmin-Beckler (attached as Ex. D to Declaration of David
P.R. Symes (#85) at p. 81)).
An investigation ensued and defendant determined, through an
investigation conducted by Qwest Security Investigator Susan
Demmin-Beckler, that plaintiffs Rodriguez jr. and Parra had visited

2(...continued)

plaintiffs contend that Robert Timmons, plaintiffs' second level

supervisor, defined out of route as being 25 miles away from a job.

Response (#210 at p. 97).

But Timmons only stated that out of

route is a one-mile radius around a particular job.

Timmons

further explained that when going from one job to a second job 25

miles away and taking multiple stops in between, for example, he

would consider the employee out of route.

See Deposition of B.

Timmons at pp. 299-300 (Attached as Exhibit 26H (at p. 46-47) to

Third Declaration of Counsel (#199)).

7 - ORDER

Herbert's house on that or other occasions during work time and that all three had been engaged in longstanding and widespread violations of defendant's code of conduct by falsifying company records to indicate they were working when they were spending excessive amounts of time at Herbert's house or on unauthorized personal business during work hours.
During the investigation Demmin-Beckler claims Parra admitted that he had reported time worked when in fact he was on personal business and that such had gone on for a number of years. Ex. D. to Affidavit of Symes (#85) at p. 54-55. Parra, during an arbitration hearing, contended that from January 5, 2004 to April 18, 2004 he had stopped at Herbert's or his own home for personal business on about 6 occasions but that he had permission to do so. Ex. B to Declaration of Symes (#85) at p. 33. The arbitrator reviewed GPS records and time reports and concluded that Parra visited his own home on more than 30 days (sometimes more than once on the same day), and visited Herbert's home on not less than 13 days during times reported as work.
Herbert and Rodriguez disputed that they reported working on personal time to the extent found by Demmin-Beckler.3
3Herbert and Rodriguez withdrew their grievances regarding the termination following Parra's arbitration and therefore did not proceed to arbitration. 8 - ORDER

Demmin-Beckler reported her findings to Qwest Director of Network Operations Virginia Callister. On July 14, 2004, Callister terminated plaintiffs Herbert, Rodriguez jr. and Parra.
To establish a discriminatory discharge claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate: (1) that they belong to a class of persons protected by Title VII; (2) that they performed their jobs satisfactorily; (3) that the were discharged; and (4) that defendant treated them differently than similarly situated employees who do not belong to the same protected class as plaintiffs. See Cornwall v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1028 (9th cir. 2006). Establishing a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework creates a presumption that defendant undertook the challenged employment action because of the plaintiff's protected status. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). To rebut this presumption, defendant must produce admissible evidence showing that defendant undertook the challenged employment action for a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” Id. If the defendant does so, then “the presumption of discrimination ‘drops out of the picture’” and the plaintiff may defeat summary judgment by satisfying the usual standard of proof required in civil cases under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Cornwall, 439 F.3d at 1028.4

4T h e plaintiffs' Metropolitan

same

“burden-shifting”

analysis

applies

to

both

state and federal discrimination claims. See Snead v.

Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 237 F.3d 1080,

(continued...)

9 - ORDER

Defendant first contends that plaintiffs cannot succeed on
their prima facie case because plaintiff Herbert has no
associational rights and therefore plaintiffs Rodriguez and Parra
cannot establish differential treatment. Plaintiffs cite Drake v.
Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 134 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 1998) and Johnson
v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2000) for the
proposition that a mere close friendship is all that is required
for associational status for purposes of their discrimination
claims. However, in Drake, the Seventh Circuit noted that
Although we need not decide this issue because 3M has conceded it, we must address 3M's argument that some objectively quantifiable “degree of association” is required in order to state an associational claim. In this context, we note that employment discrimination claims are available to employees of all races, see McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 96 S.Ct. 2574, 49 L.Ed.2d 493 (1976), so long as the discrimination is “because of such individual's race”. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Accordingly, we believe that the key inquiries should be whether the employee has been discriminated against and whether that discrimination was “because of” the employee's race. [Footnote 3 omitted] Contrary to 3M's assertions, we do not believe that an objective “degree of association” is relevant to this inquiry.
Reviewing the evidence in the record, we conclude that neither of the Drakes established an inference that they were subjected to a hostile work environment because of their race. With respect to Mr. Drake, he has not established an inference that any harassment to which he was subjected was based on his race, in conjunction with his association with Hawkins and Anthony.

4(...continued) 1092-93 (9th Cir. 2001),

(McDonnell

Douglas

burden-shifting

scheme

is federal procedural law, not substantive law, and applies to both

federal and Oregon employment discrimination claims).

10 - ORDER

Drake, 134 F.3d at 884. Thus, the associational status was not an

issue in the case.

In Johnson, the court found that

Plaintiff need not have alleged discrimination based upon

his race as an African American in order to satisfy the

protected status requirement of his claims. Indeed, in

light of this Court's holding in Tetro and Winston, the

fact that Plaintiff has not alleged discrimination

because of his race is of no moment inasmuch as it was a

racial situation in which Plaintiff became

involved-Plaintiff's advocacy on behalf of women and

minorities in relation to Defendant's alleged

discriminatory hiring practices-that resulted in

Plaintiff's discharge from employment. See Tetro, 173

F.3d at 994-95; Winston, 558 F.2d at 1268; see also Parr,

791 F.2d at 892 (holding that “[w]here a plaintiff claims

discrimination [in a Title VII action] based upon an

interracial marriage or association, he alleges, by

definition, that he has been discriminated against

because of his race”).

Although obviously not

anticipated by the district court's flawed reasoning, it

is clear that a Caucasian high-level affirmative action

official could bring a claim under § 1981 and §

2000e-2(a) for discrimination based upon his advocacy on

behalf of minorities because the discrimination would be

“because of such individual's race,” where the race of

the minorities for which he was advocating would be

“imputed” if you will to the Caucasian high-level

affirmative action official. See Tetro, 173 F.3d at 995.

Johnson, 215 F.3d at 575. However, this is not an advocacy case,

it is an association by friendship case.

Although the Ninth Circuit has yet to address the issue, the

law requires something more than just friendship. See, e.g.,

Robinett v. First Nat. Bank of Wichita, 1989 WL 21158, *2 (D.Kan

Feb. 1, 1989):

Many courts have recognized a cause of action against an employer for discrimination due to one's association with minorities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

11 - ORDER

1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See Reiter v. Central Consolidated School District, 39 F.E.P. cas. 833 (D.Colo.1985) (Title VII) and Winston v. Lear-Siegler, Inc., 558 F.2d 1266, 1270 (6th Cir. 1977) (section 1981). To maintain a claim of discrimination or harassment based on her association with a black person, plaintiff must show the existence of an association. The law requires something more than mere work-related friendship. There must be a significant connection between the plaintiff and the non-white person. See Skinner v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 859 F.2d 1439, 1447 (10th Cir. 1988) (white plaintiff may bring a section 1983 claim of retaliatory discharge based on his support of discharged black co-worker in bringing an EEOC charge against employer), Gresham v. Waffle House, Inc., 586 F.Supp. 1442, 1445 (N.D.Ga.1984) (interracial marriage); Winston, supra (plaintiff protested the discriminatory discharge of a black co-worker); Smithberg. v. Merceo, Inc., 38 F.E.P. cas. 1868 (C.D.Cal.1983) (plaintiffs attempted to vindicate minority employees' rights).
In the present case, plaintiff fails to provide sufficient evidence to establish an association with Ms. Moore to maintain actions under Title VII and section 1982 based on association. The association between plaintiff and Ms. Moore was that of co-workers who had a good friendship at work. Plaintiff, as head teller, worked with Moore, a teller, about her work-related problems. The court accepts as true plaintiff's allegations that she was more supportive and provided more assistance to Ms. Moore than any other white employee at the Bank's west branch. Although plaintiff was very supportive of her black co-worker, this is insufficient to establish the type of relationship between whites and non-whites necessary for a white person to maintain a cause of action of discrimination based on association. Plaintiff provides no evidence that she actively attempted to vindicate Ms. Moore's rights or protested against any discrimination against Ms. Moore.
(emphasis added).
In this case, plaintiffs offer evidence that Herbert
socialized with Parra and that he asked Parra to check on his
ailing wife. Plaintiff also contends that Herbert wrote a
12 - ORDER

statement in support of a discrimination claim brought by Parra and other Hispanic techs at the Auction Way garage (See Exhibit 62 (#115) attached to First Deceleration of Counsel (#96)), but Herbert stated that he did not send the statement to anyone in the company. Herbert Deposition at p. 229 (attached as Ex. 1 to Declaration of Cody Weston (#219)). Moreover, the statement appears to be more of a complaint about supervisor Chris Seubert's management style rather than race issues. See Ex. 62 (#115) attached to declaration of Counsel ("Chris is in my opinion a user and once he is done with you, he cuts you loose and it doesn't matter if someone's job is on the line.") But note that the statement also relates that "I have been friends with [Parra] for a while and Chris would tell me that 'if I wanted to stay out of trouble, that I should stay away from the Rodriguez clan." In addition, there is no evidence that the decision maker in this case, Virginia Callister, was aware of even a friendship between Herbert and Parra and Rodriguez.
The alleged relationship between Herbert and Parra does not rise to a level sufficient to invoke a claim of associational discrimination based on race. See Zielonka v. Temple University, 2001 WL 1231746 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 12, 2001) (association with African American professor with whom plaintiff voted in an academic election for department chair):
Plaintiff did not have the type of relationship with Dr. Roget that alone may reasonably support an assumption
13 - ORDER

that plaintiff's race motivated the action he complains of. The cases in which courts have recognized a cause of action under Title VII have typically involved more substantial relationships. See Parr, 791 F.2d at 892 (interracial marriage); Chacon v. Ochs, 780 F.Supp. 680, 682 (C.D.Cal.1991) (interracial marriage); Gresham, 586 F.Supp. at 1445 (interracial marriage); Holiday, 409 F.Supp. at 908 (interracial marriage); Clark v. Louisa County School Board, 472 F.Supp. 321 (E.D.Va.1979) (interracial marriage). See also Robinett v. First Nat'l Bank of Wichita, 1989 WL 21158, *1-2 (D.Kan. Feb. 1, 1989) (“good friendship” of white plaintiff with black co-worker “insufficient to establish the type of relationship” necessary to support cause of action).
Plaintiff has not presented any competent evidence that he actively attempted to vindicate Dr. Roget's rights or protested against discrimination directed toward him. [footnote omitted] It appears that plaintiff's relationship with Dr. Roget was that of friendly acquaintance and supportive voter in an academic election.
Accordingly, the court grants summary judgment as to Herbert's
claims of discriminatory discharge as he does not belong to a
protected class. In addition, because Herbert is a similarly
situated employee who is not a member of the same protected class
as Parra and Rodriguez and who was also terminated for the same
conduct, plaintiffs' fail to establish a prima facie case for
discriminatory discharge and the claims are dismissed.5

5In addition, while plaintiffs attempt to show that other

similarly situated non-Hispanic employees were not treated the same

with respect to being out of route, plaintiffs fail to provide

sufficient evidence that others engaged in similar conduct and were

not disciplined as they were.

In other words, plaintiffs have not

shown that Callister was aware of others who so blatantly violated

the false reporting and out of route rules other than to offer

various statements they attribute to others that employees

routinely go out of route.

At best, plaintiffs offer a situation

in which Troy Olsen was caught being out of route, referred for

discipline, determined to have been out of route two times during

a two week period and suspended for seven days.

This incident

(continued...)

14 - ORDER

2. National Origin Discrimination under section 1981 Plaintiffs allege that "Qwest discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of ... race, national origin, and color in the performance of ... employment ... , and in the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, and terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship all in violation of 42 USC § 1981." Defendants move to dismiss the national origin discrimination claim under section 1981. To establish a claim under section 1981, plaintiffs must prove that they were subjected to intentional discrimination based upon race, rather than solely on the basis of the place or nation of their origin. See St. Francis College, 481 U.S. 604, 613 (1987). To the extent plaintiffs raise section 1981 claims based on national origin discrimination, the claims are dismissed.

3. Race Discrimination Plaintiffs' EEOC charges checked only the "national origin" box and did not check the "race" box. The EEOC charges do not make

5(...continued)

occurred after Callister left and after plaintiffs were terminated.

Plaintiffs on the other hand, even accepting their facts, were out

of route on numerous occasions.

Moreover, plaintiffs' attack on

the GPS records, and the investigation methodology are insufficient

to demonstrate anything less than significant and numerous

occasions in which they were out of route.

Plaintiffs fail to

demonstrate that other employees were out of route to such an

excessive degree as they were.

Plaintiffs offer some limited

support for Caucasian techs who may have been out of route

(generally just some word of mouth type evidence) and not referred

to security, but nothing approaching the degree of their activities

and no similar complaints from customers to launch security

investigations.

Further, the dirt plaintiffs sling regarding

sexual harassment, auto accidents, and stalking are not relevant

and generally not supported with admissible evidence.

