Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 1 Filed 04/07/2003 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICf COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DMSION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

v.

§

§

MOORE & COWART

§

CONTRACTORS, INC.,

§

§

Defendant.

§

§

COMPLAINT & JURy TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to
..~ ....~ ...---................
provide appropriate relief to Manuela Anchondo, who was adversely affected by such unlawful

practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") alleges that

Defendant, Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc.("Moore & Cowart"), engaged in discriminatory

employment practices by subjecting Maria Anchondo to sexual harassment from male employees,

including supervisory personnel, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. JurisdictionofthisCourtisinvokedpursuantt028U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337,1343
and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuantto Section 706 (f) (1) and (3) of Title vn

ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1) and (3) ("Title Vll") and

Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

2.

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

Plaintiff's Original Complaint

Page 1

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 1 Filed 04/07/2003 Page 2 of 5

jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Western District ofTexas, El Paso Division. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the Commission, is the agency ofthe United StatesofAmerica charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement ofTide VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706 (f) (1) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Moore & Cowart, has continuously been a New Mexico Corporation doing business in the State of Texas, and the City ofEI Paso, Texas, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant, Moore & Cowart has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Tide VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e (b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Manuela Anchondo filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Moore & Cowart. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least February 2001, Defendant, Moore & Cowart has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its EI Paso, Texas construction sites, in violation of Section 703 (a) (1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). These practices include subjecting Manuela Anchondo, the only female member ofher construction crew, to a sexually hostile work environment, by subjecting her to egregious sexual harassment of a verbal and physical nature, and to hazing, because of her gender. 8. The effect ofthe practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive

Plaintiff's Original Complaint

Page 2

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 1 Filed 04/07/2003 Page 3 of 5

Manuela Anchmndo ofequal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her stanus as an employee, tilccause of her sex.
9. lThe unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above Wem! and are intentionaL
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were and are done with muUice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mmnuela Anchondo.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WherefInre, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. U3rant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, Moore & Cowart, its ofiiicers, successors, 8.SSli£ns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from subjectimg its female employa:cs to sexually hostile work environments, and from any employment practicew.dllch discriminates am the basis of sex; B. Order Defendant, Moore & Cowart to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs whicfh provide equal employment opportunities for females, and which eradicate tfue effects of its pmt and present unlawful employment practices; C. iOrder Defendant, Moore & Cowart to make whole Manuela Anchondo, by prowiding compensation ffor past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in parragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, medical expenses, in the amoumts to be determined;}it trial; D. I Order Defendant, Moore & Cowart to make whole Manuela Anchondo, by prowiding compensation :for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful emplo~vment

Plaintiff's Original Complaint

P:lIge 3

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 1 Filed 04/07/2003 Page 4 of 5

practices complained ofin paragraph 7above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering,

inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be detennined at trial;

E. Order Defendant, Moore & Cowart to pay Manuela Anchondo punitive damages for

its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be detennined at

trial;

F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest; and

G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURy TRIAL DEMAND

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

Respectfully submitted,

GWENDOL YN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

{ltrImJ; 1!; 1JtJM&Im --4 ~u~
ROBERT B. HARWIN
Regional Attorney
District of Columbia State Bar No. 076083

J;trfjt.T1~;"1 fW"'1",-

Supervisory Trial Attorney

Texas State Bar No. 19708300

~~ L TICIADOM~

Trial Attorney

\j

Texas State Bar No. 00795741

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Plaintiff's Original Complaint

Page 4

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 1 Filed 04/07/2003 Page 5 of 5
El Paso Area Office 300 E. Main Dr., Suite 500 EI Paso, Texas 79901
Telephone: (915) 534-6676 Facsimile: (915) 534-6701
ATTORNEYSFORPLAlNT~F

Plaintiff's Original ColIlpilaint

PageS

 
 Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 25 Filed 05/17/2004 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT· WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

EQUALEMPLOYM NT OPPORTUNITY §

COMNtlSSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

and

§

§

MANUELA ANCHONDO,

§

§

Plaintiff-Intervenor

§

§

v.

