Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. MINI MART, INC. d/b/a LOAF ‘N JUG,
Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMAND ______________________________________________________________________________
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is a public enforcement action to correct (1) an unlawful employment practice of a hostile work environment based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, and (2) an unlawful employment practice of retaliating against employees for complaining about discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. This action seeks to provide appropriate relief to Charging Parties, both former employees of Loaf ‘N Jug, and to similarly situated individuals adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), contends Defendant, Mini Mart, Inc. d/b/a Loaf ‘N Jug (“Loaf ‘N Jug”) has discriminated against Charging Parties and similarly situated individuals, because of their gender, by subjecting them to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the sexual harassment, and by retaliating

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 2 of 9
against them for complaining about the hostile work environment, all in violation of Title VII. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 703(a), 704, 706(f)(1), 706(f)(3), of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3, 2000e-5(f)(1), 2000e-5(f)(3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, District of Colorado.
3. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Suzanne L. Diesing and Sarah Short, two females employed in Defendant’s Littleton store, filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Colorado and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
2

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 3 of 9
7. The female employees who filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC will be hereafter referred to as “Diesing” and “Short.”
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. Diesing was hired as a store clerk in the Littleton store on September 10, 2001, and was assigned to work in the restaurant portion of the store. Short was hired as a store clerk on December 7, 2002, and was assigned to work in the restaurant portion of the store. In early February of 2003, Diesing began training as a Restaurant Manager in the restaurant. 9. On or about February 14, 2003, Steve Nelson was assigned to work as Manager at the Loaf ‘N Jug store. 10. Immediately upon assuming his position as Manager, Nelson began sexually harassing Diesing, Short, and other female employees. 11. Nelson grabbed Diesing’s crotch and rubbed against her breasts, constantly making sexual comments about her body. 12. Nelson made lewd sexual comments to Short, making comments about her buttocks and other body parts. 13. Nelson made lewd, sexual comments about both Diesing and Short to customers, and customers complained. 14. When Diesing and Short resisted Nelson’s attempts at touching them, Nelson responded with force and threatening comments. 15. On or about February 19, 2003, Short complained to Diesing regarding Nelson’s offensive conduct. Diesing, in turn, contacted the District Manager, Brian Carlson, telling him that there were problems regarding sexual harassment at the store.
3

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 4 of 9
16. Carlson did not respond to Diesing’s complaint, and the harassment continued. 17. Because Diesing did not receive a response from management regarding the harassment, Diesing scheduled Short to be with her as often as she could so that she wouldn’t be alone with Nelson. There were rumors among the employees that Nelson had similarly harassed female employees at the Evergreen location prior to coming to the Littleton location. 18. On or about February 21, 2003, Carlson came to the store and informed Diesing that the female employees would have to “deal with it” because he did not have a replacement for Nelson. 19. Unsatisfied with Carlson’s response, Short then personally complained to Carlson. She asked to speak to him alone, and proceeded to detail what had occurred. She went on to tell Carlson that if the situation is not dealt with, she would contact a lawyer. 20. The harassment continued, and on or about February 26, 2003, Short warned Nelson that, if the harassment did not stop, the female employees would contact the police, pointing out that his behavior was probably captured by the store’s surveillance cameras. 21. Diesing called Carlson at least twice more to ask him to take action but he did not answer either time; she left voice messages for him and he did not respond. 22. On or about February 27, 2003, nine days after Short first complained to Diesing, and seven days after they both complained to Carlson, Carlson and an unidentified female district manager came into the store and went to the back office. Short and Diesing followed them into the back office to ask about the status of their complaints. When they opened the door, they discovered the managers pulling film out of the surveillance tapes, thus destroying them. 23. Nelson left the store at 1:30 pm and was replaced by Greg Kryl. That same day,
4

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 5 of 9
Carlson told Diesing and Short that they were going to be fired. When Diesing responded she did nothing to warrant a discharge, Carlson told her that would be true if “she kept her mouth shut.”
24. On or about February 28, 2003, Diesing was told she had been discharged. A few days later, Short was told she had been discharged.
25. Loaf ‘N Jug failed to take reasonable measures to prevent Nelson’s sexual harassment of female employees.
26. Loaf ‘N Jug failed to take reasonable, prompt measures to eliminate Nelson’s sexual harassment of female employees.
27. Loaf ‘N Jug failed to take reasonable measures to remedy the adverse effects of Nelson’s sexual harassment of female employees.
28. Loaf ‘N Jug retaliated against Diesing and Short for complaining about the sexual harassment by discharging them from employment.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Sexual Harassment)
29. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint. 30. Nelson’s offensive sexual conduct in the workplace was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employees subjected to the conduct. 31. Nelson’s offensive sexual conduct in the workplace constitutes sexual harassment. 32. Nelson’s sexual harassment created a hostile work environment based on gender. 33. Loaf ‘N Jug knew of Nelson’s sexual harassment. 34. Loaf ‘N Jug failed to take reasonable measures to prevent and promptly correct
5

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 6 of 9
sexual harassment in the workplace. 35. Loaf ‘N Jug engaged in a pattern or practice of tolerating a sexually hostile work
environment. 36. The effect of the events described above, including Nelson’s sexual harassment
and Loaf ‘N Jug’s failure to promptly and adequately respond to employee complaints of sexual harassment, has been to deprive Diesing, Short and other similarly situated individuals, of equal employment opportunities.
37. The unlawful employment practices described above were intentional. 38. The unlawful employment practices described above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Diesing, Short and other similarly situated individuals.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Retaliation)
39. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint. 40. Plaintiff asserts that Diesing and Short had engaged in protected activities, repeatedly complaining about the sexual harassment and the hostile work environment. 41. Plaintiff asserts that, after Diesing and Short engaged in these protected activities, Loaf ‘N Jug terminated their employment. 42. The effect of the practices complained of in the paragraphs above has been to deprive Diesing and Short of equal employment opportunities based on their gender. 43. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the paragraphs above were intentional.
6

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 7 of 9
44. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Diesing and Short.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, Mini Mart, Inc. d/b/a Loaf ‘N Jug, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment policy or practice which creates a sexually hostile work environment or otherwise discriminates on the basis of gender, and from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination; B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices, including retaliation; C. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Parties and similarly situated individuals, by providing appropriate back pay with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; D. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above; E. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation;
7

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 8 of 9

F. Order Defendant to pay Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals

punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be

determined at trial;