15 - ORDER

references to race. The EEOC limited its claims in this case to national origin discrimination. Consequently, defendant seeks summary judgment asserting that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies regarding race discrimination.
To establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiffs are required to exhaust their EEOC administrative remedies before seeking federal adjudication of their claims. See Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1456 (9th Cir. 1990). The scope of a Title VII court action depends upon the scope of both the EEOC charge and the EEOC investigation. Id.
Plaintiffs contend that although the EEOC charges did not charge race discrimination, the race discrimination claims should be allowed now because such claim could reasonably be expected to grow out of the complaint alleging national origin discrimination. See EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1994) (discriminatory layoff claim was like and reasonably related to allegations of discriminatory failure to recall and rehire set forth in EEOC charges). Plaintiffs contend that defendant's response to the EEOC charges demonstrate that it thought the claim was one for race discrimination. However, The EEOC charges in this case did not reference race discrimination. In Sosa, for example, although not all claims were listed in the EEOC charge, the factual detail in the charges did reference all claims. The failure to include facts in th EEOC charge in this case demonstrates that
16 - ORDER

plaintiffs did not exhaust their race discrimination claims. See Encinas v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 76 Fed. Appx. 762, 765 (9th Cir. 2003). The motion for summary judgment is granted as to the race discrimination claims.
4. Retaliatory Discharge Plaintiffs allege that they were discharged in retaliation for complaining about unlawful discrimination. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, plaintiffs must show that (1) they engaged a protected right; (2) they were adversely affected by an employment decision (e.g., discharged);6 and (3) there is a causal connection between the two actions. See Morgan v. Hilti, 108 F.3d 1319, 1325 (10th Cir. 1997); Manatt v. Bank Of America , N.A., 339 F.3d 792, 797 (9th Cir. 2003). If plaintiffs meet that burden, the burden-shifting framework for analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800-06 (1973), applies. Defendant contends that there is no evidence that Herbert engaged in protected activity, that the decision maker (Callister) was not aware of any protected activity by any plaintiffs, and that there was a significant time period between Rodriguez Jr.'s BOLI complaint and his termination. Additionally, defendant contends
6Plaintiffs argue that there were other instances of adverse employment actions, but the allegations of accusations of cheating, accusation of driving too fast, starting rumors, changed routes, etc. do not amount to adverse actions and many alleged actions are not timely. 17 - ORDER

that it had a legitimate reason for terminating plaintiffs because of their significant out of route activities for which they reported they were working.
Plaintiffs contend they made informal complaints to supervisors on numerous occasions. Plaintiffs also state that they filed multiple internal EEO complaints of which Callister was aware and that others were involved in the termination decision. Plaintiffs also contend that there is evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that the proffered reason for the termination was a pretext.
Plaintiffs' evidence that Callister was aware of the complaints of discrimination is weak at best. They contend she interacted with other managers, but this does not demonstrate that those others communicated that plaintiffs made complaints. Callister testified that she did not get any specific information regarding Rodriguez Jr.'s complaints, but she does acknowledge that she may have heard something in passing. See First Declaration of Counsel (#96) at Ex. 5 (#99), p. 12 (Callister Depo. at p. 55-57). Callister specifically states that she was not aware that he was complaining about discrimination or harassment. See id. at p. 11. Callister similarly recalls that union grievances were filed, but does not recall what they were about. However, Callister did state the EEO would giver her a courtesy call regarding complaints, but that they did not always do that. Nonetheless, she does note an
18 - ORDER

overview may have been given regarding a Parra complaint (despite lack of memory of it). Id. at p. 26. The link to Callister regarding complaints is weak, but perhaps sufficient to show a prima facie case.
Plaintiffs however, do not direct the court to the "evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that defendants's proffered non-discriminatory reasons for terminating [plaintiffs] are pretextual." Response (#210) at p. 120-21.7 Plaintiffs factual background is 94 pages long and their brief is 134 pages long. The court has no duty to search the documents and the record to find the evidence and references to it. Despite plaintiffs' protestations regarding the investigation, faulty GPS equipment, destruction of records, failure to allow plaintiffs to see records, etc., it would be unreasonable for a trier of fact to conclude that plaintiffs did not violate the out of route policy and did not falsify their time records numerous times over a long period of time. This coupled with the weak evidence regarding Callister's knowledge of the complaints of discrimination demonstrates that granting summary judgment on the retaliation claims is appropriate. The evidence does not establish that anyone

7But see, P. 102 (referral to security when no one else was

referred, unreliable data (unsupported by plaintiffs' evidence),

denied opportunity to respond because denial of access to records,

delayed decision to allow GPS and time records to age off the

system).

Plaintiffs do not present sufficient evidence that

Callister was aware of any flaws in the security referral or the

investigation and plaintiffs evidence of "math errors" and faulty

GPS is insufficient.

19 - ORDER

other than perhaps Vice President Randy Hagedorn had a hand in the ultimate decision to terminate.8 The evidence that plaintiffs may appropriately rely on does not establish that the reason relied on by the decision makers was a pretext for discrimination or retaliation for discrimination.

5. Hostile Work Environment Plaintiffs allege claims for hostile work environment based on national origin and race. To prevail on this claim, plaintiffs must show: (1) that they were subjected to verbal or physical conduct because of their race or national origin; (2) that the conduct was unwelcome; and (3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff's employment and create an abusive work environment. See Gregory v. Widnall, 153 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998). The required showing of severity or seriousness of the harassing conduct varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct. Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1463, n.4 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs allege numerous instances of offensive conduct over a long period of time. Much of the alleged conduct occurred outside the 300 days before the EEOC complaint for purposes of the federal claims and outside one year for purposes of the state law

8Plaintiffs argument investigation demonstrates that Callister honestly investigation.

that the decision to refer them to retaliation does not negate the fact believed the resulting outcome of the

20 - ORDER

claims.9 Moreover, plaintiff Rodriguez Jr. did not bring his complaint within the 90 days after his right to sue notice was given negating his state and federal claims, but Rodriguez Jr. also filed a second EEOC complaint and did timely sue after a right to sue letter for that complaint was issued.
Plaintiffs contend all conduct is actionable because of the continuing violation doctrine. The vast majority of alleged conduct occurred prior to September 2001 (to the extent plaintiffs give dates at all). The earliest possible time period is December 22, 2001. A charge alleging a hostile work environment claim will not be time barred so long as all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and at least one act falls within the time period. See National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 (2002). Moreover, a court may apply equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period. See id. If the conduct that pre-dates the timely conduct has no relation to the timely conduct, however, then the employee cannot recover for the previous acts. Id.
Plaintiffs, for the most part, offer general and often unattributable instances of offensive conduct by co-workers, but also some attributable to supervisors. See Response (#210) at pp. 126-28. Some instances do not appear to involve race or national origin, but there are many racial epithets and slurs. As noted,
9In addition, race claims under section 1981 go back four years. 21 - ORDER

most instances were prior to December 2001. Alleged timely actions include accusations of drug dealing, a cup of salsa with the word "Mexican baby food" written on it placed in Parra's truck by an unknown person, shunning and refusal to help plaintiffs, racist messages on a pager from an unknown person, and "Taco, Jr." written on various terminals by an unknown person. The pre and post December 2001 conduct do appear to have at least some connection because both involve racial epithets. The conduct, however, involves different supervisors, a significant time lag between the two sets of conduct, and there appear to be no supervisor offensive comments in the post December 22, 2001 period. Nonetheless, the pre and post acts appear plausibly related to each other sufficient to invoke the continuing violation doctrine.
Hostile work environment claims do not provide causes of action for incivility. See Manatt, 339 F.3d at 798 (Section 1981, like Title VII, is not a “general civility code.”). Simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment. Id. Plaintiffs do not offer any physical threats and for the most part offer sporadic offensive utterances spread out over a number of years. Moreover, plaintiff Herbert offers virtually no instances of being subject to hostile work environment and he cannot point to conduct based on race in support of his claims.
22 - ORDER

The working environment must be both subjectively and objectively perceived as abusive. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 114 S.Ct. 367, 370 (1993). Whether the workplace is objectively hostile must be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with the same fundamental characteristics. Cf. Ellison, 924 F.2d at 879. Hostility must be measured based on the totality of the circumstances. Harris, 114 S.Ct. at 371.
These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. The effect on the employee's psychological well-being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required. Id. The hostile work environment is mostly based on merely offensive conduct and the frequency is somewhat limited. Nonetheless, plaintiffs Parra and Rodriguez Jr. shall be allowed to go forward with these claims. The motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiff Herbert, however.
6. Intentional and Reckless Infliction of Emotional Distress Regardless of whether a claim for reckless infliction of emotional distress exists, both claims for emotional distress do not survive summary judgment because of the lack of extreme and outrageous conduct.
23 - ORDER

To prevail on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress, (2) defendant's acts were the cause of plaintiffs' severe emotional distress, and (3) defendants' acts constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct. McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532, 543 (1995).
The intent element of IIED is satisfied not only where the actor desires to inflict severe emotional distress, but also where he knows that such distress is certain, or substantially certain to result from his conduct. McGanty, 321 Or. at 550.
The Oregon Supreme Court has noted that the duty to refrain from abusive behavior in the employment relationship comes close to that of the physician toward a patient. Hall v. The May Department Stores Co., 292 Or. 131, 138 (1981). Thus, the employment relationship may impose a more demanding obligation to refrain from inflicting mental and emotional distress. See id. The consideration of the relationship between the alleged tortfeasor and the alleged victim is relevant to the inquiry regarding the conduct element. See Rockhill v. Pollard, 259 Or. 54, 63 (1971).
It is for the trial court to determine, in the first instance, whether a defendant's conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery. If the minds of reasonable men would not differ on the subject, the court is
24 - ORDER

obliged to grant summary judgment. Pakos v. Clark, 253 Or. 113, 132 (1969).
Various factors bear upon the offensiveness of the conduct, including whether a special relationship exists between the defendant and the plaintiff, such as that of physician-patient, counselor-client, or common carrier-passenger. Williams v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, 153 Or.App. 686, 689-90 (1998); Erickson v. Christenson, 99 Or.App. 104, 107, rev dismissed 311 Or. 266 (1991). Other factors include whether the conduct was undertaken for an ulterior purpose or to take advantage of an unusually vulnerable individual. See Checkley v. Boyd, 170 Or.App. 721 (2000). The setting in which the allegedly outrageous conduct occurs--for example, in a public venue or within the employment context--also can bear on the degree of offensiveness of the conduct. See, e.g., Hall, 292 Or. at 137; Trout v. Umatilla Co. School Dist., 77 Or.App. 95, 102 (1985).
"Oregon cases which have allowed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed typically involve acts of psychological and physical intimidation, racism, or sexual harassment." Garrison v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Civil No. 98-433-KI, Opinion by Judge King dated June 17, 1999, p. 8.
The mere fact that an employer overworks employees, makes unreasonable demands upon them, and is otherwise less than a model employer does not by itself constitute an extraordinary
25 - ORDER

transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct under Oregon law. Cf Madani v. Kendall Ford Co., 312 Or 198, 203-06 (1991) (terminating employee for refusing to pull down his pants); Patton v. J.C. Penney Co., 301 Or 117, 124 (1986) (employee terminated because he refused to stop dating co-worker); Watte v. Edgar Maeyens, Jr., M.D., P.C., 112 Or.App. 234, 237 (1992) (employer threw a tantrum, screamed and yelled at his employees, accused them of being liars and saboteurs, then fired them all); Snyder v. Sunshine Dairy, 87 Or.App. 215, 218 (1987) (inconsistent and excessive supervision, unjustified reprimands, threats of termination, requiring the employee to perform menial tasks). See also Wells v. Thomas, 569 F.Supp 426, 433 (E.D.Pa. 1983) (placing plaintiff in newly created position without responsibilities, taking away her private office, reassigning her secretary, allowing her phone calls to go unanswered, giving her poor performance evaluations for the first time in 25 years, and terminating her); Beidler v. W.R. Grace, Inc., 461 F.Supp 1013 (E.D.Pa. 1978), aff'd 609 F.2d 500 (3rd Cir. 1979) (plaintiff excluded from meetings necessary to perform his job, found papers constantly rearranged on his desk to annoy him, informed he would be given a new assistant without consultation, learned from rumors that his job was in jeopardy, and evaded by his superior who intimated that the new assistant would be replacing him).
26 - ORDER

The allegations in this case are not enough to demonstrate an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct. Moreover, with respect to the intentional infliction claim, there is insufficient evidence that defendants desired to inflict severe distress or knew that it was substantially certain to occur. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiffs' intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress claims.
7. Wrongful Discharge Plaintiffs allege that they were wrongfully discharged because they opposed discrimination. Generally, in the absence of a contract or legislation to the contrary, an employer can discharge an employee at any time and for any cause. Conversely, an employee can quit at any time for any cause. Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or. 210, 216 (1975). But, there can be circumstances in which an employer discharges an employee for such a socially undesirable motive that the employer must respond in damages for any injury done. Id. An employer commits the tort of wrongful discharge when it terminates employment for exercising a job-related right, for complying with a public duty or for performing an important obligation in the public interest. Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or. 220, 230-31 (1989) (abrogated on other grounds McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532 (1995)).
27 - ORDER

To prevail on a claim for wrongful discharge plaintiffs must prove that they were discharged and that the discharge was wrongful. Moustachetti v. Oregon, 319 Or. 319, 325 (1994). Plaintiffs must show a causal connection between the exercise of the employment-related right and the adverse employment action. Shockey v. City of Portland, 837 P.2d 505, 509-10 (Or.1992). The motion for summary judgment is granted on this claim for the same reasons that it is granted as to the retaliation claim above.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, defendant's motion for summary judgment (#189) is granted in part and denied in part. In addition, the motions to strike (#s 132 and 213) are denied. DATED this 22nd day of May, 2008.
s/ Michael R. Hogan United States District Judge
28 - ORDER

 
 Case 6:05-cv-01521-HO Document 259 Filed 02/27/09 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#: 3180
Case 6:Q5-cv-Ol52l -HO Document 257 Filed 02/26/2009 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

NO. CIV 05-1521-HO
CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

QWEST CORPORATION,

Defendant.