§

§

MOORE & COWART

§

CONTRACTORS, INC.,

§

§

Defendant.

§

--
Civil Action No. EP-03-CA-0121-KC

CONSENT DECREE

The parties to this Consent Decree are the Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), Plaintiff-Intervenor, Manuela Anchondo, and Defendant,

Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc. ("Moore & Cowart"). This Consent Decree resolves the

above-referenced Civil Action No. EP-03-CA-0121-KC. The EEOC initiated this lawsuit under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq. ("Title VII")

and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

Plaintiffs Complaint in this lawsuit asserts unlawful employment practices on the basis

of gender, and seeks to provide relief to Manuela Anchondo. Ms. Anchondo is female, and

Plaintiff EEOC alleges, in the Complaint, that she was subjected to discrimination, in violation

of Title VII, when she was sexually harassed and subjected to an illegally hostile working

environment, because of her gender.

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 25 Filed 05/17/2004 Page 2 of 9
Manuela Anchondo had previously filed suit against Defendant Moore & Cowart in state court raising various state law claims. After Ms. Anchondo's state court lawsuit was removed to federal court, it was consolidated with this lawsuit.
In Manuela Anchondo's Original Petition, in her state court lawsuit, she alleges that she was discharged in retaliation for her protests against what she reasonably believed to be sexual harassment, in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, and that, as a result of the sexual harassment to which she was subjected, Defendant Moore & Cowart acted negligently towards her, invaded her privacy, intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her, subjected her to battery, assaulted her, and acted grossly negligently towards her.
The EEOC, Manuela Anchondo, and Moore & Cowart wish to settle this Action, without the necessity of further litigation, pursuant to the terms delineated in this Decree.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and the parties, venue is proper, and all administrative prerequisites to the filing of this action have been met. The Complaint and the Original Petition state claims on behalf of Manuela Anchondo which, if proved, would authorize this Court to grant relief against Moore & Cowart, pursuant to Title VII, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. 2. This Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in EEOC's Complaint in this case, and all the issues raised in Manuela Anchondo's Original Petition. EEOC waives further litigation of all issues raised in the above-referenced Complaint and Manuela Anchondo waives further litigation of all issues raised in the above-referenced Original Petition. EEOC expressly reserves its right, however, to process and litigate any other charges which may now be pending
2

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 25 Filed 05/17/2004 Page 3 of 9
or may in the future be filed against Moore & Cowart. 3. The duration of this Consent Decree shall be three years from the date of its filing
with the Court. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during the period of this Consent Decree and may enter such other and further relief as it deems appropriate to ensure implementation and enforcement of its provisions. Any violation of the Consent Decree by Moore & Cowart, or its agents or assigns, shall toll the running of this three-year period as of the date of the violation. If the Court subsequently determines this Consent Decree was violated, the three~year period shall recommence and continue from the date of entry of an Order setting out such a violation or until such time as ordered by the Court. Should the Court find this Consent Decree was not violated, the three-year period shall recommence, retroactive to the date of the filing of the pleading alleging that a violation had occurred.
4. Moore & Cowart, in settlement of this dispute, shall pay to Manuela Anchondo the sum total of$35,000. The payment to Ms. Anchondo shall be sent directly to counsel for Ms. Anchondo, Hector Phillips, of Hector Phillips, P.C., 1017 Montana Ave., El Paso, TX 79902. A copy of any settlement check and any accompanying transmittal documents shall be forwarded to the EEOC to the attention of Robert B. Harwin, Regional Attorney, 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200, San Antonio, TX 78229.
5. In providing employment references regarding Manuela Anchondo, Moore & Cowart shall make no mention of the filing of the Complaint, the Original Petition, or the underlying charges filed by Ms. Anchondo.
6. Moore & Cowart shall expunge the personnel files of Manuela Anchondo of any and all documents relating to the EEOC charge filed by Manuela Anchondo, Plaintiffs
3