G. Order Defendant and its successors to provide training to its officers, managers

and employees regarding discriminatory harassment and retaliation in the workplace;

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

interest; and

I. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

Dated: September 28, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

JOSEPH H. MITCHELL Regional Attorney Denver District Office

NANCY A. WEEKS Supervisory Trial Attorney
/s/ Anjuli Kelotra ANJULI KELOTRA Trial Attorney (303) 866-1378 KIM R. ROGERS Trial Attorney EEOC Denver District Office 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203

8

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 9 of 9
PLEASE NOTE: For the purposes of service upon the EEOC, it is sufficient that pleadings, notices, and court documents be served upon the Trial Attorneys.
9

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW Document 7 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 1 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:05-cv-01880-LTB
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. Plaintiff,
I
and SUZANNE L. DEISING and SARAH SHORT,
Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. MINI-MART, INC. d/b/a LOAF 'N JUG
Defendants.
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND
By and through their counsel Stephen P. Gilmartin of Godin & Baity LLC, PlaintiffIntervenors Suzanne L. Diesing and Sarah Short for their Complaint in Intervention and Jury Demand against Defendant Mini Mart, Inc. d/b/a Loaf 'N Jug ("Mini Mart") state as follows.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1331 and 1367. Plaintiff-Intervenors make claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 USC § 2000e et seq., and make related state law claims that arise from the same nucleus of operative facts. 2. Venue is proper in this Court because the events giving rise to the claims occurred within the State of Colorado.

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW Document 7 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 2 of 12
3. Plaintiff-Intervenors have exhausted their administrative remedies. All condition precedent to this Complaint in Intervention and Jury Demand have been fulfilled.
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff-Intervenor Suzanne L. Diesing ("Diesing") was employed by Defendant Mini Mart in the State of Colorado. 5. Plaintiff-Intervenor Sarah Short ("Short") was employed by Defendant Mini Mart in the State of Colorado. 6. Defendant Mini Mart was Short and Diesing's employer. At all relevant times, Mini Mart has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 42 USC § 2000e. Mini Mart at all times relevant hereto had at least 15 employees.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Diesing was hired as a store clerk in the Littleton store on September 10, 2001, and was assigned to work in the restaurant portion of the store. Short was hired as a store clerk on December 7, 2002, and was assigned to work in the restaurant portion of the store. In early February of2003, Diesing began training as a Restaurant Manager in the restaurant. 8. On or about February 14, 2003, Steve Nelson was assigned to work as Manager at the Loaf 'N Jug store. 9. Immediately upon assuming his position as Manager, Nelson began sexually harassing Diesing, Short, and other female employees. 10. Nelson grabbed Diesing's crotch and rubbed against her breasts, constantly making sexual comments about her body. 11. Nelson made lewd sexual comments to Short, making comments about her but-
2

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW Document 7 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 3 of 12
tocks and other body parts. 12. Nelson made lewd, sexual comments about both Diesing and Short to customers,
and customers complained. 13. When Diesing and Short resisted Nelson's attempts at touching them, Nelson re-
sponded with force and threatening comments. 14. On or about February 19, 2003, Short complained to Diesing regarding Nelson's
offensive conduct. Diesing, in turn, contacted the District Manager, Brian Carlson, telling him that there were problems regarding sexual harassment at the store.
15. Carlson did not respond to Diesing's complaint, and the harassment continued. 16. Because Diesing did not receive a response from management regarding the harassment, Diesing scheduled Short to be with her as often as she could so that she wouldn't be alone with Nelson. There were rumors among the employees that Nelson had similarly harassed female employees at the Evergreen location prior to coming to the Littleton location. 17. On or about February 21,2003, Carlson came to the store and informed Diesing that the female employees would have to "deal with it" because he did not have a replacement for Nelson. 18. Unsatisfied with Carlson's response, Short then personally complained to Carlson. She asked to speak to him alone, and proceeded to detail what had occurred. She went on to tell Carlson that if the situation is not dealt with, she would contact a lawyer. 19. The harassment continued, and on or about February 26, 2003, Short warned Nelson that, if the harassment did not stop, the female employees would contact the police, pointing out that his behavior was probably captured by the store's surveillance cameras.
3

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW Document 7 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 4 of 12

; I> (-

20. Diesing called Carlson at least twice more to ask him to take action but he did not answer either time; she left voice messages for him and he did not respond.
21. On or about February 27,2003, nine days after Short first complained to Diesing, and seven days after they both complained to Carlson, Carlson and an unidentified female district manager came into the store and went to the back office. Short and Diesing followed them into the back office to ask about the status of their complaints. When they opened the door, they discovered the managers pulling film out of the surveillance tapes, thus destroying them.
22. Nelson left the store at 1:30 pm and was replaced by Greg Kryl. That same day, Carlson told Diesing and Short that they were going to be fired. When Diesing responded she did nothing to warrant a discharge, Carlson told her that would be true if "she kept her mouth shut."·
23. On or about February 28,2003, Diesing was told she had been discharged. A few days later, Short was told she had been discharged.
, 24. Loaf 'N Jug failed to take reasonable measures to prevent Nelson's sexual harassment of female employees.
25. Loaf 'N Jug failed to take reasonable, prompt measures to eliminate Nelson's sexual harassment of female employees.
26. Loaf 'N Jug failed to take reasonable measures to remedy the adverse effects of Nelson's sexual harassment of female employees.
27. Loaf 'N Jug retaliated against Diesing and Short for complaining about the sexual harassment by discharging them from employment.
28. During Diesing's employment by Mini Mart, Manager Steve Nelson ("Nelson") threw Diesing bodily to the floor, injuring and humiliating her.

