Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 1 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 1 of 10

Mary Jo O'Neill AZ #005924 C. Emanuel Smith MS #7473
Sandra J. Padegimas AZ #011652
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Phoenix District Office 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 640-5061
Attorneys for Plaintiff

FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT
1005 JUN 30 P 3: Sb
OISmu or t:JTAU-
BY: '\j---' 'O;;:E-;:CPU""T"'yC~C""lE""R""'K--

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

)

Equal Employment Opportunity

) Civil No.

Commission,

)

)

Plaintiff, vs.

)

)

COMPLAINT

)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Micron Technology, Inc., a

)

Delaware corporation,

)

)

Defendant.

)

------------------------)

Judge Ted Stewart DECK TYPE: Civil DATE STAMP: 06/30/2005 @ 15:50:54 CASE HUMBER: 2:05CV00546 TS

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin, disability, and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Jose Artalejo who was adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges Defendant Micron Technology, Inc., ("Micron" or "Defendant") discriminated against Mr. Artalejo because of his national origin, Mexican American, and his disability, hearing

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 1 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 2 of 10
impairment. The Commission further alleges that, because he complained about the unlawful conduct, Micron retaliated against him by failing to accommodate Mr. Artalejo's disability and discharging him.
JU~SDICnONANDVENUE
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 706(f)(1) and (3) and Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and 2000e-6 ("Title VII"), Section 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII, and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were, and are now, being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and Title I the ADA, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), Section 707 ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e6, and Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Micron Technology, Inc., has
-2-

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 1 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 3 of 10
continuously been a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Utah and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Jose Artalejo filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII and the ADA by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Throughout Mr. Artalejo's employment tenure at Micron, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Lehi, Utah facility, in
violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), by subjecting Mr. Artalejo to harassment because of his national origin, Mexican American.
8. Throughout Mr. Artalejo's employment tenure at Micron, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Lehi, Utah facility, in violation of Section 102 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), by subjecting him to harassment because of his disability, hearing impairment
9. Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 102(5)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), by not making reasonable accommodations to Mr. Artalejo's known physical impairment. The reasonable accommodations Defendant failed to make include, but are not limited to, excusing Mr. Artalejo from note taking duties after he lost his hearing aid and
-3-

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 1 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 4 of 10
having instructors use an amplification system, which was already in place, in a training that Mr. Artalejo attended. Neither requested accommodation would have caused Defendant an undue hardship.
10. Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3, by discharging Mr. Artalejo because he opposed practices made an unlawful employment practice by Title VII.
11. Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 503(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12203(a) by failing to accommodate Mr. Artalejo's disability and discharging him because he opposed acts and practices made unlawful by the ADA.
12. The unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited, to the following:
(a) Mr. Artalejo worked for Micron from October 2000 until October 22, 2002. During Mr. Artalejo's tenure, the national origin harassment was comprised in part, of national origin based epithets and taunting by coworkers, which was overheard by Defendant managers, and also made by his management team, including, but not limited to, "short Mexican," "little Mexican," and after September 11, 2001, suggesting that Mr. Artalejo could be taken for a Muslim terrorist.
(b) During Mr. Artalejo's tenure, the harassment because of his disability (hearing impairment) was comprised, in part, by comments and/or actions by coworkers and his management team, including, but not limited to, ''''[w]hy don't you clean out your ears little man," "dumb," "deaf," "dumb deaf guy," "turn up your ears," pretending to "sign," and using "deaf speak." These comments were made
-4-

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 1 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 5 of 10
by coworkers and managers (c) In the Spring of 2002, Mr. Artalejo complained about the national
origin and disability harassment to Defendant management officials. Defendant failed to take appropriate remedial action to prevent or correct the unlawful conduct.
(d) When Defendant management officials failed to take appropriate remedial action to prevent or correct the unlawful conduct, Jose Artalejo complained to Defendant's Human Resources Department about the harassment on or about August 5, 2002. After Mr. Artalejo complained to the Human Resources Department, a Defendant management official warned Mr. Artelejo "[y]ou are jeopardizing your career" and told Artalejo "[y]ou need to learn how to deal with it."
(e) After he complained about the harassment to Micron's Human Resource Department, a Defendant management official asked Mr. Artalejo how things were going on the floor. In response, Artalejo said that people were still ridiculing him; the management official told Artalejo that he was not "here to babysit" and told Mr. Artalejo to "take care of if' himself.
(f) After he complained about the harassment to Micron's Human Resource Department, Mr. Artalejo asked to be excused from note taking duties for his Unit's meeting because he had lost his hearing aids. Defendant denied Mr. Artalejo the requested accommodation and required him to take notes although he was unable to hear his coworkers' conversations.
(g) After he complained about the harassment to Micron's Human
-5-

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 1 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 6 of 10
Resource Department, Mr. Artalejo requested, and denied, a requested accommodation of having instructors use an amplification system during training that Mr. Artalejo was required to attend.
(i) On or about October 22, 2002, Defendant fired Jose Artalejo. 0) The acting supervisor involved in the incident that led to Mr. Artlejo's discharge was one of the individuals who made some of the comments referenced in Paragraph 12 (a) and (b), above and also denied Mr. Artalejo the reasonable accommodation of being excused from note taking duties. (k) After Mr. Artalejo's termination, the acting supervisor told a Micron management official that it was nice to have a break without having to listen to "Joe's loud talking" and he was "glad to have gotten rid of that deaf guy" and bragged he was proud to have succeeded in having Artalejo terminated. 13. The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraphs 7-12 above has been to deprive Mr. Artalejo of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of his national origin, disability, and retaliation. 14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraphs 7-12 were and are intentional. 15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraphs 7-12 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Artalejo
-6-

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 1 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 7 of 10
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Micron, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from (1) engaging in national origin harassment and any other employment practice that discriminates on the basis of national origin, (2) engaging in disability harassment and any other employment practice that discriminates on the basis of disability, (3) failing to reasonably accommodate an employee's disability, and (4) retaliating against an employee because the individual has opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII or the ADA or because the individual has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII or the ADA. B. Order Defendant Micron to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs, which provide equal employment opportunities for Mexican Americans, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Micron to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities, which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant Micron to make whole Mr. Artalejo by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the
-7-

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 1 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 8 of 10
unlawful practices complained of in Paragraphs 7-12 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to pay Mr. Artaljo pecuniary compensatory damages for expenses he incurred because of the discrimination, including but not limited to, job search expenses.
E. Order Defendant to pay Mr. Artalejo punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct, described in Paragraphs 7 -12 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
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 this 39ftr day of June, 2005.
Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel
James L. Lee
Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, NW. Washington, D.C. 20507
-8-

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 1 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 9 of 10

Paul M. Warner United States Attorney
~~ Civil Chi
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 185 S. State #400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 325-3243 Associated Local Counsel for Plaintiff

Sandra J. Pad i
Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Phoenix District Office 3300 N. Central Ave., Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 640-5061 Attorneys for Plaintiff

-9-

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 1 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 10 of 10

'IS 44 (Rev. 11/04)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided
r tL EO by local rules ofcourt. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is reqUIred for the use ofthe Clerk of Court forthe,Qllfpose ofmitiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

I j

OURT

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(c) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Micron Technology, Inc., a Delaware COqJrflr,lltion

l,O) JUN 30 P 3: Sb

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

UTAH

(lNU.S.PLAINTlFFCASESONLflISTR:CT OF UTMi

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNAnON CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE

LAND INVOLYED. Attorneys (If Known)

BY:~=~
DEPUTY CLER""I,--

Mary Jo O'Neill, C. Emanuel Smith, Sandra 1. Padegimas (602)640-5061

US EEOC, 3300 N. Central Ave, Ste 690; Phoenix, Arizona 85012

II. BA SIS OF JURISDICTION (PI~e ~ "lC" mOne B" Only)

1*\'1 u.s. Government

J

Plaintiff

o 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(PI~e ~ "lC" in One B,""' PI.inti"

(For Diversity Cases Only)

and One BOI for Defendant)

Citizen of This State

oPT"F DEF I 0 1 Incorporated or Principal Place

PT"F DEF 0 4 04

of Business In This State

02 U.S. Government
Defendant

0 ' Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Ciriun ofAnother State
Citizen or Subject of a Forei Cooo

02 03

0 2 Incorporated and PrincipaJ Place
of Business In Another Stale
0 3 Foreigo Nation

0 o, 0 6 o6

o 110 Insurance o 120Marine o 130 Miller Act o 140 Negotiable Instrument o 150 R«overy ofOverpaymen.1 o & Enforcement ofJudgment
151 Medicare Act
o 152 Recovery of Defauhed
SlDdent Loaru
o (Excl. Veterans) 153 Rewvery ofOvcrpll)'ll'mt
ofVete[1ll\'s Benefits
o 160 Stockholders' SuilS o 190 Other Conlnlct
195 Contract Product Liability

PERSONAL INJURY
310 AiJplane 315 AiJplane Product
Liability 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
0 no Fedel1ll Employers'
Liability
0 340 Marine 0 345 Marine Product
Liability
0 350 MotorVehic1e 0 355 Motor Vehicle
ProcluC1 Liability
0 360 Other Personal