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 25 Filed 05/17/2004 Page 4 of 9
Complaint, and/or Manuela Anchondo's Original Petiti~n. 7. Moore & Cowart, its agents, officers, employees, servants, successors, and
assigns, are enjoined, during the term of this Consent Decree, from discriminating against any employee on the basis of gender. The conduct enjoined includes allowing any of its employees to be subjected to a sexually hostile work environment.
8. Moore & Cowart, its agents, officers, employees, servants, successors, and assigns, are also enjoined, during the term of this Consent Decree, from retaliating in any manner whatsoever against Manuela Anchondo and/or any other past, present, or future employee, who opposes any employment practice which she reasonably believes to be unlawful, pursuant to Title VII, or who files a discrimination charge, gives testimony or assistance, or participates in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, hearing or action under Title VII.
9. Moore & Cowart, its agents, officers, employees, servants, successors, and assigns, shall provide its employees with a place of employment free of discrimination on the basis of gender, and free of retaliation.
10. Moore & Cowart, its agents, officers, employees, servants, successors, and assigns, shall post a notice regarding their practices, policies, and intent not to discriminate or retaliate against any employee in violation of Title VII. Such notice shall be as set forth in Exhibit "A", which is attached to this Consent Decree. A copy of Exhibit "A" shall be posted on all employee bulletin boards, and other areas where employees are likely to congregate. The notice shall be posted within 10 days of the filing date of the Consent Decree, and shall remain posted for the duration of this Consent Decree.
11. Moore & Cowart shall disseminate a notice to all employees re-affirming its
4

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 25 Filed 05/17/2004 Page 5 of 9
policy to comply with all EEOC requirements, re-affirming any policy manual provision
regarding the Company policy not to discriminate on the basis of gender, or any other protected
characteristic, and the Company policy not to retaliate against any employee who protests against discrimination, and including with said notice, a copy of Exhibit "A" requesting that each employee sign and return an acknowledgment that they have received said notice.
12. To further the ends of this Consent Decree, within ninety (90) days ofthe entry of this Decree, all of Moore & Cowart's staff shall participate in equal employment opportunity compliance training of between two and four hours. This training will be provided by Joseph L. Hood, Jr., William Cooksey, andlor a member of their respective law firms who is knowledgeable in employment discrimination law, and shall: (a) explain the law relating to discrimination in employment based on gender, including but not limited to, sexual harassment and sexually hostile working environments; (b) explain the law relating to retaliation under Title VII, including but not limited to, discharges; (c) explain the damaging effects of discrimination based on gender to victims, their families, their co-workers, and the workplace environment; and (d) explain the damaging effects of retaliation to victims, their families, their co-workers, and the workplace environment. In addition, the training shall teach non-discriminatory work and management techniques when interfacing or interacting with other employees, and the responsibilities of supervisory employees and human resources personnel to provide prompt and effective relief to individuals who complain of discrimination based on gender, or who complain of retaliation.
13. The EEOC shall have the right to ensure compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree and may: (a) conduct inspections of any of Moore & Cowart's facilities; (b)
5