4

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW Document 7 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 5 of 12
29. During Short's employment by Mini Mart, Nelson tried to force her bodily into a car, bruising and humiliating her.
30. Mini Mart had at least 500 employees during the relevant time frame. This allegation is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Sexual Harassment-Title VII 31. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 32. Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace was sufficiently severe on single occasions, and sufficiently pervasive in the aggregate, to alter the terms and conditions of Diesing and Short's employment. 33. Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace constitutes sexual harassment under Title VII. 34. Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace created a hostile work environment based on gender. 35. Mini Mart knew of at least some of Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace. 36. Mini Mart failed to investigate to learn the full extent of Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace. 37. Mini Mart failed to take reasonable measures to prevent injury and protect employees from Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace, and to remedy the situation. 38. Mini Mart engaged in a pattern or practice of tolerating offensive sexual conduct in the workplace.
5

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW Document 7 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 6 of 12
39. The effect of Mini Mart's conduct has been to deprive Diesing and Short of equal employment opportunities and to cause them past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment oflife.
40. Mini Mart's conduct was intentional. 41. Mini Mart acted with malice or with reckless indifference to Diesing and Short's federally protected rights against sexual harassment in the workplace.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Retaliation-Title VII
42. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
43. Diesing and Short complained to appropriate officers or other employees of Mini Mart about Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace.
44. After Diesing and Short complained about Nelson's conduct, and in response to such complaints, Mini Mart terminated their employment.
45. The effect of Mini Mart's conduct has been to deprive Diesing and Short of equal employment opportunities and to cause them past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
46. Mini Mart's conduct was intentional. 47. Mini Mart acted with malice or with reckless indifference to Diesing and Short's federally protected rights against retaliation.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Sexual Harassment-Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act
6

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW Document 7 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 7 of 12
48. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
49. Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace was sufficiently severe on single occasions, and sufficiently pervasive in the aggregate, to alter the terms and conditions of Diesing's and Short's employment.
50. Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace constitutes sexual harassment under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
51. Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace created a hostile work environment based on gender.
52. Mini Mart knew of at least some of Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace.
53. Mini Mart failed to investigate to learn the full extent of Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace.
54. Mini Mart failed to take reasonable measures to prevent injury and protect employees from Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace, and to remedy the situation.
55. Mini Mart engaged in a pattern or practice oftolerating offensive sexual conduct in the workplace.
56. The effect of Mini Mart's conduct has been to deprive Diesing and Short of equal employment opportunities and to cause them past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
57. Mini Mart's conduct was intentional.
7

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW Document 7 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 8 of 12
58. Mini Mart acted with malice or with reckless indifference to Diesing and Short's rights against sexual harassment in the workplace under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Retaliation-Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act 59. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 60. Diesing and Short complained to appropriate officers or other employees of Mini Mart about Nelson's offensive sexual conduct in the workplace. 61. After Diesing and Short complained about Nelson's conduct, and in response to such complaints, Mini Mart terminated their employment. 62. The effect of Mini Mart's conduct has been to deprive Diesing and Short of equal employment opportunities and to cause them past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. 63. Mini Mart's conduct was intentional. 64. Mini Mart acted with malice or with reckless indifference to Diesing and Short's rights against retaliation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Battery
65. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
66. Nelson acted within the scope of his employment with respect to Diesing and Short or is otherwise liable for Nelson's contact with respect to making physical contact with Diesing and Short.
8

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW Document 7 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 9 of 12
67. Nelson, in making offensive physical contact with Diesing and Short, desired to cause offensive or harmful consequences by his physical contact with them.
68. Nelson actually made physical contact with Diesing and Short. 69. The effect of Nelson's physical contact with Diesing and Short has been to cause Diesing and Short physical injury or pain, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment oflife.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Negligent Hiring
70. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate and re-allege each ofthe foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
71. Prior to harassing Diesing and Short, Nelson has a history of sexual harassment. This allegation is likely to have evidentiary support after reasonable opportunity for discovery.
72. Mini Mart knew or should have known of circumstances that gave or should have given Mini Mart reason to believe that the Nelson, by reason of prior conduct, would create an undue risk of harm to others in carrying out his employment responsibilities.
73. By hiring or transferring Nelson to the location where Diesing and Short worked, Mini Mart breached its duty to protect Diesing and Short.
74. Mini Mart's breach of duty caused Diesing and Short physical injury or pain, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
9

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW Document 7 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 10 of 12
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Negligent Retention/Negligent Supervision 75. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 76. To the extent Mini Mart only learned or had reason to learn of Nelson's conduct after Nelson was hired, Mini Mart had a duty to protect Diesing and Short from such conduct. 77. By transferring Nelson to the location where Diesing and Short worked, or by allowing him to stay in that location or in a position of management over Diesing and Short, Mini Mart breached its duty to protect Diesing and Short. 78. Mini Mart's breach of duty caused Diesing and Short physical injury or pain, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Outrageous Conduct
79. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
80. Mini Mart's conduct with respect to Diesing and Short was so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
81. Mini Mart's conduct was intentional. 82. Mini Mart's conduct caused severe emotional distress in Diesing and Short.
10

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW Document 7 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 11 of 12
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiff-Intervenors respectfully quest that this Court grant, in addition to such other and further relief as this Court may deem just appropriate, make the following awards in favor of Diesing and Short and to be paid by Mini Mart: 83. Damages including back pay as well as compensation for physical injury or pain, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, amounts to be proven at trial; 84. Front pay and other equitable relief; 85. Costs and attorneys fees incurred in pursuing their claims; 86. Pre-judgment interest on all amounts; 87. Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial; and 88. Post-judgment interest on all amounts until paid.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND 89. Plaintiff-Intervenors demand jury trial on all issues so triable. DATED this 6th day of December, 2005.
Respectfully submitted GODIN & BAITY, LLC
\
/s/Step~~
Stephen P. Gilmartin Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors Godin & Baity, LLC 1050 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1610 Denver, Colorado 80265 Phone: (303) 572-3100 Fax: (303) 572-3400 sgilmartin@godinbaity.com
11

Case 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW Document 7 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 12 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 6,2005, I caused the foregoing (proposed) COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND to be electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CMlECF system which is intended to send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: ANJULLKELOTRA@EEOC.GOV A Volin@sah.com rdeeny@sah.com
Is/Stephen P. Gilmartin Stephen P. Gilmartin Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors Godin & Baity, LLC 1050 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1610 Denver, Colorado 80265 Phone: (303) 572-3100 Fax: (303) 572-3400 sgilmartin@godinbaity.com
12

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, And SUZANNE L. DIESING, and SARAH SHORT,
Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. MINI MART, INC. d/b/a LOAF ‘N JUG,
Defendant.
CONSENT DECREE

I. RECITALS

1.

This matter was instituted by Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“Commission”or “Plaintiff”or “EEOC”), an agency of the United States government, alleging

that Defendant, Mini Mart, Inc. d/b/a Loaf ‘N Jug (“Mini Mart”) has discriminated against

Charging Parties/Intervenors Suzanne Diesing and Sarah Short, and similarly situated individuals

including Sarah Duggan, because of their sex by subjecting them to sexual harassment and a

hostile work environment, by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the

sexual harassment, and by retaliating against Diesing and Short for complaining about the hostile

work environment, in violation of Title VII.