PERSONAL INJURY 0 610 Agriculture

0 362 Pel1ional Injury· 0 620 Other Food & Drug

Med. Malpnlctice

0 625 Drug Relatcd Seizure

0 365 Personal Injury •

of Property 21 USC 881

Product Liability

0 630 Liquor Laws

0 368 Asbestos Pel1ional

640 R.R. & Truck

Injury Product

650 Airline Regs.

Liability

660 Occupational

PERSONAL PROPERTY

SafetyfHealth

0 370 Other Fraud

0 371 Truth in Lending

0 380 Other Personal

Prop<rtyDamoge
0 385 Property Damage

A"
720 LaborlMgmt. Relations

Product Liability

730 LaborlMsmt.Reporring

& Disclosure Act

740 Railway Labor Act

o 220 Fon:closure o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment o 240Tortll to Land o 245 Tort Product Liability o 290 All Other Real Property

Employment
443 Housing! Accommodations
0 444 Welfare 0 445 Amer. wlDisabilities·

Sentence Habeas Corpus: 530 General 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus & Other

790 Other Labor Litigation 79 I Empl. Ret. Inc.
Security Act

Employment
0 446 Amer. wlDisabilities-

550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition

00" 0 440 Other Civil

o 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 o 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
o 830 Patent o 840 Trademark
o 862 Black Lung (923) o 863 DlWClDIWW (405(g)) o 864 SSlD Title XVI

400 Stale Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks IUld Banking
450 Commerce 460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
COlnipt Organizations
0 480 Consumer Credit 0 490 Cable/Sat TV 0 810 Selective Senice 0 850 SecwitieilCommoditierJ
Exchange
0 875 Customer Challenge
12 USC3410
0 890 Other Statutory Actions 0 891 AgriculturaJ Acts 0 892 Economic Stabilization AC1 0 893 Environmental Matters 0 894 Enersy Allocation Act 0 895 Freedom ofInformation
A" 0 900AppeaJ of Fee Determination
Under Equal Access
to Justice
0 950 Constitutionality of
Slate Statutes

J,0RIGIN ~l Original

(Plilce an "}{" in One Bo)! Only)

O 2 Removed from

0 3 Remanded from

Appeal to District

0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 Reinstated or

Transferred from another district

Multidistrict

Judg~ from
MagIStrate

Proceedi

State Court

A lIate Co

Reo ened

s Cl

Uti ation

Jud ment

Cl·'"IIlteheIU0.1S.ACmiv;e] rSitcatautnesunWdeI !hwhUiclshaYoOUlimareefSilinKgCT(,DoIm••et dVteIjruooil£1dnldel.l'-I'JIVIII11K0lMg.n.tusnlA<scstdOi,J.n1il\Yjtji"~, and 4~ U::;t; ::;ec HI!:!1 a

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Brief description of cause:
10 correct unlawtul employment practIces 01 the bases 01 natIonal Origin, dIsabilIty, and retaliatIon

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF TillS IS A CLASS ACIlON UNDER F.RC.P. 23

DEMANDS

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint

J( JURY DEMAND:

Yes 0 No

VIJI. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY

(See instructions):

JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

RECEIPT # _ _ _ _ _ AMOUNT _ _ _ _ _ __

- - - - APPLYING IFP

Judge Ted Stewart
DECK TYPE: civil DATE STAMP: 06/30/2005 @ 15:50:54 CASE NUMBER: 2:05CV00546 TS

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 1 of 24

RALPH E. CHAMNESS (Bar No. 6511) ERIK STRINDBERG (Bar No. 4154) STRINDBERG SCHOLNICK & CHAMNESS, LLC 44 Exchange Place, Second Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: 801-359-4169 Attorneys for Plaintiff in Intervention

U.S

FILED D\Sil~iCT

COURT

11J'i on 28 p 12: 22

-_._--
_,1,1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UT AH, CENTRAL DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.
JOSE ARTALEJO, Plaintiff in Intervention
vs.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION (Jury Trial Requested)
Case No. 2:05 CV00546 TS Judge Ted Stewart

Plaintiff in Intervention Jose Artalejo ("Mr. Artalejo") complains and alleges against Defendant Micron Technology, Inc. ("Micron") as follows:

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 2 of 24
NATURE OF CASE I. This is an action for damages and redress for deprivation ofrights secured by the Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. ("Title VII") and the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 11201, et. seq. Mr. Artalejo seeks damages pursuant to Title VII, the ADA and 42 U.S.c. § 1981a; and for equitable relief.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Mr. Artalejo is an individual residing in Utah County, Utah. 3. Micron is a corporation doing business in the state of Utah and was Mr. Artalejo's employer in the state of Utah. Micron is an employer as defined by Title VII and the ADA. 4. The unlawful employment practices alleged herein were committed by Micron within the state of Utah. 5. This court has jurisdiction over the actions asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1331 and 42 U.S.c. § 12117. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.c.§ 1391 (b) and (c), as adopted by the terms of 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (a).
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 6. Within the time permitted by law, Mr. Artalejo filed a Charge ofDiscrimination with the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division ("UALD"), which was forwarded to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") at the Phoenix District Office. The charge of Discrimination is attached as Exhibit "A." Mr. Artalejo amended his Charge of Discrimination on May 22, 2003 to include a claim that Micron had retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity. A copy of the Amended Charge is attached as Exhibit "B."
2

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 3 of 24
7. On July 20, 2004, the EEOC detennined that Micron discriminated against Mr. Artalejo on the basis of his national origin and his disability. The EEOC further found that Micron had retaliated against Mr. Artalejo for engaging in protected activity. A copy of the Letter of Detennination is attached as Exhibit "C." Subsequently, on September 13, 2004, the EEOC issued an Amended Letter ofDetennination. The Amended Letter ofDetennination is attached as Exhibit "D." The EEOC issued a Second Amended Detennination on January 25,2005. A copy of the Second Amended Letter of Detennination is attached as Exhibit "E."
8. On June 30, 2005, the EEOC filed a Complaint alleging that Micron violated Title VII and the ADA.
9. All administrative prerequisites for the filing of this Complaint in Intervention have been satisfied.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10. Mr. Artalejo is a Mexican American. II. Since birth, Mr. Artalejo has had an impainnent which substantially impairs his ability to hear. 12. Micron recruited Mr. Artalejo to begin work as an Equipment Maintenance Technician at its Lehi, Utah plaint. During the recruiting process, Mr. Artalejo infonned Micron's recruiter that he was hearing impaired. He even showed the recruiter that he wore hearing aids. Micron's recruiter acknowledged that Mr. Artalejo had a hearing impainnent and made notes concerning his impainnent. 13. Mr. Artalejo began his employment with Micron on or about October 23, 2000.
3

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 4 of 24

14. During his employment Micron had no problems with Mr. Artalejo's ability to maintain its equipment.

15. Despite Mr. Artalejo's technical abilities, he began to experience repeated and severe harassment based upon his national origin and disability.

16. The following comments and actions are illustrative of the harassment Micron subjected Mr. Artalejo to during his employment:

a. calling him a "short Mexican";

b. calling him a "little Mexican";

c. after September 11,200 I, telling him that he could be confused for a terrorist but that would be better than being a "fucking Mexican";

d. asking him about the "border";

e. making up Spanish words to belittle his Mexican heritage;

f.

calling him "dumb";

g. calling him "deaf';

h. calling him a "dumb deaf guy";

1.

asking him to "clean out" his ears;

J.

telling him to "turn up" his ears;

k. pretending to use sign language to speak with him;

1.

mocking the way deaf people speak;

4

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 5 of 24

m. laughing at him because he could not hear what was being said;

n. requiring him to take minutes at meetings, knowing that he could not hear what was being said;

o. mocking the notes he took at the meeting while knowing that he could not hear what was said; and,

p.

requiring him to attend training knowing that he could not hear what was

being said.

17. Mr. Artalejo complained to his managers about the harassment he was suffering. Perhaps because they were also engaging in some ofthe harassing conduct, Mr. Artalejo' s managers failed to take any action to stop the harassment.

18. Because his complaints had no affect on the harassment he was suffering, Mr. Artalejo went to Micron's Human Resources Department. Shortly after he went to the Human Resources Department, Mr. Artalejo's manager told him that he was jeopardizing his career at Micron and suggested that Mr. Artalejo learn how to deal with the harassment he was suffering. After complaining about his treatment, Mr. Artalejo also requested that he be excused from the note taking outlined above. His managerrefused this accommodation, grinned at Mr. Artalejo, said it was not his problem and that Mr. Artalejo was required to take the notes. Mr. Artalejo was also denied a requested accommodation which would have allowed him to understand training Micron required him to attend.

