Civil Action No.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
e o go : to oo

20O2NAR21 PH I;32
jA~[S [4. 14,,,N’SPEAK ER CLERK
.__~EP. CLK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMAND
NATURE OF THE ACTION This action arises under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability and to provide appropriate relief to Dale Alton ("Alton"), who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity below, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Plaintiff’ or the "Commission") alleges that Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation ("Defendant") unlawfully failed and refused to accommodate Alton’s disability and failed and refused to hire Alton because of his disability, blindness.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §9 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to 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) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
PARTIES Plaintiff is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title I of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3). At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of Colorado and City of Littleton and has continuously had at least 15 employees. At all reIevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.§ 12111(5), and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference

Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) and (h). At all relevant times, Defendant has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2).
General Allegations More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Alton filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. Since at least February, 1999, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Littleton, Colorado facility, in violation of Section 102(a) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Alton is blind and substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing. On or before February 15, 1999, Defendant advertised in the newspaper to fill Customer Service Representative positions. 11. On or about February 15, 1999, Alton attempted to apply for employment with Defendant as a Customer Service Representative. 12. In or about 1996, Alton had received a certificate for completing a six-month, full-time, customer service representative training course at the Colorado Center for the Blind, located in Denver, Colorado. 13. On or about February 15, 1999, Alton went to Defendant’s Littleton facility and requested an appIication.
3

14. On that same date, Alton met with a Maria Pickett, an employee of Defendant’s Human Resources Department.
15. Ms. Pickett informed Alton that Defendant was unable to meet the needs of the visually impaired. Alton informed Pickett that there are numerous options and a variety of adaptive technologies and equipment that make the customer service position accessible to a visually impaired person. Pickett told Alton that it would do no good for him to fill out an application. Pickett told Alton that she would keep his resume on file until such time that Defendant obtained the necessary adaptive tools to accommodate him.
19. More than two months later, Alton had not heard from Defendant regarding its acquisition of tools to accommodate him.
20. On or about April 29, 1999, Alton filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On or about May 12, 1999, Defendant was notified of Alton’s charge of discrimination. Thereafter, Defendant invited Alton to apply for the Customer Service Representative position.
23. In or about May or June, 1999, Alton met with Defendant to take two employment tests and to fill out an application.
24. One test was a customer service skills test and the second test was a computer skilIs test.
4

Defendant administered the customer service skills test to Alton in Braille format.

Prior to the administration of the test, Alton advised Defendant’s Human Resources

Specialist that he does not have strong Braille skills and requested a reader to read the test

to him instead ......

.. ¯

.-. ................

27. Defendant refused to provide Alton with either a reader or a written version of the test,

advising him that the Braille format was the accommodation it was providing him.

28. It took Alton several hours to complete the test because his Braille skills are not strong.

29. Defendant advised Alton that he had passed the test.

30. Defendant administered the second test, the computer skills test, without the adaptive

software necessary for Alton to use the computer effectively.

Defendant advised Alton that he passed the computer skills test.

After completing both tests, Kris Powers, Defendant’s Human Resources Manager,

described to Alton the pay and benefits of the position.

33. At the same meeting that Kris Powers described the pay and benefits, Alton provided Powers with information regarding where to acquire the adaptive equipment necessary for

him to begin work.

34. When Alton did not hear back from Defendant, he called to inquire about the status of his

position.

35. Alton was told that he was not being hired because his skills reading Braille were too

slow.

36. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 8-35, above, has been to deprive Alton of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an applicant for employment because of his disability. ........ FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF .... [Discriminatory Refusal to Hire, §102(a) and 102(b)(5)(B)]
37. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint. 38. Alton is disabled as defined in the ADA. 42 U.S,C. § 12102(2)(A). 39. Alton is able, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential
functions of the Customer Service Representative position. Defendant failed and refused to hire Alton because of his disability. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 8-40, above, has been to deprive Alton of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely hffect his status as an applicant for employment because of his disability. 42. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8-40, above, were intentional. 43. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Alton.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF [Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation, § 102(a) and § 102(b)(5)(A)]
44. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs ,of this complaint.
6

45. Providing a reader for Alton’s customer service skills test is a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
46. Acquisition of equipment, such as adaptive software, to enable Alton to perform the Custg.mer Service Representative position is a reasonable accommodation. ¯ ~ ~ . ’ ¯It was possible for Defendant to reasonably accommodate Alton’s disability during the application process for the Customer Service Representative position.
48. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 44-47, above, has been to deprive Alton of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an applicant for employment because of his disability.
49. Defendant’s failure and refusal to reasonably accommodate Alton is unlawful discrimination under the ADA. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were intentional. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Alton. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF [Failure to Select and Administer Tests Concerning Employment in the Most Effective Manner, § 102(a) and § 102(b)(7)] Plaintiff reaileges the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint. By requiring Alton to take the customer service skills test in Braille format, Defendant failed to select and administer a test concerning employment in the most effective manner
7

to ensure that, when the test was administered to Alton, who has a disability that impairs his sensory skill of seeing, such test results accurately reflect his skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor such test purports to measure. 54. Instead, Defendant selected and administered a test that reflected’Alton’s impaired sensory skills. 55. By requiring Alton to take the computer skills test without use of adaptive software, Defendant failed to select and administer a test concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when the test was administered to Alton, who has a disability that impairs his sensory skill of seeing, such test results accurately reflect his skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor such test purports to measure. 56. Instead, Defendant selected and administered a test that reflected Alton’s impaired sensory skills. 57. Defendant’s failure to select and administer effective tests to Alton during his application process is unlawful discrimination under the ADA. 58. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 52-57, above, has been to deprive Alton of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect .his status as an applicant for employment because of his disability. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were intentional. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Alton.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the .basis of disability, such as refusing to hire qualified individuals with disabilities. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant to make Alton whole, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful-place hiring of Alton or front pay in lieu of hiring. D. Order Defendant to make Alton whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damages resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 8-60, above. E. Order Defendant to make Alton whole by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 8-60, above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, Joss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
9

F. Order Defendant to pay Alton punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, as described in paragraphs 8-60, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. 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.

Dated this 21st day of March, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Acting Deputy General Counsel U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

JOSEPH H. MITCHELL

Regional Attorney

.-~

Denver District Office

NANCY A. WEEKS Supervisory Trial Attorney

MIA E. BITTERMAN Trial Attorney (303) 866-1374
3_0

RITA BYRNES KITTLE Trial Attorney (303) 866-1347 EEOC Denver District Office 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 PLEASE NOTE: For the purposes of service upon the EEOC, it is sufficient that pleadings, notices, and court documents be served upon the Trial Attorneys.
13.

 
 IN TI-[E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 02-M-581 (BNB)

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COf~RT DE~IVER. COLORADO
JUN 4 2002
JAMES H. MAIgSPEAKER CLERK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, and

DALE ALTON

Applicant for Intervention.

V.

. .-ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION n/k/a DISH, LTD., Defendant.