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 25 Filed 05/17/2004 Page 6 of 9
interview employees of Moore & Cowart; and (c) examine and copy relevant documents. 14. The terms ofthis Consent Decree shall be binding upon the EEOC, Manuela
Anchondo, and Moore & Cowart, their agents, officers, employees, servants, successors, and assigns, as to the issues resolved herein.
15. Each party shall bear its own costs, including attorney's fees incurred in this action.
16. The parties agree that there is no prevailing party in this action or proceeding. The Clerk shall furnish a copy hereof to each attorney of record.
SO ORDERED.
Signed this / rt~y of--t..--L~~__' 2004.
THLEENC ONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 25 Filed 05/17/2004 Page 7 of 9
·..
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 25 Filed 05/17/2004 Page 8 of 9
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
MOORE & COWART CONTRACTORS, INC. IS FIRMLY COMMITTED TO TREATING EMPLOYEES ACCORDING TO MERIT WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR RACE, RELIGION, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX, AGE, DISABILITY, OR THEIR HAVING ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY PROTECTED BY TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED. THIS POLICY APPLIES TO ALL EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS, AND ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. MOORE & COWART WILL SPECIFICALLY NOT TOLERATE GENDER DISCRIMINATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND/OR SEXUALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENTS. MOORE & COWART WILL ALSO SPECIFICALLY NOT TOLERATE RETALIATION AGAINST ANY EMPLOYEE WHO PROTESTS AGAINST WHAT THEY REASONABL Y BELIEVE TO BE GENDER DISCRIMINATION, SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND/OR A SEXUALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT.
IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF YOUR RACE, RELIGION, COLOR, SEX, AGE, DISABILITY, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, INCLUDING BEING SEXUALLY HARASSED, DISCHARGED, OR THREATENED WITH DISCHARGE IN RETALIATION FOR YOUROPPOSITIONTOWHATYOUPERCEIVEASGENDERDISCRIMINATION,SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND/OR A SEXUALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT, YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO SEEK ASSISTANCE FROM SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL, OR FROM THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE EEOC, 300 E. MAIN, SUITE 500, ELPASO, TEXAS 79901, (915) 5346700 OR 1-800-669-4000. NO RETALIATORY ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU FOR SEEKING ASSISTANCE, FILING A CHARGE, OR COMMUNICATING WITH THE EEOC.
THE EEOC ENFORCES TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, WHICH PROHIBITS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX OR NATIONAL ORIGIN; THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT; THE EQUAL PAY ACT, SECTIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1991, AND TITLE I OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, WHICH PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN THE WORKPLACE.

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 25 Filed 05/17/2004 Page 9 of 9

Dated: ~t,h<!:If
i
HECTOR PHILLIPS Attorney Texas State Bar No. 00792759 HECTOR PHILLIPS, P.C. 1017 Montana Ave. EI Paso, IX 79902
1.6l <...ql.;') &38·$0,,0
F~y;:(",,'») ~~8-70"O
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFINTERVENOR
~MA1'lh1'
JO L. HOOD, JR. Attorney Texas State Bar No. 09943250 SCOTT, HULSE, MARSHALL, FEUILLE, FINGER & THURMOND
P.O. Box 99123 EI Paso, IX 79999-9123
Tel: (915) 533-2493 Fax: (915) 546-8333 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

R~ i-Jfit~;t4 ~~~~

Regional Attorney D.C. State Bar No. 0760873

<+1 DwlJj1~
JiJDITH TA'ilOR

~ , ,

Supervisory Trial Attorney

Texas State Bar No. 19708300

L~lJEtS"
Trial Attorney Texas State Bar No. 00795741

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
EI Paso Area Office 300 E. Main, Suite 500 EI Paso, Texas 79901
Tel: (915) 534-6676 Fax: (915) 534-6701
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

7

 
 Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 23 Filed 03/10/2004 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT· ", L :FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION, et aI.,

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

v.

§

§

MOORE & COWART

§

CONTRACTORS, INC.

§

§

Defendant.

§

NO. EP-03-CA-121-KC EP-03-CA-135-KC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

On this day came on for consideration the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant

Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc. to Respond to Discovery Requests and the Court, having

considered same, is of the opinion that the following order should be entered.