5

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 6 of 24
19. Mr. Artalejo was terminated by the same supervisor who denied Mr. Artalejo the requested accommodations and who had been the subject ofMr. Artalejo's complaint to Micron's Human Resource Department. Micron did not have any legitimate basis to terminate Mr. Artalejo.
20. After terminating Mr. Artalejo, his supervisor made numerous comments that he was glad he had fired Mr. Artalejo because he would not have to listen to Mr. Artalejo's "loud talking" and he was glad he had terminated the "deaf guy."
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Violation of Title VII) 21. Mr. Artalejo incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 20 as it fully set forth herein. 22. Mr. Artalejo is Mexican American, and is therefore a member of a protected class under Title VII. 23. As outlined above, and incorporated herein, Micron purposefully and intentionally discriminated against Mr. Artalejo based upon his national origin, in violation of Title VII, when he was subjected to severe and pervasive harassment by his supervisor and coworkers. 24. Mr. Artalejo is entitled to recover damages for all future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss ofenjoyment oflife, and all othernon-pecuniary losses caused by Micron's unlawful discrimination. 25. Micron's actions described above were done with malice or a reckless indifference to Mr. Artalejos's federally protected right to work in an environment free from offensive conduct based upon an individual's national origin. Due to the willful and malicious nature of the
6

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 7 of 24
discrimination against Mr. Artalejo and the fact that one of the perpetrators of the harassment was a management official, Mr. Artalejo is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Micron from engaging in discriminatory conduct in the future.
26. Mr. Artalejo is entitled to recover all attorneys' fees and costs expended III prosecuting this action.
27. Mr. Artalejo is entitled to other such relief as this Court deems appropriate. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Retaliation in Violation of Title VII) 28. Mr. Artalejo incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 as it fully set forth herein. 29. Mr. Artalejo opposed the unlawful harassment by complaining to his supervisor and by reporting the harassment to Micron's Human Resources Department. 30. Because of his opposition to the harassing behavior and because he reported the harassment to Micron's Human Resources Department, Mr. Artalejo's supervisor and Micron took adverse employment actions against him, including terminating his employment. 31. Mr. Artalejo is entitled to recover damages for all future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss ofenjoyment oflife, and all othernon-pecuniary losses caused by Micron's unlawful retaliation. 32. Micron's actions described above were done with malice or a reckless indifference to Mr. Artalejo's federally protected right to complain about national origin harassment. Due to the
7

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 8 of 24
willful and malicious nature of the retaliation against Mr. Artalejo, Mr. Artalejo is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Micron from engaging in retaliatory conduct in the future,
33. Mr. Artalejo IS entitled to recover all attorneys' fees and costs expended III prosecuting this action.
34. Mr. Artalejo is entitled to other such relief as this Court deems appropriate. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Discrimination in Violation of the ADA) 35. Mr. Artalejo incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 34 as it fully set forth herein. 36. During his employment by Micron, Mr. Artalejo was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. 37. Mr. Artalejo was, and is, a qualified individual with a disability, who was able to perform the essential functions ofhis position at Micron with or without reasonable accommodation. 38. Micron knew of Mr. Artalejo's disability, and/or regarded him as being disabled, and/or knew he had a record of a disability. 39. Micron's actions outlined above violated the ADA by: a) harassing Mr. Artalejo on the basis of his disability; b) failing to accommodate Mr. Artalejo's disability; c) failing to engage in the interactive process required by the ADA to determine if a reasonable accommodation is possible; and d) terminating Mr. Artalejo because of his disability.
8

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 9 of 24
40. Mr. Artalejo is entitled to recover damages for al\ future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss ofenjoyment oflife, and al\ othernon-pecuniary losses caused by Micron's unlawful discrimination.
41. Micron's actions described above were done with malice or a reckless indifference to Mr. Artalejo's federally protected rights to work in an environment from discrimination on the basis of disability. Due to the willful and malicious nature of the discrimination against Mr. Artalejo, Mr. Artalejo is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Micron from engaging in discriminatory conduct in the future.
42. Mr. Artalejo is entitled to recover all attorneys' fees and costs expended III prosecuting this action.
43. Mr. Artalejo is entitled to other such relief as this Court deems appropriate. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Retaliation in Violation of the ADA)
44. Mr. Artalejo incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43 as it fully set forth herein.
45. As outlined above, Micron threatened Mr. Artalejo after he complained about the discrimination he was experiencing. Micron eventually carried out its threat and terminated Mr. Artalejo because of his complaints.
46. Because of his opposition to the harassing behavior and because he reported the harassment to Micron's Human Resources Department, Mr. Artalejo's supervisor and Micron took adverse employment actions against him, including terminating his employment.
9

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 10 of 24
47. Mr. Artalejo is entitled to recover damages for all future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss ofenjoyment oflife, and all othernon-pecuniary losses caused by Micron's unlawful retaliation.
48. Micron's actions described above were done with malice or a reckless indifference to Mr. Artalej 0' s federally protected right to complain about national origin harassment. Due to the willful and malicious nature of the retaliation against Mr. Artalejo, Mr. Artalejo is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Micron from engaging in retaliatory conduct in the future.
49. Mr. Artalejo is entitled to recover all attorneys' fees and costs expended In prosecuting this action.
50. Mr. Artalejo is entitled to other such relief as this Court deems appropriate. JURY DEMAND
51. Mr. Artalejo hereby requests that his claims be tried to a jury of his peers PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Mr. Artalejo prays for judgment against Micron as follows: I. For a finding that the acts, policies, practices, and procedures ofMicron complained
of herein were unlawful employment practices that violated Ms. Solomon's rights secured by Title VII and the ADA. 2. For an order and judgment against Micron for appropriate back pay, front pay, and reimbursement for Mr. Artalejo's pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, including lost
10

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 11 of 24

wages, other fringe benefits, and consequential damages for his suffering, loss of enjoyment oflife, and other non-pecuniary loses in amounts to be established at trial;

3. For compensatory damages to compensate Mr. Artalejo for emotional distress and other losses;

4. For punitive damages in an amount to deter Micron from engaging in such conduct in the future; and

5. For such further and other relief the court deems appropriate.

~ DATED this

day of October, 2005.

STRINDBERG SCHOLNICK & CHAMNESS, LLC

Plaintiffs Address: 236 North 850 East Orem, Utah 84097

t
Ralph E. Chamness Erik Strindberg Attorneys for Plaintiff in Intervention

U :\current clients\Artalejo_ Joe\Complaint.wpd

11

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 12 of 24
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 13 of 24

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _C' 'fRGE OF DISCRIMINATION
Utah Antl.Discriminatiliil'E@E~VEE):l E

7 A.3- UALD No:

05" {)..

EEOC No: .35 {!.. -1+3- () 5~7

NAME (IndiCJlte Mr., Ms.• Mrs.) Jose M Artalejo

MAR 27 2003

HOME TELEPHONE ([,d,d< M" C,d<)
(801) 229·7970

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

236 N 850 E, Orem UT 84097

ANTIDISCRIMINATION AND LABOR COMMISSION

DATE OF BIRTH
Jul 29, 1959

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,

STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME

(lfm,,""'",",U,{o<iow.)

NAME

TELEPHONE (Incl1uu Area Code)

Micron Technology Inc

(801) 767·4000

STREET ADDRESS
1550 E 3400 N, Lehi UT 84043

COUNTY
49

NAME
Micron Technology Inc

STREET ADDRESS
8000 S Federal Way, Nc, Boise 10 83707

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON

DRACE 0 COLOR 0 SEX 0 RELIGION lEI NATiONAL ORIGIN

o 0 lEI 0 RETALIATION

AGE

DISABILITY

OTHER (Sp'dfy)

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARUEST

LATEST

10/22/2002
IXI CONTINUING ACTION

At the time I was hired, I let the employer know that I had a disability. It Was only a short time after my hire that I began experiencing problems with my Lead. I was subjected to ongoing harassment and rude comments about my disability and national origin. I Was yelled at by others and I finally went to Human Resources to report it. I was assigned the duty of taking minutes for our meeting even though my disability made it impossible for me to do so. In October 2002 I was sent home by the Acting Supervisor because I had disagreed with him earlier and I was accused of yelling at him. The next day I was notified I was being terminated. Negative comments continued about my disability even after my termination.
I believe I have been discriminated against because of my Disability and National Origin/Hispanic in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Utah Antidiscrimination Act of 1965, as amended.

I understand this charge will be filed with both the EEOC NOTARY

and the State or local Agency, if any, unless jurisdictional State of Utah

issues dictate otherwise. I will advise the agencies if I

County of :t.!;to...i1-

ss.

change my address or telephone n umber and cooperate

-"''.L<''''''_ _ _ __

fully with them in the processing of my charge in

accordance with their procedures.

"'8 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN/A FIRMED TO ME ON THIS ;;l 0

DAY OF

'-fY\.-....4..

;;0.""3 ,by ~0 S ~ -T>1. fI c f ~I D

--p

(Charging Party)

if"" J.i~

y : t "3, -;:"'0

Notary Public

My Commission Expires

NOTARY PUBLIC LORRAINE HAWKINS
406 North State Street Orem, Utah 84057 00rnml.810n Expires September 30, 200<4
STATE OF UTAH

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 14 of 24
EXHIBITB

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 15 of 24

AMEND.