2. The parties, desiring to settle this action by an appropriate Consent Decree (“Decree”) and

agreements between the parties, agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties and the

subject matter of this action, and agree to the power of this Court to enter a Consent Decree

enforceable against Defendant.

3. This Decree is final and binding upon the parties as to the issues resolved, as well as upon

their successors and assigns.

4. The parties agree that this Consent Decree fairly resolves the issues alleged in this lawsuit,

and constitutes a complete resolution of all of the Commission’s claims of unlawful employment

practices under Title VII that arise from charge of discrimination no. 320-2003-01772 filed by

Suzanne Diesing and charge of discrimination no. 320-2004-00041 filed by Sarah Short.

5. For the purpose of amicably resolving disputed claims, the Defendant joins with the

Commission and Intervenors in requesting this Court to adjudge as follows:

2

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: II. JURISDICTION
6. The parties stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court over the parties and subject matter of this action, and have waived the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. 7. The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of signing by the Court.
III. ISSUES RESOLVED 8. This Decree resolves all claims for damages arising out of the issues and claims set forth in Civil Action No. 05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW. 9. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them will not interfere with the relief herein ordered, but shall cooperate in the implementation of this Decree. 10. To resolve these claims, Defendant shall pay a total of $225,000.00, to be divided as stated below:
10.1 Defendant shall pay $100,000.00 of the settlement amount to Suzanne Diesing no later than ten (10) days from the Court’s entry of the Consent Decree. The payment shall be mailed to the address provided by the Commission. Within three (3) business days of the issuance of the payment, Defendant shall submit a copy of the payment and all related correspondence to Mary Jo O’Neill, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. Defendant will not condition the receipt of individual relief on Suzanne Diesing’s agreement to (a) maintain as confidential the terms of this decree, (b) waive her statutory right to file a
3

charge with any federal or state anti-discrimination agency, or (c) waive her right to apply for a position with the Defendant. 10.2 Defendant shall pay $100,000.00 of the settlement amount to Sarah Short no later than ten (10) days from the Court’s entry of the Consent Decree. The payment shall be mailed to the address provided by the Commission. Within three (3) business days of the issuance of the payment, Defendant shall submit a copy of payment and all related correspondence to Mary Jo O’Neill, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. Defendant will not condition the receipt of individual relief on Sarah Short’s agreement to (a) maintain as confidential the terms of this decree, (b) waive her statutory right to file a charge with any federal or state anti-discrimination agency, or (c) waive her right to apply for a position with the Defendant. 10.3 Defendant shall pay $25,000.00 of the settlement amount in compensatory damages to Sarah Duggan no later than ten (10) days from the Court’s entry of the Consent Decree. The payment shall be mailed to the address that will be provided by the Commission. Within three (3) business days of the issuance of the payment, Defendant shall submit a copy of the payment and all related correspondence to Mary Jo O’Neill, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. Defendant will not condition the receipt of individual relief on Sarah Duggan’s agreement to (a) maintain as confidential the terms of this decree, (b) waive her statutory right to file a charge with any federal or state antidiscrimination agency, or (c) waive her right to apply for a position with the Defendant.
4

10.4 First, Defendant shall provide the written apology that has already been agreed to by the Parties to Diesing and Short no later than ten (10) days from the Court’s entry of the Consent Decree, copies of which are attached hereto at Attachment B and C. A copy of each shall also be provided to the Commission within fourteen (14) days from the entry of the Decree at the address in Paragraph 29. Second, Defendant shall provide Diesing, Short, and Duggan a written employment reference letter setting forth their dates of employment, ending position held, and pay rate no later than ten (10) days from the Court’s entry of the Consent Decree, copies of which are attached hereto at Attachment D, E and F. A copy of each shall also be provided to the Commission within fourteen (14) days from the entry of the Decree at the address in Paragraph 29. Third, Defendant will change Diesing’s and Short’s status in Mini Mart, Inc.’s personnel records from involuntarily “terminated”or “discharged”to “resigned.”
IV. EQUITABLE RELIEF A. Scope 11. For the first year after entry of this Consent Decree, the terms of this Decree shall apply to all Mini Mart, Inc. facilities located within Mini Mart, Inc.’s District No. 11. For the second and third years after entry of this Consent Decree, the terms of this Decree shall apply to all Mini Mart, Inc. facilities in Colorado. B. Injunctive Relief 12. During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant, its officers, agents, successors and other persons in active concert or participation with it, or any of them, are permanently enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.
5

13. During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant, its officers, agents, successors and other persons in active concert or participation with them, or any of them, are permanently enjoined from engaging in reprisal or retaliation of any kind against any person because of such person’s opposition to any practice made unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or the Equal Pay Act, because of such person’s filing a charge, testifying or participating in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under any of these statutes, because such person was identified as a witness or possible witness for the Commission, because such person participated in any manner in this action or in the investigation giving rise to this action, or because such person is designated as an aggrieved individual under this Decree.
C. Anti-discrimination Policy 14. Defendant shall adopt and/or maintain a policy proscribing discrimination based on sex harassment and sex discrimination, and proscribing retaliation against any employee who complains about sex discrimination or who files a charge of discrimination alleging sex discrimination. (“Anti-Discrimination Policy”). Defendant shall post and keep posted for the duration of this Decree, in a conspicuous place in each of its facilities, where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily kept or posted, a copy of the Anti-Discrimination Policy. Within sixty (60) days of entry of this Decree, Defendant shall provide a copy of the AntiDiscrimination Policy, and will provide the policy to newly hired employees within thirty (30) days of their hire. Within sixty (60) days of entry of this Decree, Defendant shall forward a copy of the Anti-Discrimination Policy to the Commission and a letter indicating that the AntiDiscrimination Policy has been posted and distributed.
6