COMPLAINT OF INTERVENOR DALE ALTON

Plaintiff intervenor, Dale Alton, submits the following complaint against Echostar Communications Corporation n/k/a Dish, Ltd.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and 1343. This is an action for employment discrimination in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 to 12117. 2. Defendant’s unlawful employment practices were committed in Colorado and venue is proper in this Court.

PARTIES

3. Dale Alton is a resident of Colorado. Mr. Alton is blind. Mr. Alton’s blindness

substantially affects his major life activity of seeing. Mr. Alton is a person with a disability as

defined by the ADA. Mr. Alton is entitled to intervene as a plaintiff in this action as a plaintiff

pursuant to 42 USCA {} 2000e-5(f).

¯ ....

~

"

4. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the

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

enforcement of Title I of the ADA.

5. Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation n/k/a Dish, Ltd. is a Nevada

corporation doing business in Colorado. Defendant has over 300 employees.

6. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an

industry affecting commerce.

7. At all relevant times, Defendant has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of

the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Alton filed a charge

with the EEOC alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant. All conditions

precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

9. Since at least February, 1999, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment

practices at its Littleton, Colorado facility, in violation of Section 102(a) of Title I of the ADA,

42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).

10. On or before February 15, 1999, Defendant advertised in the newspaper to fill

Customer Service Representative positions.

~’.

- - ’

11. On or about February 15, 1999, Alton attempted to apply for employment with

Defendant as a Customer Service Representative.

12. In or about 1996, Alton had received a certificate for completing a six-month,

full-time, customer service representative training course at the Colorado Center for the Blind,

located in Denver, Colorado. Mr. Alton was qualified to work for defendant as a Customer

Service Representative, with reasonable accommodation. 13. On or about F~bruary 15, 19991Alion went to Defendant’s Littleton facilityand

requested an application. 14. On that same date, Alton met with a Maria Pickett, an employee of Defendant’s

Human Resources Department.

15. Ms. Pickett informed Alton that Defendant was unable to meet the needs of the

visually impaired,

16. Alton informed Pickett that there are numerous options and a variety of adaptive

technologies and equipment that make the customer service position accessible to a visually impaired person.

17. Pickett told Alton that it would do no good for him to fill out an application. 18. Pickett told Alton that she would keep his resume on file until such time that Defendant obtained the necessary adaptive tools to accommodate him. 19. More than two months later, Alton had not heard from Defendant regarding its acquisition of tools to accommodate him. 20. On or about April 29, ~999, Alton filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. 21. On or about May 12, 1999, Defendant was notified of Alton’s charge of discrimination. 22. Thereafter, Defendant invited Alton to apply for the Customer Service Representative position. 23. In or about May or June, 1999, Alton met with Defendant to take two employment tests and to fill out an application. 24. One test was a customer service skills test and the second test was a computer skills test. 25. Defendant administered the customer service skills test to Alton in Braille format. 26. Prior to the administration of the test, Alton advised Defendant’s Human Resources Specialist that he does not have strong Braille skills and requested a reader to read the test to him instead. 27. Defendant refused to provide Alton with either a reader or a written version of the test, advising him that the Braille format was the accommodation it was providing him.
4

28. It took Alton several hours to complete the test because his Braille skills are not strong.
29. Defendant advised Alton that he had passed the test. 30. Defendant administered the second test, the computer skills test, without the adaptive software necessary~ for Alton to use the computer effectively., .......... 31. Defendant advised Alton that he passed the computer skills test. 32. After completing both tests, Kris Powers, Defendant’s Human Resources Manager, described to Alton the pay and benefits of the position. 33. At the same meeting that Kris Powers described the pay and benefits, Alton provided Powers with information regarding where to acquire the adaptive equipment necessary for him to begin work. 34. When Alton did not hear back from Defendant, he called to inquire about ~he status of his position. 35. Alton was told that he was not being hired because his skills reading Braille were too slow. Reading Braille was not an essential function of the Customer Service Representative position for the Defendant. 36. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 8-35, above, has been to deprive Alton of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an applicant for employment because of his disability.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Discriminatory Refusal to Hire) 37. Plaintiff incorporates the previous allegations of this complaint. 38. Alton is disabled as defined in the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). 39. Alton is able, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of the Customer Service Representative position. 40. Defendant failed and refused to hire Alton because of his disability. 41. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 8-40, above, has been to deprive Alton of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an applicant for employment because of his disability. 42. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8-40, above, were intentional. 43. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Alton. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation) 44. Plaintiff incorporates the previous allegations of this complaint. 45. Providing a reader for Alton’s customer service skills test is a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

46. Acquisition of equipment, such as adaptive software, to enable Alton to perform the Customer Service Representative position is a reasonable accommodation.
47. It was possible for Defendant to reasonably accommodate Alton’s disability during the application process for the Customer Service Representative position.
48. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 44-47, above, has been to deprive Alton of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an applicant for employment because of his disability.
49. Defendant’s failure and refusal to reasonably accommodate Alton is unlawful discrimination under the ADA.
50. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were intentional. 51. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Alton.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Failure to Select and Administer Tests Concerning Employment in the Most Effective Manner)
52. Plaintiff incorporates the previous allegations of this complaint. 53. By requiring Alton to take the customer service skills test in Braille format, Defendant failed to select and administer a test concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when the test was administered to Alton, who has a disability that impairs his sensory skill of seeing, such test results accurately reflect his skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor such test purports to measure.

54. Instead, Defendant selected and administered a test that reflected Alton’s impaired sensory skills.
55. By requiring Alton to take the computer skills test without use of adaptive so~vare, Defendant failed to select and administer a test concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when the test was administered to Alton, who has a disabiIity that impairs his sensory skill of seeing, such test results accurately reflect his skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor such test purports to measure.
56. Instead, Defendant selected and administered a test that reflected Alton’s impaired sensory skills.
57. Defendant’s failure to select and administer effective tests to Alton during his application process is unlawful discrimination under the ADA.
58. The effect of the pr~ictices complained of in paragraphs 52-57, above, has been to deprive Alton of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an applicant for employment because of his disability.
59. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were intentional. 60. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Alton.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Dale Alton respectfully requests that this Court: a. Permanently enjoin Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability, such as refusing to hire qualified individuals with disabilities. b. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. c. Order Defendant to make Alton whole, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmatiye relief necessary . to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful-place hiring of Alton or front pay in lieu of hiring. d. Order Defendant to make Alton whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damages resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above. e. Order Defendant to make Alton whole by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

f. Order Defendant to pay Alton punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, as described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
g, Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper. h. Award Mr. Alton his costs and attorney’s fees.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND Mr. Alton requests a jury trial.
DALE A. GAAR, P.C.