Labor Commission of Utah Anti·DiscrililltbJ~~~i>;.i

\M E (Indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.)
Ise M Artalejo

MAY 22 2003

UALD No: A3·0527 EEOC No: 35C·A3·0527 HOME TELEPHONE( [ndude Area Code)
(80l) 229·7970

'REET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

36 N 850 E, Orem UT 84097

ANTIDISCRIMINATiON AND LABOR CO:vlMiSSION

DATE OF BIRTH
Jul 29, 1959

'MED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,

'ATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME

(lim", Ih," on, 1i,'1 bd,w.)

IME

TELEPHONE (lnc/~de Area Code)

icron Technology Inc

(801) 767-4000

REET ADDRESS
;50 E 3400 N, Lehi UT 84043

COUNTY
49

IME

STREET ADDRESS

icron Technology Inc

8000 S Federal Way, Boise ID 83707

,USE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON
] RACE 0 COLOR 0 SEX 0 RELIGION IRl NATIONAL ORIGIN IRl RETALIATION 0 AGE IRl DISABILITY 0 OTHER (Sp"ify)

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

fARUEST

LATEST

10/22/2002
IRl CONTINUING ACTION

,E PARTICULARS ARE (I!additional spac; is 7Ueded,aUache:rtra sheefs(s)):

t the time I was hired, I let the employer know that I had a disability. It was only a short time after my hire that I began
'periencing problems with my Lead. I was subjected to ongoing harassment and rude comments about my disability and ,tionaI origin. I was assigned the duty of taking minutes for our meeting even though my disability made it impossible r me to do so. In October 2002 I was sent home by the Acting Supervisor because I had disagreed with him earlier and I as accused of yelling at him. Finally, I went to Human Resources and reported the problems. As a result of my report I as yelled at, threatened, disciplined and the next day I was notified I was being terminated. Negative comments lntinued about my disability even after my termination.

,elieve I have been discriminated against because of my Disability, National Origin/Hispanic and Retaliation for 'porting the problems to Human Resources in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Utah Antidiscrimination Act of 1965, as amended.

understand this charge will be filed with both the EEOC nd the State or local Agency, if any, unless jurisdictional ,sues dictate otherwise. I will advise the agencies jf I hange my address or telephone number and cooperate J!ly with them in the processing of my charge in ccordance with their procedures.

NOTARY State of Utah County of --"<Cl..Cf....a=-4:.:rf:A:l~~

Notary Public

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 16 of 24
EXHIBIT C

Au.-18-04 Ca04s:4e8pm2:05F-rcomv--E00E504C6-TS-SA

Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 17 of 24

602 640 50T!

T-i46 P.001/002 F-264

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Phoenix District Office

3300 N. Centnd Avenue, Suile 690 PhO<nix, lIZ SSOI1,2504 (602) 640,5000

lTV (602) 640,5072 FAX (602) 640-5071

Charge No. 35C-A3-0527

Jose M. ArtaIejo 236N850E Orem, Utah 84097

Charging Party

Micron Technology, Inc. 1550 E 3400 N Lehi, Utah 84043

Respondent

Micron Technology, Inc. 8000 S Federal Way Boise, Idaho 83707

Respondent

DETERMINATION
I issue the following determination on the merits of this charge.
Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title vn ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U,S.C. § 12101e, ~ seg. Timeliness and all other requirements for coverage have been met.
Charging Party alleged he was discriminated against due to his national origin (Mexican) in violation ofTide VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, his disability (hearing impainnent) in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and retaliated against for reporting the InaUer to Human Resources.
Specifically, Charging Party says he notified his employer ofhis disability when be was hired. A short time after his hire, he began experiencing pmblems with his Lead. He alleged that he was subjected to ongoing harassment and rude comments about his disability and his national origin. He also alleges that he was yelled at by co-workers and repOlled this to Human Resources. Charging Party states he was assigned the duties of taking minutes for a meeting even though his disability made it impossible for him to do so. He alleges that he was yelled at, threatened, disciplined and terminated because ofhis complaints. He also alleged that following his termination the negative comments continued about his disability.

AUI-18-04Cas04e:482pm:05-cFrvom-0-E05E406C-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 18 of 24

602 640 5071

T-946 P.002/002 F-264

Respondent denied the allegations.
The evidence demonstrates that Charging party is a qualified individual with a disability and that
the Respondent was aware ofthe disability. The record indicates Charging party complained
about harassment due to his national origin and his disability to Human Resources. Following his complaint, he was issued a corrective action from his manager, who was responsible for investigating his complaint filed with Human Resources. 'Ibis adverse action combined with the reasons offered for the termination of Charging party were not supponed by the evidence. Thus it is reasonable to infer that Respondent's stated reasons were a pretext for its retaliatory motive. Additionally, the investigation revealed that Charging party was subjected to derogatory comments about his national origin and his disability. In addition, the record of evidence showed that Charging Party was denied a reasonable accommodation for his disability.
Therefore, I find reasonable cause to believe that lWspondent discriminated against Charging
vn Party in violation of Title and the ADA by subjecting him to harassment due to his national
origin and his disability. In addition, I find that Respondent denied Charging Party a reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA. Further, I find reasonable cause that Charging Party was disciplined and discharged in retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful under Title VII and the ADA.
Upon finding that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in reaching aJUSt resolution of this matter. The confidentiality provisions of Title VII, the ADA and Commission Regulations apply to information obtained during conciliation.
If Respondent declines to discuss settlement or when, for any other reason, a settlement acceptable to the office Director is not obtained, the Director will inform the panies and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available to aggrieved persons and the Commissioo. A Commission representative will contact each party in the near future to begin conciliation.

JUt 20 2004
Date

On Behalf of the Commission:
Susan L. Grace Acting District Director

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 19 of 24
EXHIBITD

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 20 of 24

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Phoenix District Office

3300 N. Central Avenue, Suite 690
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2504 (602) 640-5000
TTY (602) 640-5072 FAX (602) 640-5071

Charge No. 35C-A3-0521

Jose M. Artalejo 236N 850E Orem, Utah 84097

Charging Party

Micron Technology, Inc. 1550 E 3400 N Lehi, Utah 84043

Respondent

Micron Technology, Inc. 8000 S Federal Way Boise, Idaho 83707

Respondent

DETERMINATION AMENDED
I issue the following determination on the merits of this charge.
Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.c. § 2000e, et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101e, et ~ Timeliness and all other requirements for coverage have been met.
Charging Party alleged he was discriminated against due to his national origin (Mexican) in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, his disability (hearing impairment) in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and retaliated against for reporting the matter to Human Resources.
Specifically, Charging Party says he notified his employer of his disability when he was hired. A short time after his hire, he began experiencing problems with his Lead. He alleged that he was subjected to ongoing harassment and rude comments about his disability and his national origin. He also alleges that he was yelled at by co-workers and reported this to Human Resources. Charging Party states he was assigned the duties of taking minutes for a meeting even though his disability made it impossible for him to do so. He alleges that he was yelled at, threatened, disciplined and terminated because of his complaints. He also alleged that following his termination the negative comments continued about his disability.

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 21 of 24

Respondent denied the allegations.
The evidence demonstrates that Charging Party is a qualified individual with a disability and that the Respondent was aware ofthe disability. The record indicates Charging Party complained about harassment due to his national origin and his disability to Human Resources. Following his complaint, he was issued a corrective action from his manager, who was responsible for investigating his complaint filed with Human Resources. This adverse action combined with the reasons offered for the termination of Charging Party were not supported by the evidence. Thus it is reasonable to infer that Respondent's stated reasons were a pretext for its retaliatory motive. Additionally, the investigation revealed that Charging Party was subjected to derogatory comments about his national origin and his disability. In addition, the record of evidence showed that Charging Party was denied a reasonable accommodation for his disability.
Therefore, I find reasonable cause to believe that Respondent discriminated against Charging Party in violation of Title VII and the ADA by subjecting him to harassment due to his national origin and his disability. In addition, I find that Respondent denied Charging Party a reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA. Further, I find reasonable cause that Charging Party was disciplined and discharged in retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful under Title VII and the ADA.
Upon finding that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in reaching a just resolution of this matter. The confidentiality provisions of Title VII, the ADA and Commission Regulations apply to information obtained during conciliation.
IfRespondent declines to discuss settlement or when, for any other reason, a settlement acceptable to the office Director is not obtained, the Director will inform the parties and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available to aggrieved persons and the Commission. A Commission representative will contact each party in the near future to begin conciliation.

SEP 1 3 2004
Date

On Behalf of the Commission:
~san L. Grabe'
Acting District Director

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 22 of 24
EXHIBITE

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 23 of 24

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Phoenix District Office

3300 N. Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 850)2·2504 (602) 640·5000 TTY (602) 640·5072 FAX (602) 640·5071

Charge No. 35C-A3-052l

Jose M. Artalej 0 236N 850 B Orem, Utah 84097

Charging Party

Micron Technology, Inc. l550B 3400N Lehi, Utah 84043'

Respondent

Micron Technology, Inc. 8000 S Federal Way Boise, Idaho 83707

Respondent

SECOND AMENDED DETERMINATION

I issue the following determination on the merits of this charge.
. ,

Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 e, et seq. Timeliness and all other requirements for coverage have

been met.