D. Training 15. Beginning within sixty (60) days of entry of this Decree, and annually thereafter, Defendant shall conduct annual training for all its employees on what constitutes employment discrimination. Training will include employee notification of the Defendant’s policy and procedures for registering complaints of discrimination. Defendant agrees that said training will also counsel employees on the penalties of engaging in discriminatory behavior. Defendant agrees that said training will include the Defendant’s non-retaliation policy. All training under this Paragraph 15 shall be at Defendant’s selection and expense. The training will be conducted as follows:
15.1 Non-managerial Employees Defendant will require non-managerial employees to attend two (2) hours of training per year regarding workplace discrimination, with emphasis on harassment and retaliation. Harassment training will include discussion of sex harassment and retaliation. Additionally, Defendant will require new employees to complete the requisite two (2) hours of training, within thirty (30) days of being hired. 15.2 Managerial and Supervisory Employees Defendant will require all individuals who work in a managerial or supervisory capacity, or who have hiring authority, to receive at least eight (8) hours of training annually regarding Title VII and other federal anti-discrimination laws. Four (4) of the eight (8) hours must directly address harassment, retaliation, and discrimination based on sex. Additionally, Defendant will require employees newly hired or promoted into a managerial or supervisory position to
7

complete the requisite four (4) hours of training within thirty (30) days of being hired or promoted.
15.3 Human Resource Employees Defendant will require all individuals who work in a human resource capacity to receive at least twenty (20) hours of training annually regarding Title VII and other federal antidiscrimination laws. Four (4) of the twenty (20) hours must directly address harassment, retaliation, and sex discrimination. Additionally, Defendant will require employees newly hired or promoted into a human resource position to complete seven (7) hours of general EEO training within thirty (30) days of being hired or promoted into a human resource position. 16. Defendant agrees that the first such training session for each employee group identified in Paragraph 15, above, will take place within sixty (60) days after entry of this Decree. Defendant agrees that all personnel shall both register and attend the seminar training sessions. In the semiannual reports required under the Reporting provisions of this Decree, Defendant shall submit copies of the agenda of the training programs, identify the individuals providing the training, and provide the registries of attendance. 17. The Commission, at its discretion, may designate one or more Commission representatives to attend any of the seminar-training sessions described above, and the Commission representative(s) shall have the right to attend, observe, and fully participate in all of the sessions. Defendant shall provide the Commission with ten days notice that a seminar-training session will be conducted.
8

E. Posting of Notice 18. Within ten (10) business days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall post in a conspicuous place in each of its facilities where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily kept or posted, the Notice attached as Attachment A to this Decree. The Notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree. If the Notice becomes defaced or illegible, Defendant will replace it with a clean copy. Defendant shall certify to the Commission, in writing, within twenty (20) days of entry of this Decree that the Notice has been properly posted and shall provide recertification in each of the semi-annual reports required under the Reporting provision of this Consent Decree.
F. Record Keeping And Reporting Provisions 19. For the duration of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall maintain all records concerning implementation of this Consent Decree. 20. The Commission shall have the right to interview any personnel employed by Defendant for the purpose of determining Defendant’s compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree. In the event the Commission exercises its right to interview personnel pursuant to this paragraph, said interviews shall be scheduled with due regard to the convenience of the individual to be interviewed. 21. Each party shall bear its own costs in conjunction with the maintenance of records, preparation of any report, access or copying of records, or interviews of employees. 22. Defendant shall provide semi-annual reports for each six-month period following the entry of the Decree. The reports shall be due thirty days following the respective six-month period,
9

except the final report which shall be submitted to the Commission two weeks prior to the date on which the Consent Decree is to expire. 23. Each report shall provide the following information:
23.1 Complaints of Sex Discrimination 23.1.1 For purposes of this Paragraph 23.1, the term “complaint of sex discrimination”will include any written or verbal complaint which alleges discrimination based on sex, or alleges conduct which the Defendant recognizes as presenting an allegation of sex discrimination. For example, an employee may complain that she was touched inappropriately by another employee. These are “complaints of discrimination”even though the employee does not expressly allege discrimination. 23.1.2 The name, address and telephone number of each person making a complaint of sex discrimination to Defendant or to any federal, state, or local government agency. 23.1.3 A brief summary of each complaint, including the date of the complaint, the name of the individual(s) who allegedly engaged in the discriminatory conduct, the Defendant’s response to the complaint, the name of the person who investigated or responded to the complaint, and what, if any resolution was reached. 23.1.4 Copies of all non-privileged documents memorializing or referring to the complaint, investigation, and/or resolution thereof, together with a privilege log of documents withheld.
10

23.2 Training 23.2.1 For each training program required under Para. 15, and conducted during the reporting period, Defendant shall submit a registry of attendance. 23.2.2 For each training program required under Para. 15.3 (HR), and completed during the reporting period, Defendant shall provide a certificate of completion. 23.2.3 For each training program conducted by Defendant's staff, Defendant will provide the following information: (a) a detailed agenda; (b) copies of all training material provided to or utilized by the trainer(s); (c) the name of each training and a summary of his or her qualifications. 23.2.4 For each training program conducted by a vendor not affiliated with Defendant, Defendant will identify the vendor and provide a copy of the program agenda.
23.3 Posting of Notice: Defendant shall re-certify to the Commission, that the Notice required to be posted under Paragraph 18 of this Consent Decree has been properly posted or, if removed, was promptly replaced, during the duration of the reporting period.
V. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND FILING OF DECREE 24. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause for purposes of compliance with this Decree and entry of such further orders or modifications as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate equal employment opportunities for employees. Upon submission of the final report referenced in Paragraph 22, and the expiration of a period of 30 days after submission of said
11

report, within which the Commission has not filed an objection thereto, the Commission and Defendant shall promptly file a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice (“Joint Stipulation”) of this civil action, upon which filing this Decree shall automatically dissolve, and this Civil Action shall be dismissed with prejudice. If the Commission files an objection to the final report within said 30-day period, the Parties will file the Joint Stipulation promptly after the Court's resolution of the Commission’s objection.
VI. ENFORCEMENT 25. There is no private right of action to enforce Defendant’s obligations under the Decree and only the Commission, or its successors or assigns may enforce compliance herewith. 26. Enforcement of the terms of this Decree may be had by the Commission petitioning the Court.
VII. EEOC AUTHORITY 27. With respect to matters or charges outside the scope of this Decree, this Decree shall in no way limit the powers of the Commission to seek to eliminate employment practices or acts made unlawful by any of the statutes over which the EEOC has enforcement authority, and do not arise out of the claims asserted in this lawsuit.
VIII. COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES 28. Each party shall be responsible for and shall pay its own costs and attorney’s fees.
IX. NOTICE 29. Unless otherwise indicated, any notice, report, or communication required under the provisions of this Decree shall be sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, as follows:
12

Anjuli Kelotra, Senior Trial Attorney Denver Field Office Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 510 Denver, CO 80202

SO ORDERED this 23rd day of

May

, 2006.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock United States District Judge