Address of the Plaintiff-Intervenor: Dale Alton
3352 W. Laurel Lane
Littleton, CO 80123

Dale A. Gaar, Reg. #13234 1600 Stout St., Suite 1350 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 446-9300 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor Dale Alton

10

 
 FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRt.’.3]" COUR’r

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 02-M-0581
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and DALE ALTON,
Plaintiffs,

GREGORY C. LANGHAM CLERK

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION n/k/a DISH, LTD.,
Defendant.
VERDICT
Answer each of the following four questions: 1. On the Plaintiffs’ claim of failure to administer employment tests in the most effective manner, we find in favor of: £jz,: ,’,4 -/5./~-~,E . .... (Plaintiffs or Defendant) 2. On the Plaintiffs’ claim of failure toprovide reasonableaccommodation inthe application process, we find in favor of: (Plaintiffs or Defendant) 3. On the Plaintiffs’ claim of failure to provide reasonable accommodation for Date Alton to perform the duties of a CSR at Echostar, we find in favor of:
(Plaintiffs or Defendant)
On the Plaintiffs’ claim of denial of employment opportunities based on disability discrimination we find in favor of:---~/~-;-~l--/L,:~,.~- .......... . ...................
(Plaintiffs or Defendant)
If you find in favor of the Plaintiffs on one or more of the previous questions, then answer the following questions.

Did the Defendant’s viol,~tion of the Amer.icans with Disabilities Act cause Dale Alton lost wages and benefits?
Yes or No If you answered "Yes," then state the amount of such damages. $ ~200~’~
6. Did the Defendant’s violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act cause other l~J~..~_~m~..~_ges to Dale Alton as defined in the instru£tions? Yes or No
If you answered "Yes," then state the amount of such damages. $ "~ O~’2~"2 .
If you find for the plaintiff on one or more of the claims, then answer this question. 7. Did Echostar act with malice or reckless indifference to Dale Alton’s federally protected rights? Yes or No
If you answered "Yes," then state the amount of punitive damages~-if any, that. you assess. against Echostar Communications Corporation. $
Dated:

 
 • Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 02-cv-0581-RPM-BNB

FI LE 0
UNITED ~TATES D1:';::-ICT C,': ','
DENV~f', c~::,-Jc('.U()

SEP~ 82G05

GREG--

''-.-...'."~ ...,

,

.
-.---

" ",

.,::-- <~~

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
DALE ALTON,
Plaintiff/Intervenor,
v.
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION n/kla DISH, LTD.,
Defendant.

CONSENT DECREE

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 2 of 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. RECITALS ............................................................... 1 II. JURISDICTION .......................................................... 2 III. ISSUES RESOLVED ...................................................... 2 IV. MONETARY RELIEF .................................................... 2 V. EQUITABLE RELIEF ..................................................... 3
A. Scope ........................................................... 3 B. Injunctive Relief .................................................. 3 C. Anti-discrimination Policy ......................................... 3 D. Procedures to Provide Reasonable Accommodation .................... 4 E. EEOC Input Not a Waiver ......................................... 5 F. Implementation of Screen-Reading Software .......................... 5 G. Affirmative Hiring ................................................ 6 H. Training ........................................................ 6 I. Posting of Notice .................................................. 8 J. Record Keeping And Reporting Provisions ........................... 8 VI. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND FILING OF DECREE ................ 11 VII. ENFORCEMENT ....................................................... 12 VIII. EEOC AUTHORITY ................................................... 12 IX. NOTICE ............................................................... 13 SIGNATURES .............................................................. 14 Attachment A ............................................................... 15
i

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 3 of 17
I. RECITALS I. This matter was instituted by Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or "EEOC"), an agency of the United States government, alleging that, in or about February and June, 1999, Defendant Echostar denied employment to Dale Alton, because of his disability, blindness, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Alton intervened in the lawsuit. 2. After a four-day jury trial, commencing on May 2,2005, the jury verdict was in favor of Plaintiffs EEOC and Alton on all four claims. The jury determined damages as follows: backpay in the amount of $2,000; compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000; punitive damages in the amount of $8,000,000.00. Judgment has not entered, and is pending determination of Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. Injunctive reliefwill be determined after an evidentiary hearing which has not yet been scheduled. Echostar has moved for remittitur of the verdict, which motion is pending. 3. Plaintiffs and Defendant, desiring to settle this action by an appropriate Consent Decree ("Decree"), agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties and the subject matter of this action, and agree to the power of this Court to enter a Consent Decree enforceable against Defendant. 4. This Decree is fmal and binding upon the parties as to the issues resolved, as well as upon their successors and assigns. 5. The parties agree that this Consent Decree fairly resolves the issues alleged in this lawsuit, and constitutes a complete resolution of all of the Plaintiffs' claims of unlawful employment practices under the ADA that were made or could have been made in this action.
Page I of 15