.

Charging Party alleged he was discriminated against because of his national origin (Mexican) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, his disability (hearing impairment) in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and retaliated against because he repQrted the unlawful conduct to Human Resources.

Specifically, Charging Party alleged that, when hired, he notified his employer of his disability. He further alleged that, a short time after his hire, he began experiencing problems with his Lead and that he was subjected to ongoing harassment and rude comments about his disability and national origin. Charging Party alleged that he complained to Human Resources department abol,lt his mistreatment. After his formal complaint, Charging Party alleged he was yelled at, threatened, and disciplined. Charging Party contended that he was sent home by the Acting Supervis<;ir (his Lead) and was terminated. Finally, Charging Party contended that the negative comments about his disability continued even after his termination.
Respondent denied the allegations.

Case 2:05-cv-00546-TS-SA Document 19 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 24 of 24

The evidence demonstrates that Charging Party is a qualified individual with a disability and that the Respond'ent was aware of the disability. Witnesses confirm that members of Charging Party's management team and his co-workers subjected him to repeated and offensive negative comments about his national origin and disability. The record indicates Charging Party complained about harassment to his managers, who failed to take appropriate remedial action. The evidence also reflects that Charging Party complained about the unlawful conduct to his Human ResourcesDepartment. In response to his complaint to the HR department, Charging Party's supervisor told him he was "jeopardizing his career" and warned "you need to learn how to deal with it."
The evidence reflects that, after the Charging Party complained to Human Resources, he was disciplined and discharged. In addition, the evidence reflects that, after Charging Party complained to Human Resources, two requests for reasonable accommodations for his disability were denied although the requested accommodation would not have caused Respondent an undue hardship.
Therefore, I find reasonable cause to believe that Respondent discriminated against Charging Party in violation. of Title VII by subjecting him to a hostile work environment because of his national origin and retaliating against him because he complained about the unlawful conduct by disCiplining and discharging him.
I also find reasonable cause to believe that Respondent discriminated against Charging Party in violation of the.ADA by failing to accommodate his disability and subjecting him to a hostile work environment because of his disability. Finally, I find reasonable cause to believe Respondent violated the ADA when it retaliated against Charging Party because he opposed conduct made unlawful by the Act when it failed to accommodate his disability, disciplined, and discharged him. ~
Upon finding that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in reaching a just resolution of this matter. The confidentiality provisions otTilie VII, the ADA and Commission Regulations apply to information obtained during conciliation.
If Respondent declines to discuss settlement or when, for any other reason, a settlement accepiable to the office Director is not obtained, the Director will inform the parties and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available to aggrieved persons and the Commission. A Commission representative will contact each party in the near future to begin conciliation.

() lizO/D5

Date

"

On Behalf of the Commission:

Chester V. Bailey

"

District Director JAN 2 7 2005

.I"" n " "on,

 
 Matthew M. Durham (USB No. 6214) E-mail: mmdurham@stoel.com Justin B. Palmer (USB No. 8937) E-mail: jbpalmer@stoel.com STOEL RIVES LLP 201 South Main Street, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, Utah S4111 Telephone: (SOl) 32S-3131 Facsimile: (SOl) 57S-6999
Attorneys for Defendant Micron Technology, Inc.

FilED U S DISTRICT COURT
LOUh JUN -5 P 1,1: OW

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Case No. 2:05 CV00546 TS
The Honorable Ted Stewart

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. a Delaware Corporation

Defendant.

JOSE ARTALEJO,

Plaintiff in Intervention,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. a Delaware Corporation,

Defendant

This matter having come before the Court pursuant to the agreement of the parties, and

good cause being shown, the Court ORDERS that the following procedures shall be used in this

Sa1tLake-270 189.40052170-00008

action for the protection of the parties against the improper disclosure or use of confidential

information produced in discovery or filed with the Court:

1. CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTION. A. The parties may designate as "Confidential" any document or evidence that refers,

reflects, or relates to (1) personal information about any current or former employee of defendant

Micron Technology, Inc. ("Micron") including, but not limited to, date of birth, social security

number, contact/location information, and/or medical information, (2) any request for a

workplace accommodation for any disability or impairment by any current or former Micron

employee, (3) the discipline, commendation, or job performance of any current or former Micron

employee; and/or (4) the involuntary termination of any current or former Micron employee.

B. Information designated "Confidential" may be used only in connection

with this litigation, and not for any other purpose. Such information may not be disclosed to

anyone except as provided in this Order.

C. Any documents stamped "Confidential" as well as any copies or excerpts

thereof, or analyses or reports which pertain thereto, may be made available only to:

1.

Attorneys of record for the parties, their employees and other

attorneys andlor employees of their firms;

11. Judges, law clerks and other clerical personnel of the Court before

which this action is pending;

111. Experts who agree to abide by the terms of this Order;

IV. The parties to this litigation and their officers, directors or

employees (if any) on a need to know basis.

SaltLake-270189A 0052170-00008

2

v. Trial or deposition witnesses, subject to the provisions of Paragraph 2(d), below. D. Any document or evidence filed with the Court or submitted to the Judge which is designated as containing "Confidential" information will be filed in a sealed envelope or other appropriate container, marked on the outside with the title of the action, and a statement substantially in the following form:
CONFIDENTIAL This document is subject to a PROTECTIVE ORDER issued by the Court and may not be examined or copied except in compliance with that Order. 2. DEPOSITIONS. A. If "Confidential" information is marked as a deposition exhibit, such exhibit shall retain its designated status and, if filed, shall be filed under seal. B. During any deposition, counsel for the Producing Party may request that any portions of the deposition or deposition exhibits also be treated as "Confidential." The presence of persons not entitled to attend a deposition pursuant to this paragraph shall constitute justification for counsel for the Producing Party to advise or instruct the witness not to answer. C. Upon receipt, all deposition transcripts and the exhibits thereto shall be treated initially as "Confidential" in their entirety until fifteen (15) days after receipt of the transcript, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. Within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the transcript, any party may designate portions of a deposition transcript as "Confidential." The designation shall be accomplished by a letter to all other parties and the court reporter listing the pages, lines, and exhibits constituting confidential information and the category of

SaitLake·270189.4 0052170-00008

3

confidentiality. Ifthe Producing Party previously designated portions of testimony as "Confidential" during the deposition, the Producing Party is not required to redesignate those portions of the transcript during the fifteen (15) day period unless the Producing Party wants to change the designation.
D. Documents and any other materials containing "Confidential" information may be shown to a witness to examine or cross-examine the witness during a deposition or trial. A witness may view such materials in advance of the deposition or trial if the witness agrees to abide by the terms of this Order. However, a witness shall not retain any such documents or things or any copies thereof after the deposition or trial (except for the purpose of reviewing the transcript of his or her deposition in connection with its correction or execution), unless the witness is otherwise authorized under this Order to receive such information.
3. OBJECTION TO DESIGNATION. A. If, at any time during the preparation for trial or during the trial of this action, a party believes that another party has unreasonably designated certain information as "Confidential," or believes that it is necessary to disclose designated information to persons other than those permitted by this Order, and the designating party does not agree to change the designation or to the further disclosure, the party may make an appropriate application to this Court requesting that the specifically identified documents, information, and/or deposition testimony be excluded from the provisions of this Order or be made available to specified other persons. B. This Order will not prejudice the right of any party to oppose production

SaltLake-270189.4 0052170-00008

4

of any infonnation on the ground of attorney-client privilege, work product inununity, or any

other protection provided under the law.

DATED: May 31, 2006

STOEL RIVES LLP

DATED: May 31, 2006

Is/Justin B. Palmer Matthew M. Durham Justin B. Palmer Attorneys for Defendant
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

DATED: May 31, 2006

Is/Sandra J. Padegimas (signed by Filing Attorney with permission of Plaintiff's Attorneys) Mary Jo O'Neill C. Emanuel Smith Sandra J. Padegimas Attorneys for Plaintiff
STRINDBERG, SCHOLNICK & CHAMNESS, LLC

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: ---"-{-I-/..LC~/_D_6_ I

/s/Ralph E. Chamness (signed by Filing Attorney with permission of Plaintiff in Intervention's Attorneys) Ralph E. Chamness Attorneys for Plaintiff in Intervention
Samuel Alba U.S. Magistrate Judge

SaltLake-270189.4 0052170-00008

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 31st day of May 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing
PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Clerk of
Court using the CM/ECF system. A copy was also mailed to:
Mary Jo O'Neill C. Emanuel Smith Sandra J. Padegimas Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012
Ralph E. Chamness Strindberg Scholnick & Chamness, LLC 426 North 300 East Salt Lake City, UT 84103
Is/Justin B. Palmer