13

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
s/ Mary Jo O’Neill___________________ Mary Jo O'Neill Regional Attorney
s/ Nancy A. Weeks____________________ Nancy A. Weeks Supervisory Trial Attorney
s/ Anjuli Kelotra______________________ Anjuli Kelotra Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION EEOC Denver Field Office 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 303.866.1378 anjuli.kelotra@eeoc.gov Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC
s/ Stephen P. Gilmartin__________________ Stephen P. Gilmartin, Esq. Godin & Baity LLC 1050 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1610 Denver, Colorado 80265 303.572.3100 sgilmartin@godinbaity.com Attorney for Plaintiffs/Intervenors
s/ Andrew W. Volin______________________ Andrew W. Volin, Esq. Sherman & Howard LLC 633 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 303.297.2900 avolin@sah.com Attorney for Defendant
14

MINI MART, INC. d/b/a LOAF ‘N JUG By: ______________________________
[Insert Name] [Insert Title] Date: ______________________________ PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR SUZANNE DIESING By: ______________________________ Date: ______________________________ PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR SARAH SHORT By: ______________________________ Date: ______________________________
15

ATTACHMENT A
NOTICE
The following notice is being posted pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree reached between the parties in EEOC and Diesing/Short v. Mini Mart, Inc. d/b/a Loaf ‘N Jug, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 05-cv01880-LTB-MJW.
Management of Mini Mart, Inc. wishes to emphasize the company’s fundamental policy of providing equal employment opportunity in all of its operation and in all areas of employment practices. Mini Mart seeks to ensure that there shall be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age or disability. This policy extends to insurance benefits and all other terms, conditions and privileges of employment.
Pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate based upon the sex of an employee, including sexual harassment. Further, it is unlawful for any employer to retaliate against an employee because he or she has opposed discriminatory employment practices, including sex harassment, or because he or she has filed a charge of discrimination with any municipal, state or federal equal employment opportunity agency, or because he or she has participated in an investigation of a charge of discrimination.
Mini Mart, Inc. respects the right of its employees and applicants for employment to work in an environment free from discrimination. Accordingly, Mini Mart, Inc. reaffirms its commitment to complying with the strictures of Title VII, in that it is our policy to prohibit all discrimination in terms of hiring, promotion, compensation, benefits, discharge or discipline because of race or color.
Any employee who believes that he/she has suffered discrimination on the basis of age, race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, or disability, has the right to contact the EEOC directly at 1-800-669-4000 or the Colorado Civil Rights Division at 303-894-2997. In compliance with federal law, no official at Mini Mart, Inc. will retaliate against an employee who makes an internal complaint of discrimination or who contacts the EEOC or its state counterpart.
This Notice shall remain posted for the term of three years.
Mini Mart, Inc.

By:__________________________________

____________________ Date

16

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Lewis T. Babcock, Chief Judge
Civil Action No. 05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff, And SUZANNE L. DIESING and SARAH SHORT,
Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. MINI MART, INC., d/b/a LOAF ‘N JUG,
Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF PARTIAL JUDGMENT
Babcock, C.J. This Matter comes before the Court on the parties’Joint Stipulated Motion for Dismissal
with Prejudice of the Claims of Plaintiff-Intervenors and For Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)(“Joint Motion”). According to the Joint Motion, the parties stipulate, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 (a)(1)(2), that the claims of the Plaintiff-Intervenors be dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear her or its own costs and attorneys fees, and move, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), for judgment to enter on those claims in favor of Defendant. The

Joint Motion states that the case has settled, but the claims by Plaintiff EEOC are being resolved pursuant to a Consent Decree that will not result in a final dismissal for several years, and there is no just reason to delay entry of judgment with respect to the claims of Plaintiff-Intervenors, which are being settled through monetary payments.
Being fully advised in the premises, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. It is hereby ORDERED the claims of the Plaintiff-Intervenors are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear her or its own costs and attorneys fees. The Court finds there being no just reason to delay entry of judgment with respect to those claims, it is ORDERED judgment shall enter on those claims in favor of Defendant, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
Dated this 24th day of May, 2006 in Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock Lewis T. Babcock, Chief Judge

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO LEWIS T. BABCOCK, CHIEF JUDGE
Civil Action No. 05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, And SUZANNE L. DIESING and SARAH SHORT,
Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. MINI MART, INC., d/b/a LOAF ‘N JUG,
Defendant.
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to and in accordance with the Order entered by the Honorable United States District Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock, on May 24, 2006. It is
ORDERED that the Joint Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice of the Claims of Plaintiff-Intervenors and for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) is granted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Mini Mart, Inc., d/b/a Loaf’N Jug, and against Plaintiff-Intervenors, Suzanne L. Diesing and Sarah Short, dismissing the Plaintiff-Intervenors’claims with prejudice. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear her or its own costs and attorneys fees.

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 26th day of May, 2006. ENTERED FOR THE COURT: GREGORY C. LANGHAM, CLERK
By: s/ Stephen P. Ehrlich STEPHEN P. EHRLICH Chief Deputy Clerk
Civil Action No. 05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?639757800750787-L_35...

NDISPO, TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mini Mart, Inc. Assigned to: Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/28/2005 Date Terminated: 05/24/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Anjuli Kelotra U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-Colorado 303 East 17th Avenue #510 Denver, CO 80203 303-866-1378 Fax: 303-866-1375 Email: anjuli.kelotra@qwest.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Rene Rogers U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-Colorado 303 East 17th Avenue #510 Denver, CO 80203 303-866-1361 Fax: 303-866-1375 Email: kim.rogers@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Suzanne L. Diesing

represented by Stephen P. Gilmartin Godin & Baity, LLC 1050 Seventeenth Street #1610 Denver, CO 80265 303-572-3100 Fax: 303-572-3400 Email: sgilmartin@godinbaity.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 7

6/4/2007 11:42 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?639757800750787-L_35...

Intervenor Plaintiff Sarah Short
V. Defendant Mini Mart, Inc. doing business as Loaf 'N Jug

represented by Stephen P. Gilmartin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Wayne Volin Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.-Denver 633 17th Street #3000 Denver, CO 80202 303-297-2900 Fax: 303-298-0940 Email: avolin@sah.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond Myles Deeny Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.-Colorado Springs 90 South Cascade Avenue #1500 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 719-448-4016 Fax: 719-635-4576 Email: rdeeny@sah.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Albert Wright Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.-Denver 633 17th Street #3000 Denver, CO 80202 303-299-8086 Fax: 303-298-0940 Email: wwright@sah.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/28/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT and jury trial demand against Mini Mart, Inc. Summons Issued, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil

2 of 7

6/4/2007 11:42 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?639757800750787-L_35...