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 4 of 17
6. For the purpose of amicably resolving disputed claims, the Defendant joins with the Plaintiffs in requesting this Court to adjudge as follows:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: II. JURISDICTION
7. The parties stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court over the parties and subject matter of this action.
8. The duration of this Decree shall be four (4) years from the date of signing by the Court.
III. ISSUES RESOLVED 9. This Decree resolves all claims for damages arising out of the issues and claims set forth in Civil Action No. 02-cv-0581-RPM-BNB. 10. Echostar and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them will not interfere with the relief herein ordered, but shall reasonably cooperate in the implementation of this Decree.
IV. MONETARY RELIEF II. Echostar agrees to (a) pay Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000.00) by check payable to "Dale A. Gaar, P.C. COLTAF Trust Account;" and (b) issue a Form 1099. The payment shall be disbursed among the plaintiffs by Dale A. Gaar, P.C. in accordance with the agreements among the parties and their counsel. The payment shall fully satisfy the monetary obligations of Echostar to plaintiffs and their counsel, including their claims for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney's fees. Payment pursuant to this Paragraph 10 shall be delivered to the offices of Dale A. Gaar, P.C., within two (2) business days after entry of
Page 2 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 5 of 17
the decree, or September 15,2005, whichever is later. V. EQUITABLE RELIEF
A. Scope 12. Except as specifically set forth in Paragraphs 20 (Posting) and 17 (Training), the
terms of this Decree shall apply to all Customer Service Representative (CSR) positions in all Echostar call center facilities in the United States. B. Injunctive Relief
13. During the term of this Consent Decree, Echostar, its officers, agents, successors and other persons in active concert or participation with it, or any of them, are enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of visual impairment.
14. During the term of this Consent Decree, Echostar, its officers, agents, successors and other persons in active concert or participation with them, or any of them, are enjoined from engaging in reprisal or retaliation of any kind against any person because such person participated in any manner in this action or in the investigation giving rise to this action. C. Anti-discrimination Policy
15. Echostar shall adopt and!or maintain a policy proscribing unlawful discrimination based on disability, and proscribing unlawful retaliation against any employee who complains about disability discrimination or who files a charge of discrimination regarding disability ("Anti-Discrimination Policy"). Echostar shall post and keep posted for the duration of this Decree, in a conspicuous place in each of its facilities, where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily kept or posted, a copy of the Anti-Discrimination Policy. For the duration of this Decree, Echostar shall make available to each employee a copy of the Anti-
Page 3 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 6 of 17
Discrimination Policy. Within fifteen (15) days of the entry of this Decree, Echostar shall forward a copy of the Anti-Discrimination Policy to the Commission. Within fifteen (15) days after receiving the policy from Echostar, the EEOC may provide input as to suggested revisions to the policy. EEOC input will be advisory and Echostar's ultimate policy will be based on its own business judgment. Within fifteen (15) days after receiving EEOC input, or the expiration of time for receiving such input, Echostar will provide EEOC a letter indicating that the AntiDiscrimination Policy has been posted and made available to employees. D. Procedures to Provide Reasonable Accommodation
16. Echostar shall adopt and maintain a written policy that will describe the process for determining what, if any, accommodation will be provided to employees or applicants requesting or requiring reasonable accommodation. The policy will be made available to all employees. As to all managers who in any way participate in the hiring process or who in any way have responsibilities for accepting or processing requests for reasonable accommodation, the policy must set forth the role of managers under the hiring process or under the process for considering reasonable accommodations for employees. The policy must provide general guidance on how to determine what is a reasonable accommodation, including mandatory participation in the interactive process with the applicant/employee. Within fifteen (15) days of the entry of this Decree, Echostar shall forward a copy of the Reasonable Accommodation Policy to the Commission, together with instructions for managers who participate in the process of processing reasonable accommodation requests or requirements in hiring and in the work place. Within fifteen (15) days after receiving the policy and instructions from Echostar, the EEOC may provide input as to suggested revisions. EEOC input will be advisory and Echostar's ultimate
Page 4 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 7 of 17
policy and procedures will be based on its own business judgment. Within fifteen (15) days after receiving EEOC input, or the expiration of time for receiving such input, Echostar will provide EEOC a letter indicating that the Reasonable Accommodation Policy has been posted and made available to employees and that instructions have been provided to managers who participate in the process of processing reasonable accommodation requests or requirements in hiring and in the work place. E. EEOC Input Not a Waiver
17. Under no circumstances shall the EEOC, by commenting or electing not to comment upon the proposed policies and trainings, be deemed to have waived its rights to investigate or litigate any alleged unlawful effects of said policy upon equal employment opportunities. F. Implementation of Screen-Reading Software
18. Echostar shall enter into a personal services contract with a qualified consultant, approved by the EEOC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, to evaluate the feasibility of implementing text-to-speech software for use by CSRs at Echostar, and to the extent reasonably feasible, perform the technical services necessary to implement text-to-speech software for use by CSRs at Echostar. Based on information available to the parties during negotiation of this Decree, it is anticipated that within six months after the effective date ofthis Consent Decree, text-to-speech software will be implemented fur use by CSRs at Echostar. Upon request by any party, the Consultant will report to the parties regarding the status of the project for implementation oftext-to-speech adaptive software at Echostar.
Page 5 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 8 of 17
19. If and when text-to-speech software is implemented for use by CSRs at Echostar, when modifications are thereafter made to the CSR software environment at Echostar, Echostar will ensure that the system, as modified, continues to be accessible to employees who are blind or visually impaired. G. Affirmative Hiring
20. Provided screen-reading software is successfully installed for use by CSRs at Echostar, Echostar will hire any qualified blind or sight-impaired applicant seeking a CSR position, so long as CSRs are being hired in the location for which application is being made. H. Training
21. Beginning in calendar year 2006, Echostar shall conduct training for all its employees, nationwide, on what constitutes employment discrimination. Training will include the following: (a) employee notification of the Echostar's policy and procedures for registering complaints of discrimination; (b) the penalties to employees for engaging in such discriminatory behavior; (c) Echostar's non-retaliation policy; and (d) Echostar's procedures on providing reasonable accommodation. The training will be conducted as follows:
21.1 Human Resource Employees. Echostar will require all individuals who work in a human resource capacity to receive at least ten (10) hours of training annually regarding the ADA and other federal anti-discrimination laws. Five (5) of the ten (10) hours must directly address disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation. This provision is not intended to require that the same training be provided to all Human Resource Employees. Some or all of the training maybe provided by allowing employees to self-select training from a list of appropriate training provided by outside
Page 6 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 9 of 17
vendors. Each Human Resource employee, however, must be required to obtain the specified hours of training.
21.2 Managerial and Supervisory Employees Echostar will require all individuals who work in a managerial or supervisory capacity to receive at least four (4) hours of training annually regarding the ADA and other federal antidiscrimination laws. Two (2) of the four (4) hours must directly address disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation.
21.3 Non-managerial Employees. New employee orientation will be revised to incorporate training regarding the ADA, including reasonable accommodation and the interactive process for determining what, if any, accommodation will be provided. Any voluntarily provided EEO training for non-supervisory employees, including any training regarding sexual harassment, will incorporate a segment regarding the ADA, including reasonable accommodation and the interactive process. 22. Echostar agrees that the first such training for each employee group identified in Paragraph 17, above, will take place within one hundred eighty (180) days after entry of this Decree. 23. The Commission, at its discretion, may designate one or more Commission representatives to attend any of the live in-house training described above, and the representative(s) shall have the right to attend and fully observe all of the sessions. Echostar shall provide the Commission with thirty (30) days advance notice of any live in-house training provided under Paragraph 17, not including make-up sessions.
Page 7 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09107/2005 Page 10 of 17
I. Posting of Notice 24. Within fifteen (15) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Echostar shall post at
all of its Colorado facilities in a conspicuous place where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily kept or posted, the Notice attached as Attachment A to this Decree. The Notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree. Ifthe Notice becomes defaced or illegible, Echostar will replace it with a clean copy. Echostar shall send written notice to the Commission, within twenty (20) days of entry of this Decree, verifying that the Notice has been properly posted. J. Record Keeping And Reporting Provisions
25. For the duration of this Consent Decree, Echostar shall keep all its records concerning implementation of this Consent Decree. The Commission shall have the right to interview any personnel employed by Echostar for the purpose of determining Echostar's compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree. In the event the Commission exercises its right to interview personnel pursuant to this paragraph, said interviews shall be scheduled with due regard to the convenience of the individual to be interviewed.
26. Each party shall bear its own costs in conjunction with the maintenance of records, preparation of any report, access or copying of records, or interviews of employees.
27. Echostar shall provide semi-annual reports for each six-month period following the date the Court signs the Decree. The reports shall be due thirty (30) days following the respective six-month period, except the final report which shall be submitted to the Commission two weeks prior to the date on which the Consent Decree is to expire.
Page 8 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 11 of 17
28. Each semi-annual report shall provide the following infonnation: Complaints of Disability Discrimination 28.1 The name, address and telephone number of each person making a complaint of disability discrimination to Echostar or to any federal, state, or local government agency. 28.2 A brief summary of each complaint, including the date of the complaint, the name of the individual(s) who allegedly engaged in the discriminatory conduct, Echostar's response to the complaint, the name of the person who investigated or responded to the complaint, and what, if any resolution was reached; 28.3 Copies of all documents memorializing or referring to the complaint, investigation, and/or resolution thereof; 28.4 For purposes of this Paragraph 28.4, the term "complaint of discrimination" will include any written or verbal complaint which alleges disability discrimination, or alleges conduct, which Echostar recognizes as presenting an allegation of disability discrimination. For example, an employee may complain that he was denied promotion because of disability, or that co-workers call him "gimp" and tease him about his disability. These are "complaints of discrimination" even though the employee does not expressly allege discrimination.
Page 9 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 12 of 17
Reasonable Accommodation Procedures and Results 28.5 The name, address and telephone number of each person requesting that
Echostar provide reasonable accommodation for sight impairment; 28.6 A brief summary of each request for accommodation, including the date of
the request, the person or persons to whom the request was made, the person or persons responsible for responding to the request, any effort to engage in the interactive process with the person requesting accommodation, what accommodation was requested, whether the request was granted, and if not, an explanation of the reasons for denying the request, whether an accommodation was provided and if so, what accommodation was provided, and an explanation of the reasons for providing the accommodation. 28.7 Copies of all documents memorializing or referring to the request for accommodation, investigation, and/or resolution thereof. Affirmative Hiring 28.8 Echostar shall provide the name, address, phone number and date of hire for each blind or sight-impaired applicant hired as a CSR and using screen-reading software to perform the job duties. Training 28.9 Echostar shall provide confirmation of attendance and completion of training, whether interactive or live. For live trainings, Echostar will submit copies of the agenda of the training programs, identify the
PagelOof 15