I

I. INTRODUCTION 1. This action originated with a discrimination charge filed by Gabriel Parra, Tracy J. Rebert and Tony Rodriguez, Jr. (collectively,the "Charges") with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") during the period September 29,2004-October 4,2004. P m a and Rodriguez alleged in their charges, inter alia, that Defendant Qwest subjected them to disparate discipline/ termination based on their national origin (Mexican), while Hebert alleged disparate disciplinelterminationbased on his associationwith Parra and Rodriguez in violation of
5 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) ("Title VII").
2. The EEOC sent Qwest Letters of Determination dated May 19,2005,that contained a finding of reasonable cause that Qwest violated Title VII when it terminated Parra, Hebert and Rodriguez, Jr. in July 2004.
3. The EEOC filed this lawsuit on September 29,2005, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon alleging that Parra and Rodriguez, Jr. were subjected to

CONSENT DECREE - 1
13141-2060/LEGAL15220854.1
13 141-2060LEGAL15299862.1

Case 6:05-cv-01521-HO Document 259 Filed 02/27/09 Page 2 of 8 Page ID#: 3181
Case 6:05-cv-01521-HO Document 257 Filed 02/26/2009 Page 2 of 8
discriminatory discipline and terminated in July 2004 based on their Mexican national origin, and also that Hebert was subjected to discriminatory discipline and terminated in JuIy 2004 based on his association with Parra and Rodriguez, Jr.
4. Qwest denied each of the allegations made by the EEOC. The parties then engaged in a substantial exchange of information, including exchanging documents relating to the claims and conductingnumerous witness depositions. After completing this substantial exchange of information and discovery, Qwest moved for summary dismissal of all claims
asserted by the EEOC on the grounds that EEOC's claims lacked merit as a matter of law. On or
about May 22,2008, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted Qwest's motion for summary dismissal and dismissed all claims asserted by the EEOC on behalf of Gabriel Parra, Tracy J. Hebert and Tony Rodriguez, Jr.
5. The EEOC and Qwest want to conclude hlly and finally all claims arising out of the EEOC's complaint, and enter into this Consent Decree and Order of Dismissal (referred to hereafter as "Consent Decree") to further the objectives of equal employment as set forth in Title.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of each party to this
Consent Decree, the EEOC and Qwest agree, and the Court, finding the mutual promises contained herein to be appropriate, hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES and DECREES,as follows:
11. NONADMISSION OF LIABILITY AND NONDETERMINATION BY THE COURT
6. This Consent Decree is not an adjudication or finding on the merits of this case and shall not be construed as an admission by Qwest of a violation of Title VII. Indeed, Qwest expressly denies that it engaged in any unlawful employment practices against Gabriel Parra, Tracy J. Hebert and Tony Rodriguez, Jr.
CONSENT DECREE - 2
13141-2060kEGAL 15220854.1

Case 6:05-cv-01521-HO Document 259 Filed 02/27/09 Page 3 of 8 Page ID#: 3182
Case 6:05-cv-01521-HO Document 257 Filed 02/26/2009 Page 3 of 8
nI. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.$ 5 451, 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.$9 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3), and Section 102of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. 5 1981a.
IV. SETTLEMENT SCOPE 8. This Consent Decree is the final and complete resolution of all Title VII allegations of unlawful employment practices contained in the EEOC's complaint filed on behalf of Parra, Hebert and Rodriguez, Jr. including all claims by the parties for attorney fees and costs.
The scope of this Consent Decree will be limited to Qwest's Auction Way garage in Eugene, Oregon facility. This Consent Decree resolves all issues and claims arising out of or related to the EEOC's complaint, and is binding and final as to all such issues and claims. The EEOC waives further litigation on all issues raised in the Charges and in the EEOC's complaint.
V. RESOLUTION OF PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS 9. Parra, Hebert and Rodriguez, Jr. intervened in the EEOC's lawsuit, brought other claims under federal and state law, and have reached a private, confidential settlement with Qwest to their satisfaction.
10. The EEOC,including its employees, is prohibited by United States Magistrate
Judge Cofin's December 9,2008 Order from disclosing any information about the terms or conditions of the private, confidential settlement between Parra, Hebert, and Rodriguez, Jr. and Qwest.
VI. AFFIRMATIVEAND OTHER RELIEF
A. Training
- CONSENT DECREE 3
13141-2060ILEGAL15220854.1
13141-2060/LEGAL15299862.1

Case 6:05-cv-01521-HO Document 259 Filed 02/27/09 Page 4 of 8 Page ID#: 3183
Case 6:05-cv-01524-HO Document 257 Filed 02/26/2009 Page 4 of 8
11. Within ninety (90) days of the execution of this Agreement, Qwest will present to a11 current managers and supervisorsat its Auction Way Garage in Eugene, Oregon, and the Labor Relations staff person who provides advice and support to such managers and supervisors at the Auction Way Garage, one (1) hour of training on race and national origin discrimination and retaliation for engaging in protected EEO activity by a qualified trainer on discrimination. The training will include information regarding the duty of Qwest's managers and supervisors in the Auction Way Garage in Eugene, Oregon to ensure compliance with Qwest's EEO policies, and their duty to address and report any incident or complaint of discrimination,or retaliation, of which they become aware. The training will also inform Qwest's managers and supervisors at ' the Auction Way Garage in Eugene, Oregon that there will be no retaliation against any employee for reporting or relaying any incident of discrimination or retaliation under Qwest's EEO policy, or for participating in or condkting an iiwestigation of such an incident. '
The EEOC will have an opportunity to review the training materials prior to the training
date. B. Reporting 12. Within thirty (30) days of the completion of the training referenced above, Qwest
shall report in writing to the EEOC that the training required by this Agreement has been completed.
C. Posting 13. Qwest will post a Notice, attached as Exhibit 1to this Consent Decree. The Notice shall be posted on a centrally located bulletin board at Qwest's Auction Way Garage in Eugene, Oregon until the training described in Paragraph 11 of this Consent Decree has been completed.
CONSENT DECREE - 4
13141-2060fLEGAL152208%. 1

Case 6:05-cv-01521-HO Document 259 Filed 02/27/09 Page 5 of 8 Page ID#: 3184
Case 6:O5-cv-OI521-HO Document 257 Filed 02/26/2009 Page 5 of 8

VII. ENFORCEMENT

14. A party may immediately petition for enforcement of this Consent Decree as set

forth in Paragraph 15 below.

15. Should Qwest and the EEOC not be able to resolve any alleged breach of this

Consent Decree, the parties agree that the dispute will be referred to United States Magistrate

Judge Coffin, who will be empowered with the k l l range ofjudicial remedies to enforce this

Consent Decree, including orderingpreliminary and permanent injunctive relief, awarding the

payment of fees and costs, imposing contempt sanctions, and extending the duration of this

Consent Decree. The parties hereby voluntarily consent to have United States Magistrate Judge

Coffin conduct any and all necessary proceedings to resolve any alleged breach of this Consent
, .
Decree in the case, including trial and entry of final judgment, with direct review by the Ninth

I

'

Circuit Court of Appeals if an appeal is filed.

VIII. DURATION AND TERMINATION
16. This Consent Decree shall be in effect for six (6) months.

Dated this 26th day of February 2009.

WILLIAM TAMAYO Regional Attorney San Francisco District 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94 105-1260
JOHN F. STANLEY Supervisory Trial Attorney
DAMIEN A. LEE Senior Trial Attorney
- CONSENT DECREE 5
13 141-2060JLEGAL15220854.1
13141-2060LEGALi5299862.1

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN Y. E A M S Associate General Counsel

Case 6:05-cv-01521-HO Document 259 Filed 02/27/09 Page 6 of 8 Page ID#: 3185
Case 6:05-cv-01521-HO Document 257 Filed 02/26/2009 Page 6 of 8

MOLLY KUCUK Trial Attorney

BY: s/ William Tamayo EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle,Washington 98104 Damien.Lee@EEOC.gov Telephone (206) 220-6915

Office of the General Counsel 131 M Street NE Washington, D.C. 20507

Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

BY: s/ David P.R. Svmes
David P.R. Syrnes DSymes@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209 Telephone (503) 727-2000 FacsimiIe (503) 727-2222
Attorneys for Defendant

CONSENT DECREE - 6
13141-2060/LEGAL15220854.1

Case 6:05-cv-01521-HO Document 259 Filed 02/27/09 Page 7 of 8 Page ID#: 3186
Case 6%-cv-01521-HO Document 257 Filed 02/26/2009 Page 7 of 8

ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE

The Court having considered the foregoing Consent Decree, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

THAT the foregoing Consent Decree be, and the same hereby is, approved as the final Order of

this Court in full settlement of this action. Subject to the provisions in Paragraphs 14-15, this

lawsuit is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any party.

/' & DATED this 17 day of

,2009.

CONSENT DECREE - 7
13141-2060/LEGAL15220854I.
1314 1-2060AEGAL15299862.1

Case 6:05-cv-01521-HO Document 259 Filed 02/27/09 Page 8 of 8 Page ID#: 3187
Case 6:05-cv-OI 521-HO Document 257 Filed 02/26/2009 Page 8of 8
QWEST CORPORATION NOTICE TO ALL QWEST EMPLOYlElES
This notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree reached between the EEOC and Qwest Corporation in CV 05-1521-HO.
In that case, the EEOC claimed that Qwest engaged in unlawful discrimination against Gabriel Parra, Tracy J. Hebert and Tony Rodriguez, Jr. After full litigation of the EEOC's claims, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted summary judgment to Qwest and dismissed, with prejudice, all of the claims asserted by the EEOC.
Federal law prohibits an employer f?om discriminating against any individual based on the individual's national origin or retaliation with respect to hiring, promotion, demotion, terms and conditions of employment, andlor termination. It is also unlawhl for an employer to retaliate against any individual because he or she complains of discrimination cooperates with the investigation of a discrimination or harassment charge by Qwest or a government agency, participates as a witness or potential witness in any investigation or legal proceeding, or otherwise exercises his or her rights under the law.
Any employee who is found to have retaliated against any other employee because such employee participated in this lawsuit will be subject to substantial discipline, up to and including immediate discharge.
Should you have any complaints of discrimination, you should contact your supervisor, any upper level management individual or Human Resources. Employees have the right to bring complaints of discrimination, andlor retaliation to the US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Seattle Field Office at 909 1st Avenue, Suite 400, Seattle,WA 98104-1061, 206/220-6883, 1-800-699-4000,and/or the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, 1400 Executive Parkway, Ste. 200, Eugene, OR,97401,541/686-7623, TTY: (971) 673-0766, ww.oregon.aov/boli/. Any Qwest employee may also contact Qwest's "Hotline" at 1-800-.
CONSENT DECREE - 8
13141-20601LEGAL15220854.1
13141-2060LEGAL15299862.1

 
 Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 1 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>
INTRADIST,TERMINATED
U.S. District Court District of Oregon (Eugene (6)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:05−cv−01521−HO

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Qwest Corporation Assigned to: Judge Michael R. Hogan Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/30/2005 Date Terminated: 02/27/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission TERMINATED: 05/22/2008

represented by A.Luis Lucero, Jr. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 220−6892 TERMINATED: 10/26/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Damian A. Lee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 (206)220−6915 Fax: (206)220−6911 Email: damien.lee@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John F. Stanley Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 909 First Avenue Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104−1061 206−220−6885 Fax: 206−220−6911 Email: john.stanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Blaire Olson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 909 First Avenue Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104−1061 (206) 220−6895 Fax: (206) 220−6869 Email: Kathryn.olson@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 05/29/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Molly P. Powell U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 1st. Avenue

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 2 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104−1061 (206) 220−6892 Fax: (206) 220−6911 Email: molly.powell@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff EEOC EEOC

represented by Damian A. Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Petitioner
Don Burch TERMINATED: 10/20/2006

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Tony Rodriguez, Jr.
Intervenor Plaintiff Gabriel Parra

represented by Kevin T. Lafky Lafky & Lafky 429 Court Street, NE Salem, OR 97301 503−585−2450 Fax: 503−585−0205 Email: klafky@lafky.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry L. Linder Law Office of Larry L. Linder 3000 Market St. Plaza NE, Ste. 150 Salem, OR 97301 503−585−1804 Fax: 503−585−1834 Email: llinder@salememploymentlawyer.com TERMINATED: 12/31/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Haley E. Percell Oregon School Boards Association 1201 Court Street NE, Suite 400 Salem, OR 97301 (503) 588−2800 Fax: 503−485−1831 Email: hpercell@osba.org
represented by Kevin T. Lafky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry L. Linder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/31/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 3 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

Intervenor Plaintiff Tracy Hebert

Haley E. Percell (See above for address)
represented by Kevin T. Lafky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry L. Linder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/31/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Haley E. Percell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Qwest Communications Inc TERMINATED: 11/23/2005
Defendant Qwest Corporation

represented by David P. R. Symes Littler Mendelson, PC 121 SW Morrison Street Suite 900 Portland, OR 97204 503−889−8854 Fax: 503−961−8198 Email: dsymes@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay A. Zollinger Outside General Counsel Services, P.C. dba Law Office of Jay Zollinger 10975 SW Avocet Court Beaverton, OR 97007 United Sta (503) 464−6787 Email: jay.zollinger@gmail.com TERMINATED: 05/23/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cody M. Weston Perkins Coie, LLP 1120 NW Couch Street 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209−4128 503−727−2000 Fax: 503−346−2089 Email: cweston@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David P. R. Symes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 4 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