SaltLake-270189.40052170-00008

6

 
 LAUREN SCHOLNICK (Bar No. 7776) STRINDBERG SCHOLNICK & CHAMNESS, LLC 426 North 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Telephone: (801) 359-4169
ELIZABETH M. PECK (Bar No. 6304) LAW OFFICE OF ELIZABETH M. PECK 422 North 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Tel. (801) 521-0844
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff in Intervention
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

CORRIGENDUM TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

vs.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. a Delaware Corporation,

Case No. 2:05 CV00546 TS Judge Ted Stewart

Defendant. __________________________________ JOSE ARTALEJO,

Plaintiff in Intervention

vs.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. a Delaware Corporation,

Defendant

Plaintiff in Intervention Jose Artalejo, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby makes this Corrigendum to correct a clerical error and misstatement contained in his Complaint in Intervention.
In the Fourth Claim for Relief for Retaliation in Violation of the ADA, the first sentence in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint in Intervention provides, in relevant part:
48. Micron's actions described above were done with malice or a reckless indifference to Mr. Artalejo's federally protected right to complain about national origin harassment. The italicized language should be corrected from “national origin harassment” to read “disability harassment,” such that the first sentence of ¶48 should and is hereby corrected to read: 48. Micron's actions described above were done with malice or a reckless indifference
to Mr. Artalejo's federally protected right to complain about disability harassment. DATED this 8th day of September, 2006.
LAW OFFICE OF ELIZABETH M. PECK

By:

/s/ Elizabeth M. Peck

Elizabeth M. Peck

Co-Counsel for Jose Artalejo

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 8th day of September, 2006, I caused the foregoing CORRIGENDUM TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION to be electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which sent electronic notice of the same to the following:
Matthew M. Durham Justin B. Palmer STOEL RIVES, L.L.P. 201 So. Main Street, Ste.1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Mary Jo O'Neill C. Emanuel Smith Sandra J. Padegimas EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 3300 N. Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012
Lauren I. Scholnick STRINDBERG, SCHOLNICK & CHAMNESS 426 North 300 West Salt Lake City, UT 84103
/s/ Elizabeth M. Peck
3

 
 Mary Jo O'Neill AZ #005924 Sally C. Shanley AZ #012251 Sandra J. Padegimas AZ #011652 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Phoenix District Office 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 640-5061

,- ., -,,'
,-." .
n

Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

.,',
-.--
, . '\',

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Civil No. 2:0S-CV-OOS46-TS-SA Judge Ted Stewart
Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba
CONSENT DECREE

Defendant. JOSE ARTALEJO,

Plaintiff-i n-I ntervention,

vs.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") filed this action against Defendant, Micron Technology, Inc., ("Micron" or "Defendant"), in the public interest to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

u.s.c. §2000e etseq. ("Title VII"), Title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §
12101 et seq., (the "ADA"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C.§1981 a, and
to provide appropriate relief to Jose Artalejo as a result of the unlawful practices. Mr. Artalejo filed his own action and is a party intervenor to this proceeding.

As a result of settlement negotiations, the Commission, Jose Artalejo, and Defendant agree that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree. The Commission, Jose Artalejo, and Micron entered into this Consent Decree as a way of resolving all outstanding differences that may have existed in this case. This Consent Decree fully and finally resolves any and all claims arising out of the Complaints filed by the Commission and Jose Artalejo. This Consent Decree shall apply only to Micron's Idaho facility. The parties waive the Entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

1.

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and of the parties

hereto.

2.

This Consent Decree resolves all claims asserted by Jose Artalejo against

Micron and all claims asserted by the Commission on behalf of Jose Artalejo against

Micron in this lawsuit, including without limitation back pay, compensatory and punitive

damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys fees.

3.

The terms and provisions of this Consent Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable,

equitable, and just. The rights of the parties are adequately protected by this Decree.

-2-

4. This Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the ADA and Title VII, and is not in derogation of the rights and privileges of any person. The entry of this Consent Decree will further the objectives of the ADA and Title VII, and will be in the best interests of the Commission, Jose Artalejo, Micron, and the public.

5.

Micron denies liability and this Consent Decree is not an admission of liability.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

6.

Micron is enjoined for the duration of this Decree from discriminating against an

employee on the basis of disability or national origin.

7.

Micron is enjoined for the duration of this Decree from retaliating against any

employee because he or she (a) opposed discriminatory practices made unlawful by

the ADA or Title VII; (b) filed a charge of discrimination under the ADA or Title VII, or

assisted or participated in filing a charge under the ADA or Title VII; or (c) testified,

assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing brought under the

ADA, or Title VII.

MONETARY RELIEF

8.

Micron shall pay Mr. Artalejo Sixty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($ 60,000) to

resolve this case and Micron shall provide a United States Intemal Revenue Form 1099 to

Mr. Artalejo for this payment.

9.

Micron shall pay the settlement amount to Mr. Artalejo's attorneys by check,

cashier's check, or money order no later than ten (10) days from entry of this Consent

Decree. Micron also shall mail copies of the check to: Mary Jo O'Neill, Regional

Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Phoenix District Office, 3300

North Central Ave., Suite 690, Phoenix, AZ 85012.

10.

Micron shall not condition the receipt of this individual relief on Mr. Artalejo's

agreement to (a) maintain as confidential the terms of this decree or other matters on the

public record; (b) waive his statutory right to file a charge with any federal or state anti-

discrimination agency; or (c) waive his right to apply for a position with Micron.

LETTER OF REGRET

11.

Within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the Decree, Micron's Vice President of

Human Resources shall prepare a letter of regret to Mr. Artalejo, as set forth in

Attachment A.

PERSONNEL FILE

12.

Within twenty (20) days of the entry of this Decree, to the extent necessary,

Micron shall modify the personnel file of Mr. Artalejo (a) to expunge all references to the

charge of discrimination filed against Defendant that formed the bases of this action; (b)

remove all references to Mr. Artalejo's participation in this action since he filed his first

charge of discrimination on March 27, 2003; and (c) modify Mr. Artalejo's personnel file

to reflect that he resigned from Micron.

LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION 13. Within thirty (30) business days after entry of the Consent Decree, Micron shall provide Jose Artalejo a positive letter of recommendation addressed "To Whom It May

Concern." In this letter, Defendant shall provide Mr. Artalejo with a positive

recommendation, reflecting his work history with Defendant and job performance as

reported in his performance evaluations prior to Mr. Artalejo complaining about his

treatment in the workforce. This letter shall also state that Mr. Artalejo resigned from

Micron to pursue other opportunities. The letter shall be subject to the approval of Mr.

Artalejo. The letter is attached as Attachment B.

NOTICE

14. Micron will post, for the duration of this Decree, in a prominent place frequented

by its employees at its Boise, Idaho, facility, the notice attached as Attachment C in the

same type, style, and size as Attachment C.

CORRECTIVE POLICIES AND PRACTICES

15.

Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Decree, Micron shall review, and if

necessary, revise its written employment policies and procedures. Whether revised or

not, Micron shall submit the policies and procedures to the Regional Attorney of the

EEOC's Phoenix District Office, at the address set forth above, within sixty (60) days of

the entry of the Decree. Within ninety (90) days of entry of this Decree, Micron shall

disseminate the site link to the policies and procedures to its employees.

16. The written policies and procedures shall include, at a minimum:

a.

A strong and clear commitment to a workplace free of disability and

national origin discrimination;

b.

A clear and strong encouragement of persons who believe they have

been discriminated against to address their concerns internally;

c.

A description of the consequences, up to and including termination, that

will be imposed upon violators of the policy;

d.

A commitment that all complaints of discrimination made to Micron

management officials or its Human Resource Department will be thoroughly

investigated;

e.

A promise of confidentiality, to the extent possible, for persons who

believe that they have been discriminated against in violation of the policy;

f.

A prohibition of retaliation against persons who report discrimination and

for witnesses, including, but not limited to, a provision that requires review by

Micron's site manager or compliance officer or by Micron's Director of Human

Resources any adverse action, of which he/she is aware, taken against employee

after he or she opposes practices made unlawful by the ADA or Title VII or files a charge of discrimination;

g.

A description of the method(s) by which any qualified Micron employee or

management official with a disability may request an accommodation of his or

her disability;

h.

A description of the procedure for processing any requests for

accommodation of a qualifying disability; and

I.

An explanation that disability and national origin discrimination by all

persons is prohibited and will not be tolerated.

TRAINING 17. Micron shall use all reasonable efforts within its power to encourage former employees Travis Knight and Dennis Robles to attend an EEO training session within one (1) year from the entry of the Decree. 18. Micron will ensure that its New Team Member orientation, its New Supervisor training and its periodic Code of Conduct training for all employees, managerial and nonmanagerial, includes coverage of disability and national origin discrimination and harassment, within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Decree. All personnel who attend the trainings shall sign attendance rosters. The registry of attendance or like training records shall be retained by Micron for the duration of this Consent Decree. 19. Micron will provide at least one (1) hour of intensive EEO training on disability and national origin discrimination and harassment for Kevin Berringer and Deanna Eveland within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Decree. 20. Micron shall provide a trainer(s) who is knowledgeable about all of the subjects of the training, to conduct the training. Micron shall provide a copy of the training materials to the Regional Attorney of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office at the address above, within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Consent Decree. The training shall include some interactive component.
RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING 21. Micron shall maintain all records concerning its implementation of this Decree for the entire term of the Decree.