I. Procedural Background

On April 7, 2003, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed its

original Complaint against Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc. (Defendant) alleging unlawful

employment practices in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Section

102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981 a. (Dkt. 1). Manuela Anchondo, the

person alleged to be the victim of the Defendant's conduct, also filed an individual cause

of action in state court. On April 11, 2003, the Defendant removed to federal court the

state lawsuit of Ms. Anchondo. (EP-03-CA-135, Dkt. 1). By order dated June 12, 2003,

1

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 23 Filed 03/10/2004 Page 2 of 5
these two lawsuits were consolidated into the instant case. (Dkt. 8).1 II.
Factual Allegations The EEOC claims the Defendant subjected Manuela Anchondo to a sexually hostile work environment by engaging in "... egregious sexual harassment of a verbal and physical nature, and to hazing, because of her gender." (Dkt. 1, p. 2, 1{7). Further, the EEOC alleges the Defendant committed these acts intentionally and with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Anchondo. For this knowing conduct, the EEOC seeks punitive damages. (Dkt. 1, p.4, sec. E).
III. Discovery In Dispute Presently at issue are two discovery requests seeking to learn the Defendant's net worth: Interrogatory No.2 and Request for Production NO.2. In brief, the EEOC relies on the general principle that the net worth of a defendant is relevant when punitive damages have been properly pled. (PI's. Motion to Compel, Dkt. 15, p. 2). The Defendant, on the other hand, asserts that since Title 42 U.S.C. §1981 a "caps" noncompensatory and punitive damages in this case to $50,000, the Defendant's net worth is irrelevant. (Def's. Response to Motion to Compel, Dkt. 19, p. 3). Contrary to the sentiment expressed during the hearing on the motion, the Court now believes this issue is neither novel nor unique. A number of courts have faced this question (more than a few involving the EEOC). Although there is some room for debate, the weight of authority is heavily on the side of disclosure.
1Ms. Anchondo is not a participant in the discovery dispute made the basis of this Order.
2

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 23 Filed 03/10/2004 Page 3 of 5
IV. Discussion The purpose of discovery is to permit the parties "... to develop fully and crystalize concise factual issues for triaL" Burns v. Thiokol Chemical Corp., 483 F.2d 300, 304 (5th Cir. 1973). To accomplish this purpose, courts are encouraged to apply a liberal construction of "relevance". Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 2389 (1978); Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 284 (5th Cir. 1982). That is, discovery is permitted on any matter that bears, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. at 351, 98 S.Ct. at 2389, citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495,501,67 S.Ct. 385, 388 (1947). However, consistent with the notice-pleading system, discovery is not limited to issues raised in the pleadings because it is the purpose of discovery to foster the definition and clarification of the issues. Id., citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495,501,67 S.Ct. 385, 388 (1947). Moreover, the party opposing discovery has the burden of proving lack of relevance. McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apfell, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990). With respect to a defendant's financial information, the traditional rule is that net worth is relevant when punitive damages are recoverable. See, e.g., City of Newport v. Facts Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 270,101 S.Ct. 2748, 2761 (1981). More specifically with regard to punitive damages in a Title VII employment lawsuit initiated by the EEOC, several courts have held that net worth is relevant and subject to disclosure. E. E. O. C. v. Staffing Network, L.L.C., 2002 WL 31473840, at *3-4 (N.D. III. 2002) (defendant's quarterly and annual financial statements and federal income tax returns were relevant to
3