Amicus EEOC

Jay A. Zollinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor
QWEST CUSTOMER DOE TERMINATED: 12/04/2006

represented by Robert D. Lowry Law Firm of Robert D. Lowry 975 Oak Street Suite 790 Eugene, OR 97401 (541)687−7592 Fax: (541)687−0805 Email: rdlowry@lowry−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Movant Sara Callister TERMINATED: 10/25/2006
Movant Walt Cissel TERMINATED: 10/25/2006

represented by Richard Rosenblatt Rosenblatt & Gosch, PLLC 8085 E. Prentice Avenue Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303−721−7399 Fax: 720−528−1220 Email: rrosenblatt@cwa−union.org TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gene Barry Mechanic Mechanic Law Firm 65 SW Yamhill St. Ste 200 Portland, OR 97204 503−384−2070 Fax: 503−894−5022 Email: gene@mechaniclaw.com TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gene Barry Mechanic (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 5 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

Movant Darrin Davis TERMINATED: 10/25/2006
Movant Jeremy Ferrell TERMINATED: 10/25/2006
Movant Phillip Jacques TERMINATED: 10/25/2006
Movant Pat McMahon TERMINATED: 10/25/2006
Movant Steve Moody TERMINATED: 10/25/2006

represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gene Barry Mechanic (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gene Barry Mechanic (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gene Barry Mechanic (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gene Barry Mechanic (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gene Barry Mechanic

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 6 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Brian Moore TERMINATED: 10/25/2006

represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gene Barry Mechanic (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Dan Pinch TERMINATED: 10/25/2006

represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gene Barry Mechanic (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Kevin Rutell TERMINATED: 10/25/2006

represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gene Barry Mechanic (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Ken Schmidt TERMINATED: 10/25/2006

represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gene Barry Mechanic (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Kurt Young TERMINATED: 10/25/2006

represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 7 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gene Barry Mechanic (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Don Burch TERMINATED: 10/25/2006

represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gene Barry Mechanic (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Don Burch TERMINATED: 10/25/2006

represented by Richard Rosenblatt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/30/2005 09/30/2005 10/03/2005
10/05/2005 10/12/2005 10/21/2005
11/03/2005

# Docket Text
1 Complaint. Fee waived − plaintiff is a government agnency. Summons issued as to Qwest Communications Inc.Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Qwest Communications Inc.(ecp, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
2 Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order and Notice of Case Assignment to the Honorable Dennis J. Hubel. Discovery to be completed by 1/28/2006. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report due by 2/27/2006.Pretrial Order due by 2/27/2006. Ordered by Judge Dennis J. Hubel. (ecp, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
4 RECORD OF ORDER − This case having arisen out of Lane County, pursuant to Local Rule 3.4(c), it is hereby transferred to the Eugene Divisional Office for all further proceedings. The Clerk is directed to reassign this case (by random reassignment) to a Eugene judge. Parties will be advised of the new judge assignment by separate notice. Ordered by Judge Dennis J. Hubel. (ecp, ) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
3 First Amended Complaint.Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Qwest Communications Inc.(Lee, Damian) (Entered: 10/05/2005)
5 Notice of Case Reassignment: This case has been reassigned from Judge Dennis J. Hubel to Judge Michael R Hogan and transferred to the Eugene Division. (Hickman, Camile) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
6 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of Order − The parties may file a joint status report which contains information required by 1/28/06. The filing of the joint status report will be in lieu of the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Click on the document number for this entry to obtain complete information needed for the joint status report) Joint Status Report due by 1/28/2006. Dispositive Motions due by 1/28/2006. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf, ) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
7 Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Amended Complaint and to File Corporate Disclosure Statement Amended Complaint 3 . Filed by Qwest Communications Inc. (Zollinger, Jay) (Entered: 11/03/2005)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 8 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

11/08/2005
11/16/2005
11/16/2005 11/16/2005 11/16/2005 11/23/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/19/2005 12/22/2005
12/22/2005 12/22/2005

8 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of Order − Defendant's Stipulated Motion 7 for Extension of Time to 11/16/05 to Answer Amended Complaint and to File Corporate Disclosure Statement is granted. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
9 Stipulated Motion to Substitute a Party. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Stipulation re Appropriate Corporate Defendant# 2 Attachment Certificate of E−Service) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
10 Answer to Complaint (Affirmative Defenses). Filed by Qwest Communications Inc.(Symes, David) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
11 Corporate Disclosure Statement. Filed by Qwest Communications Inc. (Symes, David) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
12 Answer to Amended Complaint (Answer and Affirmative Defenses). Filed by Qwest Communications Inc.(Symes, David) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
13 ORDER: Signed on 11/22/05 by Judge Michael R Hogan. Granting Motion to Substitute a Party 9 . Qwest Corporation rep by Jay A. Zollinger substituted for Qwest Communications Inc. (sln, ) (Entered: 11/25/2005)
14 Motion to Intervene. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr. (cp, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/31/2016: # 1 Motion) (vdc). (Entered: 12/16/2005)
15 Memorandum in Support of Motion to intervene. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr. (Related document(s): 14 )(cp, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/31/2016: # 1 Memorandum) (vdc). (Entered: 12/16/2005)
16 Certificate of Service Jr re Memorandum in Support of Motion 15 , Motion to Intervene 14 . Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr. (cp, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/31/2016: # 1 Certificate of Service) (vdc). (Entered: 12/16/2005)
17 Motion to Intervene. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (cp, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/31/2016: # 1 Motion) (vdc). (Entered: 12/16/2005)
18 Memorandum in Support of Motion to intervene. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Related document(s): 17 )(cp, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/31/2016: # 1 Memorandum) (vdc). (Entered: 12/16/2005)
19 Certificate of Service re Memorandum in Support of Motion 18 , Motion to Intervene 17 . Filed by Gabriel Parra. (cp, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/31/2016: # 1 Certificate of Service) (vdc). (Entered: 12/16/2005)
20 Motion to Intervene. Filed by Tracy Hebert. (cp, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/31/2016: # 1 Motion) (vdc). (Entered: 12/16/2005)
21 Memorandum in Support of Motion to intervene. Filed by Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): 20 )(cp, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/31/2016: # 1 Memorandum) (vdc). (Entered: 12/16/2005)
22 Certificate of Service re Memorandum in Support of Motion 21 , Motion to Intervene 20 . Filed by Tracy Hebert. (cp, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/31/2016: # 1 Certificate of Service) (vdc). (Entered: 12/16/2005)
23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Agreement. Filed by Qwest Corporation.(Zollinger, Jay) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
24 Record of Order − Plaintiff Intervenor Tony Rodriguez, Jr's Motion to Intervene 14 , Plaintiff Intervenor Tracy Herbert's Motion to Intervene 20 and Plaintiff Intervenor Gabriel Parra's Motion to Intervene 17 are granted. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
25 Intervener Complaint (Jury Trial Requested).Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr against Qwest Corporation.(sln, ) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
26 Intervener Complaint (Jury Trial Requested).Filed by Gabriel Parra against Qwest Corporation.(sln, ) (Entered: 12/23/2005)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 9 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/22/2005 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/27/2006 03/01/2006 03/02/2006 03/16/2006
05/01/2006 05/10/2006 05/15/2006
05/22/2006 05/23/2006 08/31/2006 09/01/2006

27 Intervener Complaint (Jury Trial Requested).Filed by Tracy Hebert against Qwest Corporation.(sln, ) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
28 Answer to Intervener Complaint filed by Gabriel Parra. Filed by Qwest Corporation.(Symes, David) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
29 Answer to Intervener Complaint filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr.. Filed by Qwest Corporation.(Symes, David) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
30 Answer to Intervener Complaint filed by Tracy J. Hebert. Filed by Qwest Corporation.(Symes, David) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
31 Joint Status Report. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
32 Joint Status Report /Joint Filing Regarding Litigation Schedule. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
33 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Agreement. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert.(sln, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/1/2016: # 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26) (vdc). (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/1/2016: # 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26) (vdc). (Entered: 03/02/2006)
34 Record of Order − Defendant's proposed case litigation schedule (doc #32) is adopted. Joinder/Amendment deadline 3/17/06. Discovery is to be completed by 5/31/2006. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 5/1/2006. Joint Status Report is due by 6/30/2006. Pretrial Order is due by 7/30/2006. Dispositive Motions are due by 6/30/2006. Plaintiff's Initial Expert Disclosures due 30 days following ruling on dispositive motions; defendant's Initial Expert Disclosure due 30 days following plaintiffs' expert disclosures; plaintiffs' Disclose Rebuttal Experts 14 days after defendant's expert disclosure; Expert Discovery Closes 14 days after plaintiffs' rebuttal disclosure. Pretrial Conference and Trial date will be set upon the filing of Joint Status Report. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf, ) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
35 Joint Alternative Dispute Resolution. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damian) Modified on 5/2/2006 (sln, ). (Entered: 05/01/2006)
36 Record of Order − Telephone Hearing regarding deposition dispute is set for 5/15/2006 at 09:30AM before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf, ) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
39 MINUTES of Proceedings: − Telephone Hearing held regarding deposition dispute. Depositions scheduled as follows: Seubert 5/16 9AM to 5/17th noon; Fitzgerald 5/17 1PM through 5/18; Rodriquez Sr.5/19 9AM; Iverson and Randall 6/1; Callister 5/24 9AM; Demmin 6/2; Schmitt and Kwandt 5/24 1PM; Timmons 5/25 9AM and 5/26 − if needed; Gaertner 5/30; Irlando 5/31. Discovery is to be completed by 8/31/2006. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report, Joint Status Report and Dispositive Motions due by 9/30/2006. Pretrial Order is due by 10/30/2006. Damian Lee present as counsel for plaintiff. Jay Zollinger and David Symes for defendant; Kevin Lafky present as counsel for Rodriquez Jr. and Parra − Intervenors. Court Reporter: Deborah Wilhelm. Michael R Hogan presiding. (lf, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
37 Notice of Appearance by attorney Molly P. Kucuk. Filed by Molly P. Kucuk appearing on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
38 Notice of Attorney Substitution: Substitution of Counsel. Filed by David P. R. Symes, David P. R. Symes appearing on behalf of all defendants.(Symes, David) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
40 Joint Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines. Filed by all parties. (Symes, David) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
41 ORDER: Granting Joint Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines 40 . Discovery is to be completed by 8/31/2006. Joint Status Report is due by 11/29/2006. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 11/29/2006. Dispositive Motions are due by 11/29/2006. Pretrial Order is due by 12/29/2006. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 09/01/2006)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 10 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

09/01/2006 10/13/2006 10/13/2006
10/20/2006
10/20/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006
10/23/2006 10/24/2006 10/24/2006 10/24/2006 10/24/2006
10/24/2006
10/25/2006

42 Record of Order by Michael R Hogan amending court's Minute Order 41 to reflect the correct date for discovery to be completed by 10/31/2006. (sln) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
43 Motion to Intervene. Filed by QWEST CUSTOMER DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Memorandum In Support of Qwest Customer Doe's Motion to Intervene) (Lowry, Robert) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
44 Motion for Protective Order. Filed by QWEST CUSTOMER DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER# 2 Attachment AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER) (Lowry, Robert) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
45 Motion to Quash Subpoenas Ad Testificandum Issued By Plaintiff−Intervenors To Non−Parties, Or Alternatively, A Motion For Protective Order. Filed by Don Burch, Sara Callister, Walt Cissel, Darrin Davis, Jeremy Ferrell, Phillip Jacques, Pat McMahon, Steve Moody, Brian Moore, Dan Pinch, Kevin Rutell, Ken Schmidt, Kurt Young. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit) (Mechanic, Gene) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
46 Proposed Form of Order Submitted Application For Special Admission Pro Hac Vice. Filed by Phillip Jacques. (Mechanic, Gene) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
47 Response to Motion to Intervene 43 . Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
48 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff−Intervenors' Response to Motion to Intervene by Qwest Customer Doe. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Motion to intervene 43 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
49 Certificate of Service by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert of Response to Motion 47 . (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
50 Response to Motion for Protective Order 44 . Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
51 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff−Intervenors' Response to Qwest Customer Doe's Motion For Protective Order. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Motion for Protective Order 44 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
52 Certificate of Service by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert of Response to Motion 50 . (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
53 Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas Ad Testificandum Issued By Plaintiff−Intervenors To Non−Parties, Or Alternatively, A Motion For Protective Order 45 . Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
54 Response to Motion for Protective Order 44 . Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
55 Proposed Form of Order Submitted [Proposed] Protective Order Prohibiting Contact. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
56 Response TO QWEST CUSTOMER DOE'S to Motion to Intervene 43 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment PLAINTIFF EEOC'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO QWEST CUSTOMER DOE'S MOTION TO INTERVENE) (Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
57 Response TO QWEST CUSTOMER DOE'S to Motion for Protective Order 44 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO QWEST CUSTOMER DOE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER# 2 DECLARATION OF DAMIEN A. LEE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF EEOC'S RESPONSE TO QWEST CUSTOMER DOE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER) (Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
58 Response in Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoenas Ad Testificandum Issued By Plaintiff−Intervenors To Non−Parties, Or Alternatively, A Motion For Protective