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 13 of 17
individuals providing the training, and provide the registries of attendance. For interactive training, Echostar provide the EEOC with access to the interactive training. Posting of Notice 28.1 0 Echostar shall confirm to the Commission, that the Notice required to be posted under Paragraph 24 of this Consent Decree has been properly posted or, if removed, was promptly replaced, during the duration of the reporting period. 29. All personnel information, including employee names and contact information, provided by Echostar to the Commission in semi-annual reports as provided under Paragraph 28, will be treated by the Commission as information received during an EEOC investigation, protected from public disclosure under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(e). 30. In the event the EEOC is served with a request for records related to the litigation or records submitted pursuant to the Consent Decree, EEOC will promptly provide Echostar with a copy of the request, at least fourteen (14) days before the date on which the EEOC is obligated to respond to the FOIA request, or as soon as practicable under the circumstances. VI. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND FILING OF DECREE 31. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause for purposes of compliance with this Decree and entry of such further orders or modifications as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate equal employment opportunities for employees. Upon submission of the final report referenced in Paragraph 27, and the expiration ofa period of thirty (30) days after submission of said report, within which the Commission has not filed an objection thereto, the Commission and
Page 11 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 14 of 17
Echostar shall promptly file a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice ("Joint Stipulation") of this civil action, upon which filing this Decree shall automatically dissolve, and this Civil Action shall be dismissed with prejudice. If the Commission files an objection to the final report within said 30-day period, the Parties will file the Joint Stipulation promptly after the Court's resolution of the Commission's objection.
VII. ENFORCEMENT 32. There is no private right of action to enforce Echostar's obligations under the Decree and only the Commission and Echostar, or their successors or assigns, may enforce compliance herewith. 33. Enforcement may be had by the Commission or Echostar petitioning the Court for enforcement of the terms of this Decree.
VIII. EEOC AUTHORITY 34. With respect to matters or charges outside the scope ofthis Decree, this Decree shall in no way limit the powers of the Commission to seek to eliminate employment practices or acts made unlawful by any of the statutes over which the EEOC has enforcement authority, and are unrelated to the claims asserted in this lawsuit.
Page 12 of 15

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 15 of 17

IX. NOTICE

3S. Any notice, report, or communication required under the provisions of this Decree

shall be sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, to the appropriate parties as follows:

Regional Attorney Denver District Office Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite SIO Denver, CO 80203

Echostar Communication Corp. Attn: General Counsel 9601 South Meridian Blvd. Englewood, CO 80112

~200S. SO ORDERED this Lday of

BYT COURT:

~

U ;;:IP;/:/J-

Page 13 of IS

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 16 of 17

~C-

~Emp1o,mcnt~
c,rtnllissitm 103liii1t l'HllAVCIIUo,$Ulte 511)
DIlll'\'Ilt', CO 80203
A~ fQl':l'lalnlifl'BBOC
~~ Dal~aar• . . .
1600SIoII.t'Sttwt, SUIte 1000 Denver, COB0202 (303) 446-9300

Overtonl.awrmD, P'C
lOS0 KaIIlrnathStreet Deltv.., Colocado 80204
(303) 832-1120
AlIllrIlCyS ·fOJ Defendant &:hostar
CollllllllDicatiODS CorponotiOll

BY CONSENT:

EQU,u. BMl>LOYMENT GPPORTONI1Y

ECHOSTAa COMMUNICATIONS

;MM1SSION ~ ~CO~RATlON •

70)
Da (
DALE ALTON
~~&-
Date

&f/z.-Jos-
Dale

Case 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB Document 137 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 17 of 17
ATTACHMENT A
NOTICE
The following notice is being posted pursuant to the tenns of a Consent Decree reached between the parties in EEOC v. Echostar Communications Comoration, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 02-M-0581 (BNB).
Management of Echostar Communications Corporation wishes to emphasize the company's fundamental policy of providing equal employment opportunity in all of its operation and in all areas of employment practices, and to ensure that there shall be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age or disability. This policy extends to insurance benefits and all other tenns, conditions and privileges of employment.
____Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee or job applicant based on disability. Further, it is unlawful for any employer to retaliate against an employee because he or she has opposed discriminatory employment practices, including disability discrimination, or because he or she has filed a charge of discrimination with any municipal, state or federal equal employment opportunity agency, or because he or she has participated in an investigation of a charge of discrimination.
Echostar Communications Corporation respects the right of its employees and applicants for employment to work in an environment free from discrimination. Accordingly, Echostar Communications Corporation reaffinns its commitment to complying with the strictures of the Americans with Disabilities Act, in that it is our policy to prohibit all discrimination in tenns of hiring, promotion, compensation, benefits, discharge or discipline because of disability.
Any employee who believes that he/she has suffered discrimination on the basis of age, race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, or disability, has the right to contact the EEOC directly at 1-800-669-4000. In compliance with federal law, no official at Echostar Communications Corporation will retaliate against an employee who makes an internal complaint of discrimination or who contacts the EEOC or its state counterpart.
This Notice shall remain posted for the tenn of five years.
Echostar Communications Corporation
By:--------------------------- Date

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

STLMT, TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB

EEOC v. Echostar Comm Corp Assigned to: Judge Richard P. Matsch Referred to: Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Demand: $0 Cause: 42:12101 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)

Date Filed: 03/21/2002 Date Terminated: 09/08/2005 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

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

Lynn L. Palma U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-Colorado 303 East 17th Avenue #510 Denver, CO 80203 303-866-1374 Fax: 303-866-1375 Email: lynn.palma@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mia Ellen Bitterman Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-Colorado 303 East 17th Avenue #510 Denver, CO 80203 303-866-1300 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy A. Weeks U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

1 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:cod - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton
V. Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation also known as Dish, Ltd.