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 23 Filed 03/10/2004 Page 4 of 5
the issue of punitive damages notwithstanding the cap of § 1981 a); E. E. O. C. v. Ian
Schrager Hotels, Inc., 2000 WL 307470, at *4(C.D.Cal. 2000) (documents reflecting defendant's net worth are relevant where punitive damages are available); E. E. O. C. v. Klockner H & K Machines, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 233, 235-36 (E.D. Wisc. 1996) (permitted discovery of net worth over defendant's objection that general rule of relevancy is
inapplicable due to the cap found in § 1981 a).
There are a number of other courts that have held net worth to be relevant in Title VII employment discrimination lawsuits where punitive damages are sought by the plaintiff. Horizon Holdings, L.L.C., et al. v. Genmar Holdings, Inc., et al., 209 F.R.D. 208, 215-16 (D.Kan. 2002); Clarkv. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1994 WL 396478, at*2-3 (E.D. Pa., 1994), modified on other grounds, 1994 WL 406575 (E.D. Pa, 1994); Lee v. Junior College District, 1995 WL 363428, *1-2 (E.D. Missouri, 1994).2
Defendant objects to Interrogatory No.2 alleging that it seeks irrelevant information. The EEOC in the instant case has sued for punitive damages. The parties agree there is a $50,000 limit on the nonpecuniary and punitive damages that can be assessed against the Defendant. This limitation notwithstanding, the Court finds, based on the case law set forth above, that Defendant's net worth is relevant. Moreover, the documents sought in Request for Production No. 2 are relevant and should be produced. Cruce v.
2There is a minority opinion which holds that net worth information is irrelevant in computing punitive damages. Yund v. Covington Foods, Inc., 193 F.R.D. 582, 583-84 (S.D. Ind. 2000). The holding in Yund has been sufficiently called into question in a case involving almost identical facts as the instant case. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Staffing Network, L.L.C., 2002 WL 31473840, at *4 (N.D. III. 2002). Accordingly, the Court finds the reasoning of Magistrate Judge Nolan persuasive and concludes that Yund does not control the EEOC's discovery request. Id.
4

Case 3:03-cv-00121-KC Document 23 Filed 03/10/2004 Page 5 of 5

Schuchmann, 1993 WL 139222, at *1-2 (D. Kan. 1993).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant respond to Interrogatory No.2 and

produce the documents requested in Request for Production No.2 within ten days of the

entry date of this order. Signed and entered this

rn \0\~ day of

Aac.~

,2004.

Richard P. Mesa United States Magistrate Judge

5

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?260622710142423-L_9...

CLOSED, CONSOLIDATED
U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas (El Paso) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:03-cv-00121-KC

Equal Employment v. Moore & Cowart Contr Assigned to: Honorable Kathleen Cardone Demand: $0 Case in other court: member case, 3:03-cv-00135 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 04/07/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Judith G. Taylor U.S. EEOC San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredricksburg Rd. Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 (210) 281-7673 Fax: 210/281-7669 Email: judith.taylor@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leticia Dominguez Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 300 E. Main Suite 500 El Paso, TX 79901 (915) 534-6676 Fax: 915/534-6701 Email: Tisha.Dominguez@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. Harwin Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 (210) 281-7643 Fax: (210) 281-7669 Email: robert.harwin@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 4

4/27/2007 2:57 PM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?260622710142423-L_9...

V. Consol Plaintiff Manuela Anchondo
V. Defendant Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc. V. Consol Defendant Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc.

represented by Hector Phillips 1017 Montana El Paso, TX 79902 (915)838-8000 Fax: 915/838-7060 Email: hectorphillips@sbcglobal.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph L. Hood, Jr. Scott, Hulse, Marshall, Feuille, Finger & Thurmond, P.C. P.O. Box 99123 El Paso, TX 79999-9123 (915) 533-2493 Fax: 915/546-8333 Email: jhoo@scotthulse.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Cooksey Dubois, Cooksey & Bischoff, P.A. 2040 Fourth St., N/W. Albuquerque, NM 87102 505-243-6721 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed
02/02/2003 04/07/2003 04/07/2003

#

Docket Text

18 Certificate of service by Moore & Cowart Contractors, Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (aq) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
Case assigned to Judge David Briones (jm) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
1 Complaint filed. (Pages: 5) (jm) (Entered: 04/08/2003)

2 of 4

4/27/2007 2:57 PM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?260622710142423-L_9...