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 11 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

10/25/2006 10/25/2006 10/25/2006 10/25/2006
10/25/2006
10/26/2006 10/30/2006 11/02/2006 11/08/2006
11/08/2006 11/08/2006 12/04/2006 12/19/2006

Order 45 . Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
59 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff−Intervenor's Response to Motion to Quash. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Motion to Quash, 45 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
60 Certificate of Service by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert of Response in Opposition to Motion, 58 . (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
61 Record of Order − Scheduling Movants' Motion to Quash Subpoenas Ad Testificandum Issued By Plaintiff−Intervenors To Non−Parties, Or Alternatively, A Motion For Protective Order 45 for Telephone Argument on 10/25/2006 (between 9 − 11AM) before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
62 Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas Ad Testificandum Issued By Plaintiff−Intervenors To Non−Parties, Or Alternatively, A Motion For Protective Order 45 ORAL ARGUMENT requested. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 EEOC'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO CWA'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENASS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED BY PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS TO NON−PARTIES, OR ALTERNATIVELY, A MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER# 2 Attachment QWEST RESPONSE TO EEOC'S FIRST SET OF RFPS 1−67# 3 QWEST RESPONSE TO EEOC'S RFAs 1−41# 4 QWEST RESPONSE TO EEOC'S 3RD SET OF RFPs 91−102# 5 QWEST RESPONSE TO JOINT RFPs 130−151) (Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
64 MINUTES of Proceedings: − Telephone Argument held on Movants' Motion 45 to Quash Subpoenas − Motion denied. Ordered − Richard Rosenblatt allowed to appear for purpose of this motion. Order allowing depositions to be taken and are restricted to eyes of counsel only. Qwest cannot transmit information to clients. Damian Lee present as counsel for plaintiff. David Symes as counsel for defendant. Richard Rosenblatt for Movants present as counsel. Court Reporter: Deborah Wilhelm. Michael R Hogan presiding. (Related document(s): Motion to Quash, 45 .) (lf) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
63 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal:.Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
65 Order Granting Application for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice of Richard Rosenblatt for Sara Callister and Walt Cissel. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 600001768 issued. Signed on 10/30/06 by Judge Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 11/01/2006)
66 Joint Motion for Extension of Time Joint Motion for Extension of Deadline to File Dispositive Motions. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Qwest Corporation, Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
67 Record of Order − Granting defendant's Joint Motion 66 for Extension of Time as follows: Discovery is to be completed by 1/19/2007. Joint Status Report is due by 1/19/2007. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 2/19/2007. Pretrial Order is due by 2/19/2007. Dispositive Motions are due by 1/19/2007. Responses to Dispositive Motions are due by 2/19/2007. Replies to Dispositive Motions are due by 3/6/2007. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
68 Reply. Filed by QWEST CUSTOMER DOE. (Lowry, Robert) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
69 Reply. Filed by QWEST CUSTOMER DOE. (Lowry, Robert) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
70 ORDER: Denying Customer Doe's Motion to Intervene 43 ; Denying Customer Doe's Motion for a Protective Order 44 ). Signed on 12/4/06 by Judge Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
71 First Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to Deposition Questions, EEOC's Interrogatory No. 22 and Plaintiffs' Joint Request for Production No. 151. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 12/19/2006)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 12 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/19/2006 12/19/2006
01/02/2007 01/02/2007 01/15/2007 01/16/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007
01/23/2007

72 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' First Joint Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to Deposition Questions, EEOC's Interrogatory No. 22 and Plaintiffs' Joint Request for Production No. 151. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 71 .) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
73 Declaration of Damien A. Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' First Joint Motion to Compel. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 71 .) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A to Decl. of D. Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' First Joint Motion to Compel# 2 Attachment B to Decl. of D. Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' First Joint Motion to Compel# 3 Attachment C to Decl. of D. Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' First Joint Motion to Compel# 4 Attachment D to Decl. of D. Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' First Joint Motion to Compel# 5 Attachment E to Decl. of D. Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' First Joint Motion to Compel# 6 Attachment F to Decl. of D. Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' First Joint Motion to Compel# 7 Attachment G to Decl. of D. Lee in Support of Plaintiffs' First Joint Motion to Compel) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
75 Response to First Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to Deposition Questions, EEOC's Interrogatory No. 22 and Plaintiffs' Joint Request for Production No. 151 71 . Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 01/02/2007)
76 Declaration of Cody M. Weston in Support of Qwest Corporation's Response to Plaintiffs' First Joint Motion to Compel. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 75 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 01/02/2007)
78 Joint Request for Enlargement of Time for Responsive Briefing of Dispositive Motions. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Joint Request for Enlargement of Time for Responsive Briefing of Dispositive Motions) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/15/2007)
79 Scheduling Order by Michael R Hogan. Granting joint request for enlargement of time for responsive briefing of dispositive motions; Dispositive Motions are due by 1/19/2007. Responses to Dispositive Motions are due by 2/26/2007. Replies to Dispositive Motions are due by 3/13/2007. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
80 Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors. Oral Argumentrequested Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Symes, David) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
81 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 80 .) (Symes, David) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
82 Concise Statement of Material Fact. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 80 .) (Symes, David) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
83 Declaration of Virginia Callister. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 80 .) (Symes, David) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
84 Declaration of Susan Demmin−Beckler. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 80 .) (Symes, David) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
85 Declaration of David P.R. Symes in Support of Qwest Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 80 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B − part 1# 3 Exhibit B − part 2# 4 Exhibit C − part 1# 5 Exhibit C − part 2# 6 Exhibit D − part 1# 7 Exhibit D − part 2# 8 Exhibit D − part 3# 9 Exhibit D − part 4# 10 Exhibit D − part 5# 11 Exhibit E# 12 Exhibit F# 13 Supplement G# 14 Exhibit H# 15 Exhibit I# 16 Exhibit J# 17 Exhibit K# 18 Exhibit L# 19 Exhibit M# 20 Exhibit N) (Symes, David) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
86 ORDER: Customer Doe's Sealed Motion for a protective order prohibiting disclosure of identity 74 is denied. Plaintiff's Joint Motion to Compel responses to interrogatory No. 22 and request for production No. 151 71 is granted. Signed on 1/23/07 by Judge

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 13 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/15/2007 02/15/2007 02/15/2007 02/16/2007 02/26/2007
02/26/2007
03/01/2007 03/01/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007
03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007

Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
87 Unopposed Motion to File Excess Pages. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
88 Declaration of Larry L. Linder. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Related document(s): Motion to File Excess Pages 87 .) (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
89 Certificate of Service by Gabriel Parra of Unopposed Motion to File Excess Pages 87 (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
90 ORDER: Granting Plaintiiff−Intervenors Motion to Exceed Page Limitation in response to defendant's concise statement and memorandum of law 87 . Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
91 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 80 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
92 Record of Order − Granting plaintiff's Motion 91 for Extension of Time to 3/2/07 to File Response to Quest's Motion #80 for Summary Judgment; any Reply due by 4/2/07. Oral Argument on defendant's Motion #80 for Summary Judgment is set for 5/1/2007 at 11:00AM in Eugene before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
93 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
94 Certificate of Service by Gabriel Parra of Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal 93 (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
95 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 80 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
96 Declaration of Larry L. Linder in Support of Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
97 Supplement Exhibit 2. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
98 Supplement Exhibit 9. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
99 Supplement Exhibit 5. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
100 Supplement Exhibit 10. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
101 Supplement Exhibit 13. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
102 Supplement Exhibit 17. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
103 Supplement Exhibit 18. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 14 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007

104 Supplement Exhibit 20. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
105 Supplement Exhibit 21. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
106 Supplement Exhibit 24. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
107 Supplement Exhibit 25. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
108 Supplement Exhibit 27. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
109 Supplement Exhibit 28. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
110 Supplement Exhibit 29. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
111 Supplement Exhibits 50−55. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
112 Supplement Exhibit 56. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
113 Supplement Exhibit 57. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
114 Supplement Exhibits 58−60. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
115 Supplement Exhibits 61−65. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
116 Supplement Exhibits 67−71. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
117 Supplement Exhibits 72−74. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
118 Supplement Exhibits 75−76. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
119 Supplement Exhibits 77−80. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
120 Supplement Exhibits 81−83. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 15 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007
03/02/2007
03/02/2007
03/02/2007
03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007

121 Supplement Exhibits 84−86. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
122 Supplement Exhibits 87−91. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
123 Supplement Exhibit 101. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
124 Supplement Exhibit 102. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
125 Supplement Exhibit 120. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
126 Supplement Exhibit 121. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
127 Declaration of Gabriel Parra in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
128 Declaration of Tony Rodriguez Sr. in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
129 Declaration of Tracy Hebert in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
130 Declaration of John Irlando in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
131 Certificate of Service by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert of Response to Motion 95 (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
132 Motion to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 80 . Oral argumentrequested Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
133 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike. Filed by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Related document(s): Motion to Strike 132 .) (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
134 Certificate of Service by Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert of Motion to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 80 132 (Percell, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
135 ORDER: Granting Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors' Motion to file documents in response to defendant's motion for summary jdugment under seal 93 . Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
136 Response to Concise Statement of Material Facts regarding Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 80 . Filed by all plaintiffs. (filed under seal) (sln) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/27/2012: # 1 Main Document) (ec). (Entered: 03/02/2007)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 16 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007
03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007
03/02/2007 03/02/2007

137 Second Declaration of Larry L. Linder in support of Response to Motion 95 . Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 80 .)(filed under seal) (sln) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/27/2012: # 1 Main Document) (ec). (Entered: 03/02/2007)
138 Memorandum of Law in Support of Response to Motion 95 . Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 80 .)(filed under seal) (sln) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/28/2012: # 1 Main Document) (ec). (Entered: 03/02/2007)
139 Declaration of Tony Rodriguez Jr.. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Olson, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
140 Declaration of Damien Lee. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 95 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs' Response# 2 Exhibit 1B# 3 Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs' Response# 4 Exhibit 1C to Plaintiffs' Response# 5 Exhibit 1D to Plainitiffs' Response# 6 Exhibit 1E to Plaintiffs' Response# 7 Exhibit 1F to Plaintiffs' Response# 8 Exhibit 1G to Plaintiffs' Response# 9 Exhibit 1H to Plantiffs' Response# 10 Exhibit 1I to Plaintiffs' Response# 11 Exhibit 1J to Plaintiffs' Response# 12 Exhibit 1K to Plaintiffs' Response# 13 Exhibit 1L to Plaintiffs' Response# 14 Exhibit 1M to Plaintiffs' Response# 15 Exhibit 11 to Plaintiffs' Response# 16 Exhibit 11A to Plaintiffs' Response# 17 Exhibit 11B to Plaintiffs' Response# 18 Exhibit 11C to Plaintiffs' Response# 19 Exhibit 11D to Plaintiffs' Response# 20 Exhibit 11E to Plaintiffs' Response# 21 Exhibit 11F to Plaintiffs' Response# 22 Exhibit 11G to Plaintiffs' Response# 23 Exhibit 11H to Plaintiffs' Response# 24 Exhibit 26 to Plaintiffs' Response# 25 Exhibit 26A to Plaintiffs' Response# 26 Exhibit 26B to Plaintiffs' Response# 27 Exhibit 26C to Plaintiffs' Response# 28 Exhibit 26D to Plaintiffs' Response# 29 Exhibit 26E to Plaintiffs' Response# 30 Exhibit 26F to Plaintiffs' Response# 31 Exhibit 26G to Plaintiffs' Response# 32 Exhibit 26H to Plaintiffs' Response# 33 Exhibit 26I to Plaintiffs' Response# 34 Exhibit 26J to Plaintiffs' Response) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
141 Exhibits 44−46 re Response to Motion 95 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 44# 2 Exhibit 44A# 3 Exhibit 45# 4 Exhibit 45A# 5 Exhibit 46# 6 Exhibit 46A# 7 Exhibit 46B# 8 Exhibit 46C# 9 Exhibit 46D) (Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
142 Exhibits 41−43 re Response to Motion 95 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 42# 2 Exhibit 43) (Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
143 Exhibits 26L to Third Decl. of Counsel in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment re Response to Motion 95 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 26L to Plaintiffs' Response# 2 Exhibit 26M to Plaintiffs' Response# 3 Exhibit 26N to Plaintiffs' Response# 4 Exhibit 31 to Plaintiffs' Response# 5 Exhibit 31A to Plaintiffs' Response# 6 Exhibit 31B to Plaintiffs' Response# 7 Exhibit 31C to Plaintiffs' Response# 8 Exhibit 31D to Plaintiffs' Response# 9 Exhibit 32A to Plaintiffs' Response# 10 Exhibit 32B to Plaintiffs' Response# 11 Exhibit 32C to Plaintiffs' Response# 12 Exhibit 32D to Plaintiffs' Response# 13 Exhibit 33 to Plaintiffs' Response# 14 Exhibit 34A to Plaintiffs' Response# 15 Exhibit 34B to Plaintiffs' Response# 16 Exhibit 34C to Plaintiffs' Response) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
144 Exhibits 35A to Third Declaration of Counsel in Support of Plaintiffs' Reponse to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment re Response to Motion 95 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 35B to Plaintiffs' Response# 2 Exhibit 35C to Plaintiffs' Response# 3 Exhibit 35D to Plaintiffs' Response# 4 Exhibit 36A to Plaintiffs' Response# 5 Exhibit 36C to Plaintiffs' Response# 6 Exhibit 36B to Plaintiffs' Response) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
145 Exhibits 47, 48, 49 and 66 re Response to Motion 95 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 48# 2 Exhibit 49# 3 Exhibit 66) (Olson, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/02/2007)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 17 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