11/03/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/05/2005 12/06/2005
12/07/2005
12/07/2005 12/07/2005 12/07/2005 12/08/2005
12/09/2005 12/27/2005 01/06/2006 01/09/2006

Cover Sheet)(bpm, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Mini Mart, Inc. waiver sent on 10/4/2005, answer due 12/5/2005. (Kelotra, Anjuli) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
3 ANSWER to Complaint by Mini Mart, Inc..(Volin, Andrew) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Defendant Mini Mart, Inc.. (Volin, Andrew) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
5 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Babcock. (gms, ) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
6 Proposed INTERVENOR COMPLAINT against Mini-Mart, Inc. d/b/a Loaf 'N Jug, filed by Suzanne L. Diesing, Sarah Short. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order Granting Intervention)(Gilmartin, Stephen) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
7 Proposed MOTION to Intervene by Interested Parties Suzanne L. Diesing, Sarah Short. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Complaint in Intervention and Jury Demand# 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order Granting Intervention)(Gilmartin, Stephen) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
8 Minute ORDER granting 7 Motion to Intervene as of Right, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/7/05. (emksl, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
9 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT against Mini-Mart, filed by Suzanne L. Diesing and Sarah Short, pursuant to Minute Order of 12/7/05.(emksl, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
11 ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 1/19/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/7/05. (emksl, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
10 Docket Annotation re: 6 Intervenor Complaint. This document is actually the motion to intervene, not a complaint in intervention. Counsel re-file dusing the appropriate event (Doc #7). Text only entry - no document attached. (gms, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
12 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Raymond Myles Deeny on behalf of Mini Mart, Inc. (Deeny, Raymond) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
13 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Mini Mart, Inc..(Volin, Andrew) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
14 Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order by Defendant Mini Mart, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Volin, Andrew) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
15 MEMORANDUM referring to Magistrate Judge Watanabe : 14 Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order filed by Mini Mart, Inc., by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 1/9/06. (Text Only Entry - No Document Attached) (emksl, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

3 of 7

6/4/2007 11:42 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?639757800750787-L_35...

01/10/2006 01/10/2006 01/12/2006 01/17/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006 01/19/2006
01/19/2006 01/19/2006

16 MINUTE ORDER granting 14 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Protective Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/10/06. (emksl, ) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
17 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER pursuant to Minute Order of 1/10/06. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/10/06. (emksl, ) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
18 Proposed Scheduling Order by Intervenor Plaintiffs Suzanne L. Diesing, Sarah Short, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants Mini Mart, Inc., Mini Mart, Inc.. (Rogers, Kim) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
19 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Initial Disclosures by Intervenor Plaintiffs Suzanne L. Diesing, Sarah Short. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Gilmartin, Stephen) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
20 MEMORANDUM referring to Magistrate Judge Watanabe : 19 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Initial Disclosures filed by Sarah Short, Suzanne L. Diesing, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 1/18/06. (Text Only Entry No Document Attached) (emksl, ) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
23 ORDER granting the 19 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Initial Disclosures filed by Sarah Short and Suzanne L. Diesing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/18/06. (emksl, ) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
21 Minute Entry/Minute Order for proceedings held before Judge Michael J. Watanabe : Scheduling Conference held on 1/19/2006. Discovery due by 7/19/2006. Dispositive Motions due by 9/1/2006. Confidential settlement statements due 5/1/2006. Settlement Conference set for 5/4/2006 01:30 PM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/30/2006. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/3/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Trial Preparation Conference set for 5/9/2007 at 08:00 AM in Courtroom A 201 before Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock. Jury Trial set for 6/5/2007 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 201 before Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock. Unopposed motion for extension of time to file initial disclosures (19) is granted.(Court Reporter FTR S. Moore.) (mjwcd, ) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
22 ORDER granting Motion for Extension of Time 19 pursuant to the courtroom minutes/minute order of 1/19/2006. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/19/06. (mjwcd, ) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
24 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 7/19/2006. Dispositive Motions due by 9/1/2006. Settlement Conference set for 5/4/2006 01:30 PM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/30/2006. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/3/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Trial Preparation Conference set for 5/9/2007 at 08:00 AM in Courtroom A 201 before Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock. Jury Trial set for 6/5/2007 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 201 before Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/19/06. (emksl, ) (Entered: 01/19/2006)

4 of 7

6/4/2007 11:42 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?639757800750787-L_35...

01/23/2006
01/24/2006 01/27/2006 01/30/2006 02/17/2006 02/21/2006
02/22/2006
02/23/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006

25 MINUTE ORDER, Set Hearings:Ten Day Jury Trial set for 6/4/2007 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 201 before Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock. Trial Preparation Conference set for 5/9/2007 at 08:00 AM in Courtroom A 201 before Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock. by Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 1/23/06. (erv, ) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
26 Stipulated MOTION For Extension of Time to Answer Discovery Requests by Intervenor Plaintiffs Suzanne L. Diesing, Sarah Short. (Gilmartin, Stephen) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
27 MEMORANDUM referring to Magistrate Judge Watanabe : 26 Stipulated MOTION For Extension of Time to Answer Discovery Requests filed by Sarah Short, Suzanne L. Diesing, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 1/27/06. (Text Only Entry - No Document Attached) (emksl, ) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
28 MINUTE ORDER granting to 2/20/06 26 Stipulated MOTION For Extension of Time to Answer Discovery Requests by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/30/06. (dlb, ) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
29 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Complete Responses to Defendant's First Discovery Requests to Plaintiff Intervenors by Intervenor Plaintiffs Suzanne L. Diesing, Sarah Short. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Gilmartin, Stephen) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
30 MEMORANDUM referring to Magistrate Judge Watanabe : 29 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Complete Responses to Defendant's First Discovery Requests to Plaintiff Intervenors by Intervenor Plaintiffs (Text Only Entry - No Document Attached) by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 2/21/06. (dlb, ) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
31 ORDER regarding Intervenors' Discovery Response Deadlines: granting Unopposed 29 Motion for Extension of Time and Partial Extension of Time to Complete Responses to Defendant's First Discovery Requests. Intervenors shall have until and including 02/27/06 to file initial, partial responses to Defendant's First Discovery requests, and until and including 03/22/06 to file reminder of responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 02/22/06. (rlp, ) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
32 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by William Albert Wright on behalf of Mini Mart, Inc. (Wright, William) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
33 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 13 Answer to Intervenor Complaint, 3 Answer to Complaint by Defendant Mini Mart, Inc.. (Wright, William) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
34 First Amended ANSWER to Complaint 1 and 9 by Mini Mart, Inc..(Wright, William) Modified to add links to complaints on 3/7/2006 (rlp, ). (Entered: 03/06/2006)
35 Docket Annotation re: 34 Answer to Complaint. Modified to add links to complaints on 3/7/2006 Text only entry - no document attached. (rlp, ) (Entered: 03/07/2006)

5 of 7

6/4/2007 11:42 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?639757800750787-L_35...