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...
Commission-Colorado 303 East 17th Avenue #510 Denver, CO 80203 303-866-1947 Fax: 303-866-1375 Email: nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rita Byrnes Kittle U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-Colorado 303 East 17th Avenue #510 Denver, CO 80203 303-866-1347 Fax: 303-866-1375 Email: rita.kittle@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dale A. Gaar Dale A. Gaar, P.C. 1600 Stout Street #1000 Denver, CO 80202 303-446-9300 Fax: 303-446-9400 Email: gaar@qwest.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rita Byrnes Kittle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dan S. Cross Overton Law Firm 1080 Kalamath Street Denver, CO 80204 303-302-2737 Fax: 303-832-5303 Email: dan.cross@overtonlawfirm.com

2 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

Intervenor Defendant
Echostar Communications Corporation also known as Dish, Ltd.

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Gleason Overton Law Firm 1080 Kalamath Street Denver, CO 80204 303-302-2734 Fax: 303-832-5303 Email: rick.gleason@overtonlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dan S. Cross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/21/2002 03/22/2002 04/02/2002 04/02/2002
04/29/2002 04/29/2002 04/30/2002 05/03/2002
05/06/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued); jury demand (pap) (Entered: 03/21/2002)
2 ORDER R16,stat,stlmt,pt,pto referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Richard P. Matsch (cc: to counsel) (lam) (Entered: 03/26/2002)
3 NOTICE of related case 01-D-457 by plaintiff EEOC and req to consolidate the 2 actions (lam) Modified on 04/04/2002 (Entered: 04/03/2002)
4 AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by plaintiff EEOC; jury demand; defendant Echostar Comm Corp n/k/a Dish, Ltd. (lam) Modified on 05/21/2002 (Entered: 04/03/2002)
5 Application (MOTION) by proposed intervenor Dale Alton to intervene as a plaintiff (lam) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
Tendered Complaint of Intervention submitted by Dale Alton re: motion to intervene as a plaintiff [5-1] (lam) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
6 MEMORANDUM by Chambers referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the application to intervene as a plaintiff [5-1] (lam) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
7 Proof OF SERVICE of Summons and Amended Complaint upon defendant Echostar Comm Corp on 4/9/02 by handing to Doug Mihover by refusal, Mr. Milhover works in legal and would not come down to accept service, said had to make an appt & come back (lam) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
8 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland regarding [5-1] application to intervene as a plaintiff by Dale Alton, response ddl 5/28/02 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 5/7/02 (lam) (Entered: 05/07/2002)

3 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

05/20/2002 06/04/2002 06/04/2002 06/04/2002 06/05/2002 06/10/2002 06/11/2002 06/17/2002 06/17/2002 06/18/2002 06/21/2002
07/22/2002
07/22/2002 07/22/2002 07/23/2002

9 ANSWER by defendant Echostar Comm Corp to complaint [4-1] (lam) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
10 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland application of Dale Alton to intervene as a plaintiff [5-1] (cc: all counsel) ; date : 6/5/02 (lam) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
11 ORDER FOR RULE 16 CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ; Rule 16 conference set for 9:00 7/22/02 (cc: all counsel) (lam) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
12 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by intervenor-plaintiff Dale Alton; jury demand (lam) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
13 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to consolidate case w/01-D-457 (lam) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
14 RESPONSE by defendant Echostar Comm Corp to plaintiff's motion to consolidate [13-1] (with authorities) (lam) (Entered: 06/11/2002)
15 ORDER by Judge Richard P. Matsch denying pla's motion to consolidate case w/01-D-457 [13-1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 6/11/02 (lam) (Entered: 06/11/2002)
16 MOTION by defendant Echostar Comm Corp to extend time to comply with order dated 6/4/02 setting scheduling conf (lam) (Entered: 06/18/2002)
17 ANSWER by intervenor-defendant Echostar Comm Corp to intervenor complaint [12-1] (lam) (Entered: 06/18/2002)
18 MEMORANDUM by Chambers referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion to extend time to comply with order dated 6/4/02 setting scheduling conf [16-1] (lam) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
19 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland granting motion to extend time to comply with order dated 6/4/02 setting scheduling conf [16-1] It is OYRDERED that the DDL for Rule 26(f) Conf is extended until 7/11/02 and the DDL for submitting Disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a) is extended to 7/15/02 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 6/24/02 (erv) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
20 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ; rule 16 conf held on 7/22/02 ; discovery ddl set 2/28/03 ; disp mtn ddl set 4/1/03 ; settlement conf set for 10:30 1/15/03 ; pretrial conf set for 6/2/03 ; entry date : 7/23/02 Court Reporter: Tape 02-63 (lam) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
21 SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (cc: all counsel) (lam) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
22 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ; settlement conf set for 10:30 1/14/03 (1/15/03) ; pretrial conf set for 8:30 6/2/03 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 7/23/02 (lam) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
23 AMENDED MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland regarding [22-2] minute order ; settlement conf set for 10:30 1/15/03; ptc set for 6/2/03 at 8:30 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 7/24/02 (lam) (Entered: 07/24/2002)

4 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

12/02/2002 12/04/2002 12/10/2002
12/20/2002 12/23/2002 12/26/2002
01/29/2003 03/25/2003 03/26/2003 03/28/2003
05/01/2003 05/05/2003 06/02/2003 06/04/2003 06/04/2003

24 Unoppsoed MOTION by intervenor-plaintiff Dale Alton to extend expert witness deadlines (lam) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
25 MEMORANDUM by Chambers referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion to extend witness deadlines [24-1] (lam) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
26 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland denying without prejudice the Unopposed motion to extend expert witness deadlines [24-1], subjet to a renewed motion wich addrresses all remaining scheduling order deadlines, incl the dispositive motions deadline (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 12/12/02 (erv) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
27 Unopposed MOTION by plaintiff, defendant, intervenor-plaintiff, intervenor-defendant to amend schedule order [21-1] (erv) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
28 MEMORANDUM by Chambers referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion to amend schedule order [21-1] [27-1] (lam) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
29 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland granting unopposed motion to amend scheduling order as set forth in this Minute Order [21-1] [27-1] ; discovery ddl set 5/16/03 ; disp mtn ddl set 6/16/03 ; settlement conf reset for 10:30 5/5/03 pretrial conf reset for 8:30 8/18/03; proposed scheduling order (pto) 8/11/03 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 12/27/02 (lam) (Entered: 12/27/2002)
30 NOTICE of Change of firm name of Pearson & Horowitz, P.C. to Pearson, Horowitz & Poskus, P.C. by defendant Echostar Comm Corp (lam) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
31 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff Dale Alton to amend scheduling order [21-1] (pap) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
32 MEMORANDUM by Chambers referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion to amend scheduling order [21-1] [31-1] (lam) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
33 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland granting motion to amend scheduling order [21-1] [31-1] ; discovery ddl set 6/30/03 ; disp mtn ddl set 7/15/03 ; pretrial conf reset for 9:00 9/25/03 ; pto ddl set for 9/18/03 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 3/31/03 (lam) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
35 ORDER by Judge Richard P. Matsch ; Calendar Call set for 8:30 9/12/03 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 5/7/03 (lam) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
34 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ; settlement conf set 5/5/03 is vacated (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 5/6/03 (gms) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
36 Joint MOTION by plaintiff and defendant to stay discovery to facilitate private mediation (pap) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
37 MEMORANDUM by Chambers referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion to stay discovery to facilitate private mediation [36-1] (lam) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
38 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland granting joint motion to stay discovery to facilitate private mediation [36-1]; expert witness disclosures due on or before 8/15/03; rebuttal experts designation is due on or before 9/15/03