03/02/2007
03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007
03/06/2007
03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/15/2007 03/20/2007 03/22/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/27/2007 04/02/2007

146 Exhibits 103−108 to 3rd Declaration of Counsel in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's motion for Summary Judgment re Response to Motion 95 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 104# 2 Exhibit 105# 3 Exhibit 105A# 4 Exhibit 105B# 5 Exhibit 105C# 6 Exhibit 105D# 7 Exhibit 105E# 8 Exhibit 106# 9 Exhibit 107# 10 Exhibit 108) (Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
147 Exhibits 39 to Third Declaration of Counsel in Supoprt of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment re Response to Motion 95 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 40 to Plaintiffs' Response) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
148 Exhibits 37 to Third Declaration of Counsel in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment re Response to Motion 95 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
149 Exhibits 38 to Third Declaration of Counsel in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment re Response to Motion 95 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 38A to Plaintiffs' Response# 2 Exhibit 38B to Plaintiffs' Response# 3 Exhibit 38C to Plaintiffs' Response# 4 Exhibit 38D to Plaintiffs' Response# 5 Exhibit 38E to Plaintiffs' Response) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
150 Record of Order − Plaintiff Intervenors' Motion 132 to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 80 − Oral Argument is set for 5/1/2007 at 11:00AM in Eugene before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Parties are reminded that Joint Status Report, Joint ADR Report and Pretrial Order are overdue. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
151 Unopposed Motion by Plaintiff EEOC to Correct the Record and to Seal Court File Dkt. Nos. 139, 141, 145 & 149. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
152 Transcript of Proceedings held on 10/25/06 before Judge Michael R. Hogan. Court Reporter: Deborah Wilhelm. (ljb) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/1/2016: # 1 Transcript) (vdc). (Entered: 03/08/2007)
153 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 80 132 . Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
154 ORDER: Granting Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to 3/23/07 to File Response to motion to strike 153 . Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
158 ORDER: Granting Plaintiff's Motion to correct the record and to seal court file docket numbers 139, 141, 145 and 149 151 . Signed on 3/22/07 by Judge Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
155 Joint ADR Report. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Qwest Corporation, Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert.(Weston, Cody) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
156 Joint Motion for Extension of Time Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for Submission of Pretrial Order. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Qwest Corporation, Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
157 Response to Motion to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 80 132 . Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
159 ORDER: Granting Joint Motion for Extension of Time 156 to the extent that the Pretrial Order is due by 7/18/2007. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
160 Motion to Strike. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Symes, David) (Entered: 04/02/2007)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 18 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007
04/03/2007 04/11/2007 04/13/2007
04/16/2007 04/19/2007
04/23/2007 04/23/2007 04/25/2007
05/07/2007

161 Memorandum in Support of Qwest's Motion to Strike. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion to Strike 160 .) (Symes, David) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
162 Supplement Chart of Evidentiary Objections in Support of Qwest Corporation's Motion to Strike. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion to Strike 160 .) (Symes, David) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
163 Reply in Support of Qwest's to Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 80 . Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Symes, David) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
164 Response to Concise Statement of Material Facts regarding Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 80 . Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Symes, David) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
165 Supplemental Declaration of Susan Demmin Beckler. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Reply to Motion 163 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Symes, David) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
166 Declaration of Cody M. Weston in Support of Qwest's Summary Judgment Reply and Qwest's Motion to Strike. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 80 , Motion to Strike 160 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2, Part A# 3 Exhibit 2, Part B# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7) (Symes, David) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
167 Reply In Support to Motion to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 80 132 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
168 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion to Strike 160 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Kucuk, Molly) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
169 Scheduling Order − Continuing Oral Argument on Rodriguez, Parra and Hebert's Motion 132 to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors and defendant's Motion 80 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors. from 5/1/07 to Oral Argument on 5/2/2007 at 9:15AM in Eugene before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
170 Joint Status Report. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Qwest Corporation, Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
171 Record of Order − Granting plaintiff intervenors Parra, Rodriguez, Heberts' Motion 168 for Extension of Time to 4/23/07 to File Response to Defendant's Motion #160 to Strike. Order − Continuing 5/2/07 Oral Argument on plaintiff intervenors Parra, Rodriguez and Heberts' Motion #132 and defendant's Motion #80 for Summary Judgment to Oral Argument on 5/21/07 at 11:30AM in Eugene before Judge Michael R Hogan. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
172 Response in Opposition to Motion to Strike 160 . Filed by all plaintiffs. (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
173 Memorandum in Support. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 172 .) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A to Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Qwest Corporation's Motion to Strike) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
174 Trial Management Order. Pretrial Documents are due by 12/31/2007, 1/4/08, 1/8/08. Pretrial Conference is set for 1/15/2008 at 11:30AM in Eugene before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. 10 Day Jury Trial is set for 1/30/2008 at 09:00AM in Eugene before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (Click on the document number for this entry for complete trial information) (lf) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
175 Reply in Support of Qwest's Motion to Strike to Motion to Strike 160 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Symes, David) (Entered: 05/07/2007)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 19 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

05/14/2007
05/22/2007 05/22/2007 05/22/2007 05/25/2007
05/29/2007 06/29/2007
08/29/2007
09/21/2007 11/02/2007
11/20/2007 12/13/2007

176 Scheduling Order − Continuing Plaintiff and Plaintiff Intervenors' Motion 132 to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors and defendant's Motion 80 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors from Oral Argument on 5/21/07 to Oral Argument on 6/6/2007 at 10:45AM in Eugene, Wayne L Morse U.S. Courthouse, 405 E 8th Ave., Courtroom #1, Third Floor before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
177 Unopposed Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Hearing. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
178 Declaration of Larry L. Linder. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Related document(s): Motion to continue 177 .) (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
179 Certificate of Service by Gabriel Parra of Unopposed Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Hearing 177 (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
180 Scheduling Order − Granting Motion to Continue 6/6/07 Oral Argument.Continuing Oral Argument on Plaintiff and Plaintiff Intervenors Motion 132 to Strike Motion 80 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors and Defendant's Motion 80 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors from 6/6/07 to Oral Argument on 8/21/2007 at 10:30AM in Eugene, Wayne L Morse U.S. Courthouse, 405 E 8th Ave., Courtroom #1, 3rd Floor before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan.. Defendant's Motion 160 to Strike continued from 5/21/07 under advisement calendar to 8/21/07 under advisement calendar. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
181 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal: AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL.Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Stanley, John) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
182 Scheduling Order − Continuing plaintiff and plaintiff intervenor's Motion 132 to Strike Motion 80 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors and defendant's Motion 80 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors − Oral Argument from 8/21/07 to 9/5/2007 at 11:30AM in Eugene before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
183 Scheduling Order − Continuing Rodriguez, Parra and Herbert's Motion 132 to Strike Motion 80 for Summary Judgment and defendant's Motion 80 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors from Oral Argument on 9/5/07 to Oral Argument on 10/9/2007 at 11:45AM in Eugene before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Continuing Defendant's Motion to Strike 160 from 9/5/07 under advisement to 10/9/07 under advisement calendar. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
184 Scheduling Order − Continuing Motion #132 to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors and Motion 80 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors −− Oral Argument from 10/9/07 to 11/7/2007 at 11:00AM in Eugene before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
185 Scheduling Order − Continuing Rodriguez, Parra and Hebert's Motion > 80 to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors132 and defendant's Motion 80 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors from 11/7/07 to Oral Argument on 12/18/2007 at 11:00AM in Eugene before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
186 Joint Motion of EEOC and Qwest to Setover Trial Date and Extend Pretrial Daedlines and Request for Rule 16 Conference. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Qwest Corporation. (Symes, David) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
187 Record of Order− ADVANCING Time Set for Oral Argument on plaintiffs Motion 132 to Strike Motion 80 for Summary Judgment and defendant's Motion 80 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors on 12/18/2007 from 11AM to 10:45AM in Eugene before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Granting Joint Motion 186 to Continue pretrial document due dates, 1/15/08 Pretrial Conference and 1/30/08 Trial Date. Counsel directed to submit in writing by 12/26/07 dates of

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 20 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/14/2007
12/21/2007 12/21/2007 12/21/2007 12/21/2007 12/21/2007 12/21/2007
12/26/2007 12/26/2007 12/26/2007 01/02/2008

unavailability for trial during the months of March, April, May and June 2008 to facilitate trial scheduling. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 12/13/2007)
188 RECORD OF ORDER − by Michael R Hogan: In reviewing the materials in support of and in opposition to defendant Qwest's motion for summary judgment 80 the court has encountered difficulty in ascertaining the location of supporting documentation. It has been too difficult to find, verify and read the cited portions of the record for context. For instance, in plaintiffs' responsive memo to the motion 138 at p. 82−83, plaintiffs cite "Fitzgerald Dep. 6:9−7:15, 87:1−8, 307:11−14" without directing the court as to where to find this deposition document. The court eventually found the document attached to the First Declaration of Counsel in Support of Plaintiff and Plaintiff Intervenors' Response 96 as Exhibit 9 (which itself is actually document 98 ). For another example, in Qwest Corporation's memo 81 , defendant, at p. 10, cites "Parra Ex. 11, at 9." The court searched the record and found that the declaration of David P.R. Symes in support of the motion 85 references the deposition of Gabriel Parra attached as Ex. B. The court further found that the declaration states that more exhibits are attached to the deposition, which are not tabbed.Accordingly, the court denies the motion for summary judgment without prejudice to the parties resubmitting their memos with detailed citations. For example, defendant's cite at p. 1 of its memo 81 ("Security Report, p. 1 (Demmin−Beckler Ex. 46") should read, Ex. D to Declaration of David P.R. Symes 85 at p. 81.The court will reinstate the motion for summary judgment and set it for oral argument upon the filing of the amended memos in support of and in opposition to the motion. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (cp) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
189 Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors. Oral Argumentrequested Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
190 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 189 .) (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
191 Concise Statement of Material Fact. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 189 .) (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
192 Declaration of Virginia Callister. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 189 .) (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
193 Declaration of Susan Demmin−Beckler. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 189 .) (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
194 Declaration of David P.R. Symes in Support of Qwest Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 189 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, part 1# 2 Exhibit A, part 2# 3 Exhibit B, part 1# 4 Exhibit B, part 2# 5 Exhibit C, part 1# 6 Exhibit C, part 2# 7 Exhibit D, part 1# 8 Exhibit D, part 2# 9 Exhibit D, part 3# 10 Exhibit D, part 4# 11 Exhibit D, part 5# 12 Exhibit D, part 6# 13 Exhibit E−N) (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
195 Report Qwest's Trial Unavailability Dates. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 12/26/2007)
196 Status Report Re: Plaintiff's Trial Availability by Gabriel Parra. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 12/26/2007)
197 Notice re Scheduling,, 187 Notice of Unavailability of EEOC Counsel for Trial.Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Scheduling,, 187 .) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 12/26/2007)
198 Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 189 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 01/02/2008)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 21 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

01/02/2008
01/02/2008
01/02/2008 01/02/2008 01/02/2008 01/02/2008 01/02/2008 01/02/2008
01/02/2008 01/02/2008 01/02/2008 01/02/2008