22. Micron shall report to the Commission in writing, within six (6) months from the

entry of this Consent Decree and annually thereafter, regarding its compliance with the

specific terms of the Decree, by sending the report to the Regional Attorney of the

EEOC's Phoenix District office at the address above. In addition to the reporting

requirements set forth above, the report shall include the following information:

a.

Any revisions to Micron's policies and procedures regarding disability and

national origin discrimination, and retaliation;

b.

The total number of persons attending each of the seminar-training

sessions; and

c.

Confirmation that (1) the Notice was posted, with a description of the

locations where it was posted; and (2) the trainings were held.

23. Micron shall bear its own costs in conjunction with the maintenance of records

and preparation of reports required by this Consent Decree.

PROCEDURES AND REMEDIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE

24. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of the Decree.

During this time, the Commission may petition this Court to order Micron to comply with the Decree.

FORCE AND EFFECT 25. The parties agree to the entry of this Decree subject to final approval by the Court.
26. If any provision(s) of this Consent Decree are found to be unlawful, only the

specific provision(s) in question shall be affected and the other provision(s) shall remain in full force and effect.

27. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for a period of two (2) years after

entry of the Consent Decree. Absent further extension by the Court. the Decree shall

expire at the end of two (2) years without further action by the parties.

My,.,7 DATED this 27~day of

200_7_.-"

LE TED STEWART

APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO BY:
Micfcll1TeChnology, Inc. Defendant
MATTHEW DURHAM JUSTIN PALMER Attorneys for Defendant

Is/Mary Jo O'Neill MARY JO O'NEILL, Regional Attorney SALLY C. SHANLEY, Supervisory Trial Attorney SANDRA PADEGIMAS, Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2504 Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

Jose iialejo

/

Plaintiff Artalejo

( ' ; ; fbC*';:;LAUREN
SCHOLNICK STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK, LLC 426 North 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Attorneys for Jose Artalejo

-10-

ATTACHMENT A
[Micron Letterhead]
[Date]
Jose Artalejo [Address]:
As you know, a lawsuit was filed by you and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Micron, alleging that the Company violated the ADA and Title VII by discriminating against you because of disability and national origin by creating a hostile work environment because of your national origin and disability, failing to reasonably accommodate your disability, disciplining and discharging you, and retaliating against you because you complained about your treatment in the workplace.
While Micron denies any wrongdoing, please accept my regrets on behalf of Micron and its management that your employment experience with the company was unpleasant and ended abruptly. Please accept my commitment that Micron takes and will continue to take the necessary steps to ensure that disability and national origin will not be the bases for the creation of a hostile work environment, nor in any discipline of employees in accordance with the law, and that no employee will be retaliated against for opposing conduct made unlawful by Title VII or the ADA or filing a charge of discrimination. In addition, please accept my commitment that Micron will continue to take the necessary steps to ensure that all requests for accommodations of a disability will be properly processed and that all complaints of discrimination will be thoroughly investigated.
Sincerely,
[Name] [Title]
-11-

ATTACHMENT 8 January 25, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: Jose Artalejo began his employment with Micron in its former Lehi, Utah facility as an equipment support technician on October 23, 2000. He was promoted in August, 2002. Mr. Artalejo was a diligent employee with good technical skills, who performed up to Micron's expectations of him. He pursued opportunities to improve himself as a technician and attended training courses available to him. Mr. Artalejo resigned his position on October 22, 2002 to pursue other employment opportunities.
By: Micron Human Resources Representative
-12-

ATTACHMENT C
NOTICE TO ALL MICRON EMPLOYEES
Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of their national origin or disability. It is also unlawful to retaliate against any person because the person protested discriminatory practices or contacted the EEOC or the Idaho Commission on Human Rights (ICHR).
Micron will not discriminate against any employee on the basis of national origin or disability, and will not retaliate against any employee. Nor will Micron tolerate its employees, vendors, contractors or other third parties discriminating against its employees on the basis of national origin or disability.
If you believe you have been discriminated against at Micron, you have the right to seek assistance from:
(1) EEOC, 909 1st Avenue, Suite 400, Seattle, Washington, 98104, (206) 220-6883; or
(2) Idaho Commission on Human Rights, 1109 Main Street, Suite 400, PO Box 83720, Boise, Idaho, 83720, (208) 334-2873.
No Retaliation Clause. No action may be taken against you by any supervisory or management official of Micron for (1) opposing discriminatory practices made unlawful by federal law; (2) filing a charge or assisting or participating in the filing of a charge of discrimination; or (3) assisting or participating in an investigation or proceeding brought under Title VII. Should any such retaliatory actions be taken against you, you should immediately contact the EEOC or the ICHR at the addresses or telephone numbers listed above.
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED UNTIL._ _ _ __

Dated:

Title of Site Manager -13-

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?473286925396956-L_35...

Electronic Case Filing System District of Utah (Central)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-00546-TS

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Micron Technology Assigned to: Judge Ted Stewart Cause: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 06/30/2005 Date Terminated: 02/27/2007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by C. Emanuel Smith EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5000 Email: emanuel.smith@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 04/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally C. Shanley EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5032 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandra J. Padegimas EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5000 Email: sandra.padegimas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Jo O'Neill EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

1 of 9

5/25/2007 2:41 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Artalejo
V. Defendant
2 of 9

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?473286925396956-L_35...
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5000 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lauren I. Scholnick STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK 426 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 (801)359-4169 Email: laurenecf@xmission.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ralph E. Chamness SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE 451 S STATE ST STE 505 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 (801)535-7630 Email: ralph.chamness@slcgov.com TERMINATED: 08/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth M. Peck LAW OFFICE OF ELIZABETH M PECK 422 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 (801)521-0844 Email: lisa@peck-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik Strindberg STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK 426 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 (801)359-4169 Email: erikecf@xmission.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
5/25/2007 2:41 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?473286925396956-L_35...

Micron Technology a Delaware corporation
Intervenor Defendant Micron Technology

represented by Matthew M. Durham STOEL RIVES (UT) 201 S MAIN ST STE 1100 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-4904 (801)328-3131 Email: mmdurham@stoel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin B. Palmer STOEL RIVES (UT) 201 S MAIN ST STE 1100 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-4904 (801)328-3131 Email: jbpalmer@stoel.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/30/2005 07/01/2005 07/05/2005
07/11/2005
07/18/2005 07/27/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Micron Technology (Fee Status: waived), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Assigned to Judge Ted Stewart (jwt, ) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
2 NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS for appearence phv mailed to attorney C. Emanuel Smith (jwt, ) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
3 MOTION/ORDER granting motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice for of Sandra J. Padegimas for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Mary Jo O'Neill for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorneys admitted pro hac vice may download a copy of the District of Utah's local rules from court's web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 7/1/05. (jmr ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
4 MOTION/ORDER granting motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice for of C. Emanuel Smith for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorneys admitted pro hac vice may download a copy of the District of Utah's local rules from court's web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 7/8/05. (jmr ) (Entered: 07/11/2005)
5 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** SUMMONS Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as to Micron Technology served on 7/15/2005, answer due 8/4/2005. (jmr ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
6 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba under 28:636 (b)(1)(A), Magistrate to hear and determine all nondispositive pretrial matters.Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 07/27/2005. (yre) (Entered: 07/27/2005)

3 of 9

5/25/2007 2:41 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?473286925396956-L_35...

08/15/2005 08/18/2005
09/06/2005 09/06/2005 09/15/2005
09/23/2005 09/28/2005
09/28/2005 09/28/2005 10/04/2005

7 ANSWER to Complaint filed by Micron Technology.(jmr ) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
8 NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: (Notice generated by Chambers DN, LL)***The Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and Proposed Scheduling Order forms, available on the court web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/formpage.html, should be prepared 30 days before the Initial Pretrial Conference hearing date. The Court may enter a scheduling order and vacate the hearing if counsel (a) file a stipulated Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and (b) e-mail a Proposed Scheduling Order to ipt@utd.uscourts.gov 30 days before the scheduled hearing.*** Initial Pretrial Conference set for 10/5/2005 01:30 PM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. (jmr, ) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
9 MOTION for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention filed by Jose Artalejo. (jmr ) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
10 MEMORANDUM in Support re 9 MOTION for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Artalejo. (jmr ) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
11 NOTICE REMINDER of Attorneys' Planning Meeting Report due five days from receipt of this notice re [8] NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: (Notice generated by Chambers DN, LL)***The Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and Proposed Scheduling Order forms, available on the court web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/formpage.html, should be prepared 30 days before the Initial Pretrial Conference hearing date. The Court may enter a scheduling order and vacate the hearing if counsel (a) file a stipulated Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and (b) e-mail a Proposed Scheduling Order to ipt@utd.uscourts.gov 30 days before the scheduled hearing.*** Initial Pretrial Conference set for 10/5/2005 01:30 PM in Room 477 before Judge Nuffer. (jmr, ) (tsh, ) Modified on 9/27/2005-to correct Judge and room number (jmr ). (Entered: 09/15/2005)
12 REPORT OF ATTORNEY PLANNING MEETING. (jmr ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
13 SCHEDULING ORDER and ORDER VACATING HEARING: Initial Pretrial Conference vacated. Motions Due by: 11/17/06. Amended Pleadings due by 11/4/2005. Discovery due by 7/31/06 for Fact and 9/26/2006 for Expert. Special Attorney or Settlement Conference by 3/19/07. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/9/2007 02:30 PM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. FIVE day Jury Trial set for 4/23/2007 08:30 AM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 9/28/05. (jmr ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Motions due by 11/17/2006. (jmr ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
14 Correspondence from Julissa I. Maloney @ Stoel Rives to Clerk dated 9/28/05 (jmr ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
15 RESPONSE/Non-Opposition to Motion re 9 MOTION for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention filed by Defendant Micron Technology. (jmr ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)

4 of 9

5/25/2007 2:41 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?473286925396956-L_35...