5 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

07/31/2003 08/13/2003 08/15/2003 08/20/2003
09/03/2003 09/26/2003 09/29/2003 10/02/2003
02/18/2004 02/19/2004 02/20/2004
04/01/2004 04/05/2004

; discovery ddl reset 9/30/03 ; disp mtn ddl reset 10/31/03 ; pto ddl set for 1/6/04 ; pretrial conf vacated and reset for 2:30 1/13/04 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 6/6/03 (pap) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
39 NOTICE of Change of address of Dan S. Cross, Esq. counsel for Echostar Comm Corp (pap) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
40 Unopposed MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to stay disc for 2 months (disc cutoff ext to 11/30/03, dispo mtn ddl ext to 12/31/03) (lam) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
41 MEMORANDUM by Judge Richard P. Matsch referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion to stay disc 2 months [40-1] (lam) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
42 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland granting unopposed motion by EEOC to stay disc for 2 months [40-1] as set forth in this Minute Order ; discovery ddl ext to 11/30/03 ; disp mtn ddl ext to 12/31/03 ; pto ddl set for 3/1/04 ; pretrial conf reset for 9:00 3/8/04 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 8/21/03 (lam) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
43 MINUTE ORDER : by Judge Richard P. Matsch ; action is removed from calendar call set 9/12/03 at 8:30 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 9/4/03 (lam) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
44 JT MOTION by plaintiff, defendants to extend time 3 months the ddls established in the scheduling order (discovery cutoff to 3/7/04, dispo mtns ddl to 4/31/04 & change ptc date after 5/1/04) (lam) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
45 MEMORANDUM by Judge Richard P. Matsch referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the jt motion to extend time by 3 months the ddls established in the scheduling order [44-1] (lam) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
46 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland granting jt motion to extend time 3 months the ddls established in the scheduling order [44-1], [21-1] as set forth in this order ; discovery ddl set 3/7/04 ; disp mtn ddl set 3/31/04 ; pto ddl set for 6/1/04 ; pretrial conf reset for 8:30 6/7/04 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 10/3/03 (lam) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
47 MOTION by defendant Echostar Comm Corp to amend scheduling order [21-1] (disc cutoff to 5/16/04 and dispo mtn ddl to 6/16/04) (lam) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
48 MEMORANDUM by Chambers referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion to amend scheduling order [21-1] [47-1] (pap) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
49 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland granting unopposed motion to amend scheduling order [21-1] [47-1] ; discovery ddl reset 5/16/04 ; disp mtn ddl reset 6/16/04 ; pto ddl reset for 8/16/04 ; pretrial conf vacated and reset for 9:00 8/23/04 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 2/23/04 (pap) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
50 Unopposed MOTION by defendant Echostar Comm Corp to amend schedule order [21-1] (dlb) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
51 MEMORANDUM by Judge Richard P. Matsch referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion to amend schedule order [21-1] [50-1] (gms)

6 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

04/05/2004 05/14/2004 05/17/2004 05/17/2004 05/19/2004 05/25/2004
05/25/2004
06/02/2004 06/04/2004 06/08/2004
06/29/2004 06/29/2004

(Entered: 04/06/2004)
52 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland granting unopposed motion to amend schedule order [21-1] [50-1]. Parties to designate all rebuttal experts and provide info specified in Rule 26 by 4/8/04 regarding [21-1] schedule order (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/6/04 (gms) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
53 Joint MOTION by plaintiff, defendant to extend deadlines for discovery to 7/2/04 and dispo mtns to 8/9/04 (dlb) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
54 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for protective order to preclude distribution or publication of trad secrets (dlb) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
55 MEMORANDUM by Judge Richard P. Matsch referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion to extend deadlines for discovery to 7/2/04 and dispo mtns to 8/9/04 [53-1] (dlb) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
56 MEMORANDUM by Judge Richard P. Matsch referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion for protective order to preclude distribution or publication of trad secrets [54-1] (dlb) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
57 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland granting Joint motion to extend deadlines for discovery to 7/2/04 and dispo mtns to 8/9/04 [53-1] ; discovery ddl reset 7/2/04 ; disp mtn ddl reset 8/9/04 ; pretrial conf vacated and reset for 10/6/04 ; pto ddl set for 9:00 10/13/04 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 5/26/04 (pap) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
58 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ; dft shall respond on or before 6/14/04 regarding [54-1] motion for protective order to preclude distribution or publication of trad secrets setting hearing on motion for protective order to preclude distribution or publication of trad secrets [54-1] 9:00 6/18/04 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 5/26/04 (pap) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
59 Unopposed MOTION by plaintiffs to withdraw motion for protective order to preclude distribution or publication of trad secrets [54-1] (gms) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
60 MEMORANDUM by Chambers referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion to withdraw motion for protective order to preclude distribution or publication of trad secrets [54-1] [59-1] (pap) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
61 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland granting plas' unopposed motion to withdraw motion for protective order to preclude distribution or publication of trad secrets [54-1] [59-1], denying as moot plas' motion for protective order to preclude distribution or publication of trad secrets [54-1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 6/10/04 (pap) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
62 Joint MOTION by plaintiff, defendant to extend ddl for discovery to 9/3/04 and dispo mtns to 10/9/04 (dlb) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
63 MEMORANDUM by Judge Richard P. Matsch referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion to extend ddl for discovery to 9/3/04 and dispo mtns to 10/9/04 [62-1] (dlb) (Entered: 06/30/2004)

7 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

07/02/2004
07/08/2004 07/09/2004 07/22/2004 07/23/2004 08/04/2004 08/05/2004
08/30/2004 09/03/2004 09/03/2004 10/05/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004

64 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland denying jt motion to extend ddl for discovery to 9/3/04 and dispo mtns to 10/9/04 [62-1] because no good cause has been shown (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 7/6/04 (lam) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
65 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for reconsideration minute order and request for forthwith hearing [64-1] (dlb) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
66 MEMORANDUM by Judge Richard P. Matsch referring to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland the motion for reconsideration minute order and request for forthwith hearing [64-1] [65-1] (dlb) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
67 OBJECTION by pla and intvpla to Magistrate Judge's Minute Order [64-1] by plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff Dale Alton concerning minute order [64-1] (pap) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
68 NOTICE OF CONSENT OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE by plaintiff EEOC (erv) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
69 RESPONSE by defendant Echostar Comm Corp to OBJECTION by pla and intvpla to Magistrate Judge's Minute Order [64-1] [67-1] (erv) (Entered: 08/04/2004)
70 ORDER by Judge Richard P. Matsch reversing denial of jt mtn for ext of ddls for discovery and dispo mtns [64-1] re: minute order ; discovery ddl ext to 9/3/04 ; disp mtn ddl ext to 10/9/04 ; pretrial conf set 10/6/04 is vacated ; that the order of reference of Magistrate Judge Boland is withdrawn [2-1], terminating case referral to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ; the court will set a new date for a ptc (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 8/9/04 (lam) (Entered: 08/09/2004)
71 JT MOTION by plaintiff, defendant for protective order re: confidential information (lam) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
72 ORDER by Judge Richard P. Matsch granting motion for protective order re: confidential information [71-1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 9/8/04 (dlb) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
73 Stipulated PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Richard P. Matsch : regarding [71-1] motion for protective order re: confidential information (cc: all counsel) (dlb) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
74 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to conduct non-party records deposition after the discovery ddl (pap) (Entered: 10/06/2004)
75 Unopposed MOTION by defendant Echostar Comm Corp to extend ddl for filing dispo mtns to 10/19/04 (lam) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
76 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff Dale Alton for partial summary judgment re: plas' first and second claim for relief (lam) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
77 BRIEF by plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff Dale Alton in support of motion for partial summary judgment re: plas' first and second claim for relief [76-1] (lam) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
78 EXHIBITS by plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff Dale Alton to motion for partial summary judgment re: plas' first and second claim for relief [76-1] (lam)