199 Third Declaration of Damien Lee. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 198 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 1Aa# 3 Exhibit 1Ab# 4 Exhibit 1B# 5 Exhibit 1Ca# 6 Exhibit 1Cb# 7 Errata 1D# 8 Exhibit 1E# 9 Exhibit 1F# 10 Exhibit 1G# 11 Exhibit 1H# 12 Exhibit 1I# 13 Exhibit 1J# 14 Exhibit 1K# 15 Exhibit 1L# 16 Exhibit 1M# 17 Exhibit 11# 18 Exhibit 11A# 19 Exhibit 11B# 20 Exhibit 11C# 21 Exhibit 11D# 22 Exhibit 11E# 23 Exhibit 11F# 24 Exhibit 11G# 25 Exhibit 11H# 26 Exhibit 26# 27 Exhibit 26A# 28 Exhibit 26B# 29 Exhibit 26C# 30 Exhibit 26Da# 31 Exhibit 26Db# 32 Exhibit 26Ea# 33 Errata 26Eb# 34 Exhibit 26F# 35 Exhibit 26G# 36 Errata 26Ha# 37 Exhibit 26Hb# 38 Exhibit 26Ia# 39 Exhibit 26Ib# 40 Exhibit 26Ja# 41 Exhibit 26Jb) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
200 Exhibits to Third Decl. of Counsel 199 re Response in Opposition to Motion 198 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 26Kb# 2 Exhibit 26La# 3 Exhibit 26Lb# 4 Exhibit 26Ma# 5 Exhibit 26Mb# 6 Errata 26N# 7 Exhibit 31# 8 Exhibit 31A# 9 Exhibit 31Ba# 10 Exhibit 31Bb# 11 Exhibit 31Ca# 12 Exhibit 31Cb# 13 Exhibit 31Da# 14 Exhibit 31Db# 15 Exhibit 31A# 16 Exhibit 32B# 17 Exhibit 32C# 18 Exhibit 32D# 19 Exhibit 33a# 20 Exhibit 33b# 21 Exhibit 34Aa# 22 Exhibit 34Ab# 23 Exhibit 34Ba# 24 Exhibit 34Bb# 25 Exhibit 34C) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
201 Exhibits to Third Decl. of Counsel 199 re Response in Opposition to Motion 198 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 35B# 2 Exhibit 35C# 3 Exhibit 35D# 4 Exhibit 36A# 5 Exhibit 36B# 6 Exhibit 36C) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
202 Exhibits to Third Decl. of Counsel 199 re Response in Opposition to Motion 198 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
203 Exhibits to Third Decl. of Counsel 199 re Response in Opposition to Motion 198 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 38A# 2 Exhibit 38Ba# 3 Exhibit 38Bb# 4 Exhibit 38C# 5 Exhibit 38D# 6 Exhibit 38E) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
204 Exhibits to Third Decl. of Counsel 199 re Response in Opposition to Motion 198 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 39a# 2 Exhibit 39b# 3 Exhibit 39c# 4 Exhibit 40) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
205 Exhibits to Third Decl. of Counsel 199 re Response in Opposition to Motion 198 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 42# 2 Exhibit 43) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
206 Exhibits to Third Decl. of Counsel 199 re Response in Opposition to Motion 198 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 44A# 2 Exhibit 44Ab# 3 Exhibit 45a# 4 Exhibit 45b# 5 Exhibit 45Aa# 6 Exhibit 45Ab# 7 Exhibit 46# 8 Exhibit 46A# 9 Exhibit 46Ba# 10 Exhibit 46Bb# 11 Exhibit 46Ca# 12 Exhibit 46Cb# 13 Exhibit 46Cc# 14 Exhibit 46Da# 15 Exhibit 46Db# 16 Exhibit 46Dc) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
207 Exhibits to Third Decl. of Counsel 199 re Response in Opposition to Motion 198 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 48# 2 Exhibit 49# 3 Exhibit 66A# 4 Exhibit 66B) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
208 Exhibits to Third Decl. of Counsel 199 re Response in Opposition to Motion 198 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 104# 2 Exhibit 105# 3 Exhibit 105A# 4 Exhibit 105Ba# 5 Exhibit 105Bb# 6 Exhibit 105C# 7 Exhibit 105D# 8 Exhibit 105E# 9 Exhibit 106# 10 Exhibit 107# 11 Exhibit 108) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
209 Response to Concise Statement of Material Facts regarding Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 189 . Filed by all plaintiffs. (filed under seal) (sln) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/28/2012: # 1 Main Document) (ec). (Entered: 01/02/2008)
210 Memorandum of Law in Support of Response 198 to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 189 . Filed by all plaintiffs. (sln) (filed under seal) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/28/2012: # 2 Main Document) (ec). (Entered: 01/02/2008)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 22 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

01/02/2008 01/03/2008
01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008
01/14/2008 01/14/2008 01/17/2008 03/06/2008
03/11/2008

211 Certificate of Service by Gabriel Parra of Response in Opposition to Motion 198 , Response to Concise Statement of Material Facts 209 Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
212 Scheduling Order − Plaintiff and Plaintiff Intervenors Motion 132 to Strike defendant Qwest's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors and defendant Qwest's Motion 189 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors − Oral Argument is set for 3/11/2008 at 11:00AM in Eugene before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
213 Motion to Strike. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
214 Memorandum in Support of Qwest Corporation's Motion to Strike. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion to Strike 213 .) (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
215 Supplement Chart of Evidentiary Objections in Support of Qwest Corporation's Motion to Strike. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion to Strike 213 .) (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
216 Reply in Support to Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 189 . Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
217 Reply to Concise Statement of Material Facts. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Response to Concise Statement of Material Facts 209 .) (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
218 Supplemental Declaration of Susan Demmin Beckler. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Reply to Motion 216 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
219 Declaration of Cody M. Weston in Support of Qwest Corporation's Summary Judgment Reply and Qwest's Motion to Strike. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Related document(s): Motion to Strike 213 , Motion for Summary Judgment 189 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2A# 3 Exhibit 2B# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7) (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
220 Response in Opposition to Motion to Strike 213 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
221 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Qwest Corporation's Motion to Strike 213 . Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 220 .) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A to Plaintiffs' Memorandum) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
222 Reply in Support of Qwest Corporation's to Motion to Strike 213 . Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
223 Scheduling Order − ADVANCING Time Set for Intervenor/Plaintiffs Rodriquez, Parra and Hebert's Motion 132 to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors 80 and defendant's Motion 189 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors − Oral Argument on 3/11/2008 from 11am to 10:15AM in Eugene before U. S. District Judge Michael R Hogan. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
224 MINUTES of Proceedings: − Oral Argument held − Intervenor Plaintiffs Rodriguez, Parra and Hebert's Motion 132 to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment and defendant Quest's Motion 189 for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors − MOTIONS TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT as of 3/11/2008. Damian Lee (listening via phone − Molly Kucuk) present as counsel for plaintiff. Kevin Lafky and Larry Linder for Intervenor Plaintiffs Rodriguez, Parra, Hebert; Cody Weston and David Symes for defendant Quest (also present David Miller). Court Reporter: Deborah Wilhelm. Michael R Hogan presiding. (Related document(s): Motion to Strike 132 , Motion for Summary Judgment 189 .) (lf) (Entered: 03/11/2008)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 23 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

03/28/2008
04/01/2008 04/10/2008
04/10/2008 04/15/2008 05/21/2008 05/22/2008 05/22/2008 06/13/2008
06/24/2008 06/27/2008 07/24/2008 07/24/2008 07/24/2008 07/29/2008 08/15/2008
09/08/2008 09/08/2008

225 Record of Order − Counsel reminded that the Pretrial Order is overdue. Counsel directed to submit in writing by 4/20/08 dates of unavailability for the months of August, September, October and November 2008 to facilitate trial scheduling. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
226 Notice re Scheduling, 225 Notice of Unavailability of Plaintiffs' Counsel for Trial.Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Scheduling, 225 .) (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
227 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Extend Deadline for Submission of Pretrial Order. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Qwest Corporation, Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
228 Report Qwest's Trial Unavailability Dates. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
229 ORDER: Granting Joint Motion for Extension of Time 227 to the extent that the Pretrial Order is due by 6/24/2008. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
230 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Extend Deadline for Submission of Pretrial Order. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
231 ORDER: Granting Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for submission of Pretrial Order 230 to the extent that the Pretrial Order is due by 7/24/2008. Ordered by Judge Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
232 ORDER: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 189 is granted in part and denied in part; In addition, the motions to strike 132 and 213 are denied. Signed on 5/22/08 by Judge Michael R Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
233 Record of Order − Counsel directed to submit dates of unavailability by 6/27/08 for the months of January, February, March and April 2009. Previously submitted information regarding dates did not culminate in trial scheduling. Ordered by Judge Michael R. Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
234 Report Qwest's Trial Unavailability Dates. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
235 Report Regarding Plaintiff−Intervenors' Trial Unavailability for January−April 2009. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
236 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
237 Declaration of Larry L. Linder. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time 236 .) (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
238 Certificate of Service by Gabriel Parra of Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time 236 Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
239 ORDER: Granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time 236 . Pretrial Order is due by 9/8/2008. Ordered by Judge Michael R. Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
240 Trial Management Order − Pretrial Documents are due by 1/19/2009, 1/23/09, 1/27/09. Pretrial Conference is set for 2/3/2009 at 11:30AM in Eugene before U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. 10 Day Jury Trial is set for 2/18/2009 at 09:00AM in Eugene before U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. (Click on the document number for this entry for complete trial information) Ordered by Judge Michael R. Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
241 Joint Proposed Pretrial Order Lodged. Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
242 Certificate of Service by Gabriel Parra of Proposed Pretrial Order − Joint 241 Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 09/08/2008)

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 24 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

09/08/2008
09/10/2008 12/09/2008
12/17/2008 12/18/2008 12/29/2008 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 01/21/2009 01/30/2009

243 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephone Conference held regarding defendant's 8/28/08 letter request to continue trial date. Pretrial Documents are due by 1/5/2009, 1/9/09, 1/13/09. Pretrial Conference Advanced from 2/3/09 to 1/20/2009 at 11:30AM in Eugene before U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. 5−6 Day Jury Trial is Advanced from 2/18/09 to 2/3/2009 at 01:00PM in Eugene before U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan.Trial Management Order to be issued. Kevin Lafky present as counsel for plaintiff/intervenors. Paul Fortino and David Symes present as counsel for defendant. Court Reporter: None. Michael R. Hogan presiding. (lf) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
244 Trial Management Order − Pretrial documents due 1/5/09, 1/9/09, 1/13/09. Pretrial Conference set 1/20/09 at 11:30am in Eugene before Judge Hogan. 5−6 Day Jury Trial set 2/3/09 at 1:00PM in Eugene before Judge Hogan. (Click on the document number for this entry for complete trial information) Ordered by Judge Michael R. Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
245 Scheduling Order by Thomas M. Coffin. RECORD OF order setting settlement conference for December 18, 2008, at 10:00 am., at the U.S. Courthouse in Eugene, before Judge Coffin. Presence of all parties with settlement authority required. This includes anyone who is to have input on the decision of whether or not to settle the case. All settlement conferences invariably involve a negotiating process, the sifting of facts, the analysis of legal issues, and the candid evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of a partys case, along with a candid appraisal of the anticipated gains from further litigation balanced against the risks associated with that litigation. If any of the parties is going to seek input from a third person(s) regarding decisions associated with the settlement of a case, that third person should be present during all phases of the settlement process. Examples would include a spouse, parent, or any other adviser upon whom the party will rely upon for advice. Ordered parties to submit settlement document to the court by 5:00 p.m., December 15, 2008, in which they state realistic proposals they are willing to make or accept to resolve this case. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT. Any party who, without prior court approval, fails to have all persons with settlement authority present, may be subject to sanctions. Such sanctions may include costs and attorney fees of the other parties attending the settlement conference. (cw) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
246 Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Settlement Conference is reset from 12/17/08, to 12/29/2008 at 10:15AM in Eugene before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. PRESENCE OF ALL PARTIES WITH SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED FOR THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. (cw) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
247 Joint Motion to Continue Trial Date and Extend Pretrial Deadlines − Expedited Consideration Requested. Filed by Qwest Corporation, Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
249 MINUTES of Proceedings: Settlement Conference held 12/29/08. Settlement negotiations ongoing. Kevin Lafky, Larry Linder, Damien Lee present as counsel for plaintiffs. David Symes present as counsel for defendan. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (cw) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
248 Record of Order − Granting Joint Motion to Continue 247 1/20/09 Pretrial Conference and 2/3/09 Trial Date. Counsel to submit in writing by 1/21/09 dates of unavailability for the months of April, May and June, 2009 to facilitate trial scheduling. Ordered by U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. (lf) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
250 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal: for Larry L. Linder.Filed by Gabriel Parra. (Linder, Larry) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
251 Report Qwest's Trial Unavailability Dates. Filed by Qwest Corporation. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
252 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephonic Status Conference held 1/30/09. Further Status Conference is set for 2/4/2009 at 02:00PM by Telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The court will initiate the call. Kevin Lafky, Damian Lee present as counsel for plaintiff(s). David Symes present as counsel for defendant(s).

Case 6:05-cv-1521 As of 07/09/2018 01:35 PM PDT Page 25 of 25 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/04/2009
02/05/2009
02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/26/2009 02/27/2009 02/27/2009

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (cw) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
253 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephonic Status Conference held 2/4/09 re: settlement agreement. Ordered further Status Conference is set for 2/5/2009 at 02:00PM by Telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The court will initiate the call. Kevin Lafky, Damian Lee present as counsel for plaintiff(s). David Symes present as counsel for defendant(s). Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (cw) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
254 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephonic Status Conference held 2/5/09, regarding settlement agreement. Counsel may request a further status conference through the clerk if necessary. Kevin Lafky, Damian Lee present as counsel for plaintiff(s). David Symes present as counsel for defendant(s). Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (cw) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
255 Order of Dismissal. Signed on 2/17/09 by Clerk (sln) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
256 Order withdrawing the clerk's 60 day order of dismissal in this matter. Counsel shall file a consent decree with the court. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (cw) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
257 Proposed Form of Order Submitted Consent Decree and Proposed Order of Dismissal. Filed by EEOC. (Lee, Damian) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
258 Stipulation of Dismissal by Qwest Corporation, Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. Filed by Qwest Corporation, Tony Rodriguez, Jr, Gabriel Parra, Tracy Hebert. (Weston, Cody) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
259 Consent Decree and Order of Dismissal. Signed on 2/27/09 by U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. (sln) (Entered: 02/27/2009)

 
 KEVIN T. LAFKY, OSB #85263 klafky~,la~ky.com LARRY L. LINDER, OSB #01072 1linder~lafkv.com Lafky & Lafky 429 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301 tel: (503) 585-2450 fax: (503) 585-0205 Attorney for Plaintiff Tracy J. Hebert

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TRACY J. HEBERT,

Plaintiff,

Docket No. 05-1521-HO

v. QWEST CORPORATION,
Defendant.