04/07/2003 06/06/2003 06/10/2003 06/12/2003
06/16/2003
07/01/2003 07/03/2003
07/03/2003 08/04/2003
09/12/2003 09/12/2003 09/18/2003 09/18/2003 11/21/2003 12/12/2003 01/21/2004 01/23/2004

Attorney for Plaintiff stated "summons to be waived" (jm) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
2 Order directing parties to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Local Rule CV-16 signed by Judge David Briones (rc) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
3 Joint motion by Equal Employment, Moore & Cowart Contr to consolidate cases (fe) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
4 Order granting joint motion to consolidate cases [3-1] signed by Judge David Briones EP-03-cv121DB lead case and EP-03-cv-135DB member case this case is consolidate with EP-03-CV-121DB all filing to be docketed in this case. (fe) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
5 Order that joint motion to extend the time to file proposed discovery plant is granted due 6/30/03(this motion is in member case 3:03cv135) signed by Judge David Briones (fe) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
6 Notice of filing proposed discovery plan by Equal Employment, Moore & Cowart Contr (mt) (Entered: 07/01/2003)
7 Scheduling order setting Joining of parties, amending of pleadings on 8/29/03 Deadline for filing of all motions 2/13/04 Discovery cutoff 2/2/04 ; Alternate Dispute Resolution Report due by 1/31/03 ; Jury Selection set for 9:00 3/29/04 ; Jury trial set for 9:00 3/29/04 signed by Judge David Briones (mt) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
8 Letter/Correspondence regarding: from the Court regarding courtroom protocol (mt) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
9 Alternate Dispute Resolution Report filed by Equal Employment, Moore & Cowart Contr, Manuela Anchondo, Moore & Cowart Contr, Party(s) agree to Alternate Dispute Resolution (fe) (Entered: 08/04/2003)
10 Order transferring case signed by Judge David Briones to the docket of Judge Kathleen Cardone (mm1) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
Case reassigned from Judge David Briones to Judge Kathleen Cardone (mm1) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
11 Order regarding motion filing procedure before Judge Cardone signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone (mm1) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
12 Order regarding magistrate referrals signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone (mm1) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
13 Proposed / Witness List by Equal Employment (mt) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
14 Return of service executed as to Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc. in re: Moore & Cowart Contr on 12/11/03 (aq) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
15 Motion by Equal Employment to compel (aq) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
16 Motion by Equal Employment, Moore & Cowart Contr, Manuela Anchondo to amend scheduling order so as to enlarge the remaining deadlines by one month (aq) (Entered: 01/23/2004)

3 of 4

4/27/2007 2:57 PM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?260622710142423-L_9...

01/28/2004
02/04/2004 02/05/2004 02/09/2004 03/05/2004 03/10/2004 04/16/2004 05/17/2004 05/17/2004 05/21/2004

17 Order granting motion to amend scheduling order so as to enlarge the remaining deadlines by one month [16-1] re scheduling order deadlines: ; Deadline for filing of all motions by 3/15/04 ; Discovery deadline on 3/1/04 ; Jury Selection set for 4/26/04 ; Jury Trial set for 4/26/04 signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone (aq) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
19 Response by Moore & Cowart Contr motion to compel [15-1] (aq) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
20 Certificate of service by Moore & Cowart Contractors, Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (aq) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
21 Notice Motion hearing motion to compel [15-1] for 2:00 3/4/04 set before U.S. Magistrate Mesa (aq) Modified on 02/10/2004 (Entered: 02/10/2004)
22 Minutes of proceedings for discovery-motion to compel conducted on 3/4/04 by Judge Mesa. Court Reporter: electronic recording (dl1) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
23 Order granting motion to compel [15-1] signed by Honorable Richard P. Mesa (dl1) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
24 Joint Motion by Equal Employment, Moore & Cowart Contr, Manuela Anchondo for Entry of Consent Decree (aq) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
25 CONSENT DECREE, Order granting motion for Entry of Consent Decree [24-1] signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone (aq) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
26 Consent Decree signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone (Pages: 9) (aq) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
Case closed (aq) (Entered: 05/21/2004)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

04/27/2007 14:57:18

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

nniles 3:03-cv-00121-KC 0.16

4 of 4

4/27/2007 2:57 PM