10/06/2005 10/24/2005 10/28/2005 10/28/2005 11/03/2005 11/09/2005 11/14/2005 12/05/2005 12/07/2005 12/15/2005 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/31/2006 03/03/2006 04/03/2006

16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re: First Set of Interrogs and Requests for Prod of Docs to Pla EEOC by Micron Technology (jmr ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
17 RESPONSE to Motion re 9 MOTION for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention filed by Defendant Micron Technology. (jmr ) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
18 ORDER granting 9 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Samuel Alba on 10/27/05. (cas) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
19 Intervenor COMPLAINT against Micron Technology, filed by Jose Artalejo.(jmr ) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
20 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE Executed Acknowledgement filed by Jose Artalejo.Micron Technology served on 11/1/2005, answer due 12/31/2005. (jmr ) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
21 NOTICE of Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Smith, C.) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re: Initial Disclosures by Micron Technology (jmr ) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
23 NOTICE of Service of Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
24 NOTICE of Change of Address by Erika Birch, April L. Hollingsworth, Lauren I. Scholnick, Ralph E. Chamness, Erik Strindberg (jmr ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
25 NOTICE of Service of First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
26 NOTICE of Service of First Set of Non-Uniform Interrogatories to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
27 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint with Jury Demand filed by Micron Technology.(jmr ) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re: dft's responses to pla's first request for prod of docs by Micron Technology (jmr ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
29 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Micron Technology of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's First Set of Non-Uniform Interrogatories (Palmer, Justin) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
30 MOTION/ORDER granting motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice for of Sally C. Shanley for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorneys admitted pro hac vice may download a copy of the District of Utah's local rules from court's web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/3/06. (kla, ) (Entered: 04/04/2006)

5 of 9

5/25/2007 2:41 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?473286925396956-L_35...

04/05/2006 04/10/2006 05/23/2006 05/25/2006 05/25/2006 05/31/2006 06/05/2006 07/03/2006 07/07/2006 08/07/2006 08/07/2006
08/10/2006 08/18/2006 08/18/2006 08/24/2006

31 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for the EEOC filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Smith, C.) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
32 ORDER granting 31 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney C. Emanuel Smith withdrawn from case . Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/10/06. (jmr ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
33 Stipulated MOTION for Discovery Cutoff filed by Defendant Micron Technology. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Durham, Matthew) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
34 ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY CUTOFF-granting 33 Motion for Discovery from 7/31/06 until 9/29/06. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 5/25/06. (jmr ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Fact Discovery due reset by 9/29/2006. (jmr ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
35 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order filed by Defendant Micron Technology. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information)(Palmer, Justin) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
36 PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Samuel Alba on 6/5/06. (kla, ) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
37 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jose Artalejo Plaintiff in Intervention's First Supplemental Disclosure Pursuant to Rule 26(A)(1) (Chamness, Ralph) (Entered: 07/03/2006)
38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Micron Technology 1st Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Plaintif in Intervention Jose Artalejo (Palmer, Justin) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
39 Plaintiff's MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Artalejo. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Scholnick, Lauren) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
40 ORDER ALLOWING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL-granting 39 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Ralph E. Chamness withdrawn from case for Jose Artalejo . Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 8/7/06.(jmr ) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
41 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Micron Technology of Deposition of Jose Artalejo (Attachments: # 1)(Durham, Matthew) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jose Artalejo of Responses to Micron's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (Scholnick, Lauren) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
43 Stipulated MOTION for Scheduling Order Amendment filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Artalejo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Scholnick, Lauren) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
44 ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING-IT IS HEREBY ORDERED/granting 43 Motion for Scheduling Order is amended to extend the deadline for the Rule 26(a)(2) reports from experts as follows: 30 days after a ruling on any dispositive

6 of 9

5/25/2007 2:41 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?473286925396956-L_35...

08/30/2006 08/30/2006 09/01/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/20/2006 09/20/2006 09/20/2006
09/21/2006 09/21/2006 09/22/2006 09/27/2006 09/27/2006

motion, or if no such motion is filed, 30 days after the dispositive motion deadline for Plaintiffs' Report and 15 days after Plaintiffs' Report or if no such report is filed, 45 days after ruling on any dispositive motion or, if no such motion is filed, 45 days after the dispositive motion deadline for Dft's Report . Signed by Judge Samuel Alba on 8/24/06.(jmr, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
45 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jose Artalejo of First Set of Written Discovery to Micron (Scholnick, Lauren) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Micron Technology of Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Durham, Matthew) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Micron Technology of Subpoena Duces Tecums (Palmer, Justin) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
48 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth M. Peck on behalf of Jose Artalejo (Peck, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
49 ERRATA to 19 Intervenor Complaint filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Artalejo (Corrigendum). (Peck, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
50 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Artalejo. (Peck, Elizabeth) Modified on 9/21/2006-see [52]notice of deficiency(jwt, ). (Entered: 09/20/2006)
51 MEMORANDUM in Support re 50 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas and for Protective Order filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Artalejo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Peck, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
52 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re 50 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas and for Protective Order. The document requests two seperate motion reliefs but was filed under only one motion event (motion to quash). The image of the document should be filed again by counsel as a motion for protective order so that both motions may appear on the record. The new pleading will receive a new document number on the docket. Additional text from the motion to quash regarding the protective order has been removed. (jwt, ) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
53 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Artalejo. (Peck, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
54 MEMORANDUM in Support re 53 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Artalejo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Peck, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
55 Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct 13 Scheduling Order, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Artalejo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Scholnick, Lauren) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
56 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Fact discovery due by 10/27/2006. Motions due by 12/1/2006. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 9/27/06. (kla) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Second Request for Production of Documents (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered:

7 of 9

5/25/2007 2:41 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?473286925396956-L_35...

09/29/2006 10/13/2006 10/27/2006 10/30/2006 11/01/2006 11/30/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 01/11/2007
01/16/2007 01/17/2007 01/17/2007 02/26/2007
02/27/2007 02/27/2007

09/27/2006)
58 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Micron Technology Responses to Plaintiff in Intervention's First Set of Written Discovery Requests (Palmer, Justin) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Micron Technology of Amended Subpoena Duces Tecum to Sam's Club (Palmer, Justin) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
60 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Micron Technology of Defendant Micron TEchnology Inc's Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's Second Request for Production of Documents (Palmer, Justin) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
61 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Artalejo. (Peck, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
62 ORDER granting 61 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery . Signed by Judge Samuel Alba on 11/1/06.(cas) (Entered: 11/01/2006)
63 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time For Dispositive Motion Cutoff filed by Defendant Micron Technology. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Durham, Matthew) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
64 ORDER granting 63 Motion for Extension of Time re: Dispositive Motion Cutoff until 1/12/07. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 12/1/06.(kla) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
65 Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Motions due by 1/12/2007 per order 64. (kla) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
66 Stipulated MOTION for Scheduling Order Regarding Dispositive Motion Cutoff and Trial Date filed by Defendant Micron Technology. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) Motions referred to Samuel Alba.(Durham, Matthew) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
67 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Scheduling Order. Motions due by 2/23/2007. Signed by Judge Samuel Alba on 01/16/2007. (asp) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
Final Pretrial Conference on 4/9/07, and jury trial on 4/23/07 are terminated. A status conference will be scheduled to track case. (slm) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
68 NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by Chambers/slm)Status Conference set for 4/19/2007 03:00 PM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. (slm) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
69 Stipulated MOTION Regarding Consent Decree filed by Defendant Micron Technology. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Consent Decree# 2 Exhibit Attachments to Consent Decree) Motions referred to Samuel Alba.(Durham, Matthew) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
70 CONSENT JUDGMENT/Decree. Case Closed. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 02/27/2007. (asp) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
Case no longer referred to Samuel Alba. (asp) (Entered: 02/28/2007)

8 of 9

5/25/2007 2:41 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?473286925396956-L_35...

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/25/2007 13:42:39

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

eeoc 2:05-cv-00546-TS 0.40

9 of 9

5/25/2007 2:41 PM