INTERVENING COMPLAINT--STATE STATUTORY DISCRIMINATION; VIOLATION OF TITLE VII; VIOLATION OF 42 USC tj 1981 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS and WRONGFUL DISCHARGE (Jury Trial Requested)

Plaintiff alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Jurisdiction is appropriate for this Court after Plaintiff co-filed a complaint with the
Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ("BOLI") and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") and the EEOC filed a civil suit regarding the complaint on September
Page 1-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE, SAJ,EM, OR 97301 TELEPHONF ( 5 0 3 ) 585.2450 - P A X 1503) 585-0205 - Email info@afky.com

30, 2005. Plaintiff requests a jury trial in this matter. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
Venue is appropriate in this Court because events giving rise to this complaint occurred in Oregon.
3. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 USC § 1331 and brought pursuant to
claims under 42 USC 8 1981 and 2000e from which Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4.
At all relevant times Defendant Qwest Corporation ("Qwest") has been a corporation continuously doing business in the state of Oregon and has continuously had at least 500 employees.
At all relevant times, Qwest has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Title VII.
Plaintiff is a Caucasian male. At all relevant times, Gabriel Parra, Tony Rodriguez Jr., and Tony Rodriguez Sr. were employees of Qwest at its Eugene facility. They are all Hispanic and of Mexican national origin. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed by Qwest at its Eugene, Oregon facility. From at least March 2004, Qwest subjected Plaintiff to discriminatory discipline and termination on July 14,2004 based on his association with Mexican employees
Page 2-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & L,AFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE, SAJcI,EMO, R 9'301 TEl EPHoNF (503) -595 2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Ernall info@lafky coin

Gabriel Parra, Tony Rodgriguez Jr., and Tony Rodriguez Sr. in violation of state and federal law.
Qwest subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment based on his association with Gabriel Parra, Tony Rodriguez Jr., and Tony Rodriguez Sr..
8. Qwest retaliated against Plaintiff because he opposed its discriminatory practices.
FIRST CLAIM-VIOLATION OF TITLE VII (Count I-Association Disparate Treatment)
9. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-8. 42 U.S.C. s2000e-2(a) provides: "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer" to discharge an individual, "or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . .". This provision encompasses discrimination based on association with individuals of a certain race or national origin.
10. Qwest employed Plaintiff during the time in question. During the course of Plaintiffs employment with Qwest, Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on his association with Hispanic employees of Mexican national origin. Incidents of race discrimination committed by Qwest resulted in Plaintiff being denied compensation, and adversely affected Plaintiffs terms,
conditions, and privileges of his employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e-2(a).
Page 3-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT ST NE, SALEM, OR 97301
TELEPHONE (503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Email info@lafky.com

Qwest discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment on the basis of his association with Hispanic employees of Mexican national origin. This culminated in Plaintiffs employment being terminated.
12. Plaintiff has suffered non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 as a result of Qwest's race and national origin discrimination. Plaintiff requests economic damages in the form of back pay and front pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
(Count 11-Retaliation Race and National Origin Discrimination) 13.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-12. 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e-3 provides in relevant part: "it
shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his
employees . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by
this subchapter." 14.
Plaintiff complained regarding him being treated differently based on his association with Hispanics of Mexican national origin. After this complaint, Qwest retaliated against Plaintiff. //I I//
Page 4-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT ST NE, SALEM. OR 9'301
TELEPHONF (593) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Emall ~nfo@lak).om

Qwest's retaliation toward Plaintiff, because he complained about the race and national
origin discrimination, constitutes a violation of 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e-3(a) for which Plaintiff is
entitled to relief. 16.
Plaintiff has suffered non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 as a result of Qwest's retaliation directed against Plaintiff because he complained about the race and national origin discrimination. Plaintiff requests economic damages in the form of front pay and back pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $ 1988.
fCount 111: Hostile Work Environment National O r i-~ i nand Race Discrimination)
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-16. 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e-2(a) provides: "it shall be an
unlawful employment practice for an employer" to discharge an individual, "or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
Plaintiff associates with Hispanic individuals of Mexican national origin. Qwest created and maintained a hostile work environment toward Hispanics, people of Mexican national origin,
Page 5-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE,SALEM, OR 97301
- TELEPHONF (503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 Ernall mfo@lafky corr

and Caucasian individuals that associated with them. Qwest's hostile work environment, due to the actions of its employees, as provided in the paragraphs above, affected Plaintiffs ability to perform his job, caused Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress in the performance of his job, and made him subject himself to harassing commentary in order to maintain his employment. All of this adversely affected Plaintiffs terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e-2(a).
19. Qwest discriminated against Plaintiff in the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of his employment on the basis of Plaintiffs race and national origin.
20. Plaintiff has suffered non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 as a result of Qwest's hostile work environment directed against Plaintiff because he associates with Hispanics and people of Mexican national origin. Plaintiff requests economic damages in the form of front pay and back pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. 5 1988.
SECOND CLAIM-VIOLATION OF 42 USC 6 1981
21. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-20. Qwest discriminated against Plaintiff, on the basis of the race, national origin, and color of the individuals that Plaintiff associated with, in the //I
Page 6-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE, SALEM, OR 97301
TELEPHONF (503) 585-2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Emall ~nfo@lafkycorn

performance of his employment contract, and in the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, and
terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship all in violation of 42 USC 5 1981.
22. Qwest discriminated against Plaintiff in the performance of his employment contract and in the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship by creating, encouraging, and condoning a hostile work environment towards employees that associated with Hispanic individuals and individuals of Mexican national origin, all in violation
of 42 USC 5 1981.
Qwest discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff in the performance of his employment contract and in the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship because he opposed and reported unlawful discrimination based on race, national
origin and color, all in violation of 42 USC 5 1981.
As a result of Qwest's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has lost wages in an amount to be determined at trial.
As a result of Qwest's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial. I//
Page 7-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEb S AT LAW 429 C0UP.T ST NE, SAI,EM. OR 9?301
TELLPHONF (503) 585 2450 - FAX (593) 585-0205 - Ernall ~nfo@lafkycorn

The actions of Qwest were taken in bad faith, maliciously or with reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 USC
5 1988.
28. Plaintiff is entitled to such other relief as the Court deems equitable.
THIRD CLAIM-STATE STATUTORY DISCRIMINATION (Count I: Race and National Origin Discrimination) 29.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-28. According to ORS 659A.O30(a), (b) it is an unlawful employment practice, "for an employer, because of an individual's race, religion, color, sex,
national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older, . . . to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or discharge from employment such individual [or] . . . to discriminate
against such an individual in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." Discrimination, because of Plaintiffs race and national origin, committed by Qwest, as alleged above, affected Plaintiffs employment opportunities, compensation, and terms and conditions of employment and culminated in his discharge and is a direct violation of this statute. /I/
Page 8-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE,SAJ-EM, OR 9'301 TELEFHONF ( 5 0 ; ) 555 2450. FAX (5031 585-0205 - Ernall mfo@lafky corn

30. Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on his association with Hispanic individuals and individuals of Mexican national origin as described in the paragraphs above. Qwest's discrimination negatively affected Plaintiffs employment in violation of ORS 659A.O30(b). As a result of Qwest's race and national origin discrimination, Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
3 1. Pursuant to ORS 659A.885, Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorney fees and costs in this action.
JCount 11: Retaliation Race Discrimination) 32.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-31. According to ORS 659A.O30(f) it is an unlawful employment practice, "for any person to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any other person because that other person has opposed any unlawful practice, or because that other person has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter or has attempted to do so." Discrimination committed by Qwest, as alleged above, affected Plaintiffs employment opportunities, compensation, and terms and conditions of employment and is a direct violation of this statute.
Plaintiff suffered from retaliation based on his complaints of discrimination for associating with Hispanic employees and employees of Mexican national origin. Qwest's
Page 9-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST. NE,SALEM. OR 97301 TELEPHONF:(503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 - Ernail infoalafky corn

employees' retaliation toward Plaintiff negatively affected his compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment in violation of ORS 659A.O30(f). Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
34. Pursuant to ORS 659A.885, Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorney fees and costs in this action. (Count 111: Race and National Origin Hostile Work Environment Discrimination)
35. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-34. According to ORS 659A.O3O(b), it is an unlawful employment practice, "for an employer, because of an individual's race, religion, color, sex,
national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older, . . . to
discriminate against such an individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment." Discrimination committed by Qwest affected Plaintiffs employment opportunities and terms and conditions of employment and is a direct violation of the statute.
36. Plaintiff suffered from discrimination based on his association with Hispanic employees and employees of Mexican national origin. Qwest's actions created a hostile work environment towards employees that associated with Hispanics and individuals of Mexican National Origin that Plaintiff was subjected to. Qwest's hostile work environment and the actions of its employees, as provided in the paragraphs above, affected Plaintiffs ability to perform his job and caused Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress in the performance of her job. Qwest's
Page 10-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT ST NE, SAI,EM, OR 97301
TELEPHONF (503'1 585.2450 - FAX ( 5 0 3 ) 585-0205 - Ernall ~nfo@lafkycorn

discrimination negatively affected Plaintiffs employment in violation of ORS 659A.O30(b). Paintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
37. Pursuant to ORS 659A.885, Plaintiff is entitled to his reasonable attorney fees and costs in this action. FOURTH CLAIM-INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
38. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-37. Plaintiff had an employer-employee relationship with Qwest. Qwest knew that the aforementioned conduct would cause severe mental or emotional distress or acted despite a high degree of probability that the mental or emotional distress would result.
Qwest's conduct caused Plaintiff severe mental or emotional distress from the foreseeable highly unpleasant emotional reactions including fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment, and worry. Plaintiff has also suffered from depression as a result of being subjected to Qwest's discriminatory employment practices.
40. The aforementioned continuing actions of Qwest consisted of an extraordinary transgression of contemporary standards of civilized conduct toward an employee. //I
//I
Page 11-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
423 COURT ST.NE,SAJ>EM,OR 97301 TEILEFHONF (503) 585.2450 - F 4 X ( 5 0 3 ) 585-0205 - Email infoalatky corn

41. As a result of Qwest's intentional actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000. FIFTH CLAIM-RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
42. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-40. Plaintiff had an employer-employee relationship with Qwest.
43. Qwest recklessly engaged in the aforementioned actions causing severe mental or emotional distress in the form of fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment, worry, and physical illness.
The aforementioned continuing actions of Qwest consisted of an extraordinary transgression of contemporary standards of civilized conduct toward an employee.
As a result of Qwest's reckless actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000.
Page 12-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE,SAJ,EM. OR 97301 TELEPHONF ( 5 0 3 ) 585.2450 - F A X ( 5 0 3 ) 585-0205 - Ernall ~nfo@lafkycorn

SIXTH CLAIM-WRONGFUL DISCHARGE 46.
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-45. Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged from his employment with Qwest.
Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged because Plaintiff exercised a legal right that is related to Plaintiffs status or role as an employee that is of important public interest.
Plaintiff opposed discriminatory employment practices made illegal by state and federal laws. Opposing these discriminatory employment practices are legal rights that are related to Plaintiffs status or role as an employee. Opposing these discriminatory employment practices is of important public interest to protect the rights of Plaintiff and other employees. Plaintiff had a societal obligation to oppose these practices.
Plaintiff was terminated because he opposed discriminatory employment practices. This constitutes wrongful discharge.
As a result of Plaintiffs wrongful discharge, Plaintiff suffered economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the from of mental distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000. Plaintiff requests reinstatement to his former position. I//
Page 13-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE, SAJ,EM, OR 9'301
TELEPHONF (503) 585.2450 - 9- (503) 585-0205 - Emall ~nfo@lafkycorn

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following: For Plaintiffs First Claim For Relief:
Count I-Non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 and economic damages in the form of back pay and front pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial along with equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. tj 1988.
Count II-Non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 and economic damages in the form of back pay and front pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial along with equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. tj 1988.
Count III-Non-economic damages in the amount of $300,000 and economic damages in the form of back pay and front pay in an amount to be determined at the time of trial along with equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by law, in addition to his reasonable attorney fees
and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 1988.
For Plaintiff's Second Claim For Relief: Lost wages and non-economic damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial along with equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position. Plaintiff seeks recovery of all compensatory and punitive damages provided by
law in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 USC 5 1988.
I//
Page 14-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
429 COURT ST NE, SALEM, OR 97301 TELEPHONE (503) 585.2450 - F A X (503) 585-0205 - Ernail info@afky corn

For Plaintiffs Third Claim For Relief: Count I: Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position
and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to ORS 659A.885.
Count 11: Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to ORS 659A.885.
Count 111: Plaintiff requests equitable relief including reinstatement to his former position and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial in addition to his reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to ORS 659A.885. For Plaintiffs Fourth Claim For Relief: Economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000. For Plaintiffs Fifth Claim For Relief: Economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000. I//
Page 15-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT ST NE, SAI,EM, OR 97301
- TELEPHONE (503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 585-0205 Ernall ~nfo@lafkycorn

For Plaintiffs Sixth Claim For Relief: Reinstatement to his former position, economic
damages in an amount to be determined at trial and non-economic damages in the form of severe emotional distress in an amount not less than $1,000,000.
a- DATED this ilday of December, 2005.

Kevin T. ~ a & y

OSB #85263

LAFKY & LAFKY

429 Court Street NE

Salem, OR 97301

(503)585-2450

Attorneys for Intervening Plaintiff Gabriel Parra

Page 16-COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF TRACY J. HEBERT
LAFKY & LAFKY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 429 COURT ST NE, SA!,EM, OR V 3 0 1
TELEFtlONF (503) 585.2450 - FAX (503) 5 8 5 - 0 2 0 - Emall ~nfo@lafkycorn