03/08/2006 03/20/2006 03/21/2006
03/22/2006 04/04/2006 04/05/2006 04/05/2006 04/10/2006 04/10/2006 05/04/2006
05/19/2006 05/22/2006

36 MINUTE ORDER granting Defendant's Unopposed 33 Motion to Amend Answer, the First Amended Order is accepted for filing, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 03/08/06. (rlp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
37 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' 1st Set of Requests for Production & Interrogatories by Defendant Mini Mart, Inc.. (Volin, Andrew) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
38 MEMORANDUM referring to Magistrate Judge Watanabe : 37 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' 1st Set of Requests for Production & Interrogatories filed by Mini Mart, Inc., by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 03/21/06. (Text Only Entry - No Document Attached)(rlp, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
39 MINUTE ORDER granting Defendant's 37 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests and Interrogatories, Defendant has up to 04/11/06 to respond. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 03/22/06. (rlp, ) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
40 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) To Amend Scheduling Order)(Rogers, Kim)Modified to create link to scheduling order on 4/5/2006 (rlp, ). (Entered: 04/04/2006)
41 Docket Annotation re: 40 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order. Modified docket text to create link to scheduling order, #24, on 4/5/2006 (rlp, ). Text only entry - no document attached. (rlp, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
42 MEMORANDUM referring to Magistrate Judge Watanabe : 40 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 04/05/06. (Text Only Entry - No Document Attached)(rlp, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
43 Minute ORDER granting Joint 40 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Discovery cutoff is 8/18/06, dispositive motion deadline is 9/29/06, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/10/06. (gms, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
44 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 8/18/2006. Dispositive Motions due by 9/29/2006, pursuant to minute order of 4/10/06. Text only entry - no document attached. (gms, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
45 Minute Entry/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe : Settlement Conference held on 5/4/2006. The Settlement Agreement is approved. Parties shall submit their Joint Stipulated Motion for Dismissal to Chief Judge Babcock by May 19, 2006. All further hearings before Magistrate Judge Watanabe are VACATED. (Court Reporter FTR - S. Moore.) (mjwcd, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
46 MINUTE ORDER parties shall have up to and including May 22,2006, in which to file their Joint Stipulation for Dismissal in this case, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 05/19/06. (rlp, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
47 Joint MOTION for Order to for Entry of Consent Decree by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Proposed Consent Decree and Order)(Kelotra, Anjuli) (Entered: 05/22/2006)

6 of 7

6/4/2007 11:42 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?639757800750787-L_35...

05/23/2006 05/23/2006 05/24/2006 05/26/2006

48 Interim MOTION to Dismiss Party Plaintiff-Intervenors and for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) by Intervenor Plaintiffs Suzanne L. Diesing, Sarah Short, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Mini Mart, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) of Dismissal and Directing Entry of Partial Judgment)(Volin, Andrew) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
49 CONSENT DECREE: Each party shall be responsible for and shall pay its own costs and attorney?s fees. Signed by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 05/23/06. (rlp, ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
50 ORDER DISMISSING CASE: the claims of the Plaintiff Intervenors are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear her or its own costs and attorneys fees. The Court finds there being no just reason to delay entry of judgment with respect to those claims, it is ORDERED judgment shall enter on thoseclaims in favor of Defendant, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).Signed by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 05/24/06. (rlp, ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
51 JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Mini Mart, Inc., d/b/a Loaf'N'Jug, and against Plaintiff-Intervenors, Suzanne L. Diesing and Sarah Short, dismissing the Plaintiff-Intervenors' claims with prejudice. Each party shall bear her or its own costs and attorneys fees. Signed on 05/26/06. (rlp, ) (Entered: 05/26/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

06/04/2007 10:42:49

hs0328 Client

eeoc

Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW

5

Cost:

0.40

7 of 7

6/4/2007 11:42 AM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - May 2006

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement05-06.html

EEOC v. Mini Mart, Inc., d/b/a Loaf 'N Jug No. 05-cv-01880-LTB-MJW (D. Col. May 23, 2006)
The Denver District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a convenience store chain that is part of the Kroger Company, subjected several women to sexual harassment and discharged two of them for complaining about the harassment. The charging parties, a restaurant manager trainee and a 17-year-old store clerk, worked at defendant's Littleton, Colorado store. On February 14, 2003, defendant brought in a new store manager, who began regularly fondling the CPs and other female employees and making offensive sexual comments to them. He physically intimidated women who discouraged his attention. One of the CPs warned the store manager that the store's surveillance cameras had probably captured his actions, and threatened to contact the police if the conduct continued. A week after the CPs complained to the district manager about the harassment, the district manager and another defendant manager visited the Littleton store. When the CPs went to the back of the store to ask about their complaint, they found the two visiting managers destroying the surveillance tapes. Defendant replaced the store manager later that day, February 27, 2003, and the same day the district manager told CPs that all of the employees at the store were going to be fired. One CP was fired the next day and the other a few days later.
The Phoenix District Office entered into a 3-year consent decree under which three claimants will receive $225,000 in monetary relief ($100,000 to each CP and $25,000 to an additional claimant). Defendant will provide each CP with a written apology and will change each CP's personnel record to reflect resignation instead of discharge. The decree enjoins defendant from discrimination based on sex and from retaliation under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and the EPA. The injunctions and affirmative relief apply at all Mini Mart facilities in District No. 11 during the first year of the decree and at all Mini Mart facilities in Colorado for the remainder of the decree. The affirmative relief includes: (1) posting defendant's antidiscrimination policy and distributing a copy to every employee; (2) conducting employment discrimination training for human resources employees (20 hours per year), managerial and supervisory employees (8 hours a year), and nonmanagerial employees (2 hours a year); (3) posting a notice explaining the resolution of the lawsuit, Title VII's requirements, and how to reach the EEOC; and (4) reporting to EEOC semiannually on written or verbal sex discrimination complaints made by employees, including any resolution reached.

1 of 1

6/4/2007 11:45 AM