8 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

10/21/2004 10/21/2004
11/04/2004 11/08/2004
11/08/2004 11/08/2004 11/08/2004
11/29/2004 02/15/2005 02/24/2005 02/25/2005 03/01/2005 03/03/2005

(Entered: 10/13/2004)
79 RESPONSE by defendant Echostar Comm Corp to pla's motion for leave to conduct non-party records deposition after the discovery ddl [74-1] (pap) (Entered: 10/22/2004)
80 MINUTE ORDER : by Judge Richard P. Matsch setting hearing on motion for leave to conduct non-party records deposition after the discovery ddl [74-1] 10:00 11/8/04 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 10/25/04 (pap) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
81 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's [76] Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation. (lam, ) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
82 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard P. Matsch : Motion Hearing held on 11/8/2004. Pla's [76] Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Dale Alton is denied. Pla's [74] Motion for Leave to Conduct Non-Party Records Deposition After the Discovery Deadlines filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionis denied. 4 day trial set 5/2/05. PTC set 4/8/05 at 10:00 a.m.(Court Reporter FTR.) (gms, ) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
ORDER denying plaintiff's [74] Motion for Leave to conduct non-party records deposition after the discovery deadline per Minutes of 11/8/04 by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 11/8/04. (gms, ) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
83 ORDER denying pla's [76] Motion for Partial Summary Judgment . Signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 11/8/04. (gms, ) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
84 ORDER Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/8/2005 10:00 AM in Conference Room before Judge Richard P. Matsch. 4 day Jury Trial set for 5/2/2005 09:00 AM in Courtroom A before Judge Richard P. Matsch to jury of 12. Signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 11/8/04. (gms, ) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
85 TRANSCRIPT of Motion to Take Depositions held on 11/8/04 before Judge Matsch. Pages 1-16 Court Reporter: Federal Reporting Service. (Certified copy) (gms, ) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
86 NOTICE of Change of Address by Dale A. Gaar counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (lam, ) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
87 Joint MOTION Requesting Settlement Conference by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (gms, ) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
88 ORDER REFERRING CASE FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (dlb, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
89 MINUTE ORDER setting Settlement Conference set for 3/9/2005 01:00 PM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/1/05. (dlb, ) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
90 MINUTE ORDER granting [87] Joint Motion for Settlement Conference. Settlement Conference is vacated and reset to 4/6/05 10:00am before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland . Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/3/05. (pap, ) (Entered: 03/04/2005)

9 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

03/04/2005 03/18/2005 03/23/2005 03/31/2005 04/01/2005
04/06/2005 04/06/2005 04/08/2005 04/08/2005 04/08/2005 04/08/2005
04/19/2005 04/25/2005
04/25/2005 04/25/2005

91 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Defense Exper J. Fred Katzman by Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (gms, ) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
92 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Deadline to file response to pla's motion to exclude to 4/8/04 by Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation. (gms, ) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
93 Minute ORDER granting [92] Motion for Extension of Time to file a response. by Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch on 3/23/05. (erv, ) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
94 MOTION For Enlargement of Time to File Pretrial Order by Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation. (bpm, ) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
95 MINUTE ORDER granting [94] MOTION For Extension of Time to submit a proposed agreed pretrial order up to 4/5/05 filed by Echostar Communications Corporation, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 4/1/05. (gms, ) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
96 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Boyd N. Boland : Settlement Conference held on 4/6/2005. No settlement was reached. No record made. (pap, ) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
97 MINUTE ORDER Supplemental Settlement Conference set for 4/19/2005 03:30 PM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland.Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/6/05. (pap, ) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
98 Dft's RESPONSE to [91] MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Defense Exper J. Fred Katzman by Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (dlb, ) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
99 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard P. Matsch : Final Pretrial Conference held on 4/8/2005 (Court Reporter FTR Technician.) (dlb, ) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
100 FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER . Signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 4/8/05. Trial to a Jury anticipated for Five (5) days.(dlb, ) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
102 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard P. Matsch : Final Pretrial Conference held on 4/8/2005. ORDERED: Proposed jury isntructions, memo of law in support and proposed voir dire shall be submitted directly to chambers by 4/25/05. ORDERED: Final pretrial order approved. (Court Reporter FTR Technician.) (dlb, ) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
101 MINUTE ORDER vacating Supplemental Settlement Conference set for 4/19/05by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/19/05. (bpm, ) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
103 Joint MOTION For One-Day Extension of Time to File Jury Instructions by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation, Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (lam, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
104 Proposed Voir Dire Questions by Plaintiff EEOC. (lam, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
105 Proposed Voir Dire Questions by Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation. (lam, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)

10 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

04/25/2005 04/25/2005 04/25/2005 04/27/2005 04/27/2005 04/27/2005 04/27/2005 04/27/2005 04/28/2005 05/02/2005 05/02/2005 05/02/2005
05/02/2005 05/02/2005 05/02/2005

106 TRIAL BRIEF by Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation. (lam, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
107 NOTICE of Appearance of Lynn Palma by Rita Byrnes Kittle on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (lam, ) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
108 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Mia Bitterman as counsel for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Rita Brynes Kittle. (lam, ) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
109 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Lynn L. Palma on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (lam, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
110 MOTION for Order to Limit Evidence Based on Stipulations by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (lam, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
111 Joint MOTION to Amend [100] Pretrial Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation, Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (lam, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
112 OBJECTIONS to Defendant's Designated Exhibits by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (lam, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
113 Supplementary Proposed Voir Dire Question by Plaintiffs Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Dale Alton. (lam, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
114 Joint MOTION for Order Approving the Use of Preservation Desposition at Trial and Req for Expedited Ruling by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (lam, ) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
115 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's [110] MOTION for Order to Limit Evidence filed by Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation. (lam, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
116 REQUEST that the Court Take Judicial Notice of 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-5(b) Before Opening Statements Commence by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (lam, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
117 REQUESTS for Limiting and Cautionary Instructions on Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 6 and on any Document that Contains Statements or Interpretations About the Law that Governs this Case by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (lam, ) (Modified text on 5/3/2005 re: Request) (lam, ). (Entered: 05/03/2005)
118 REQUESTS for Limiting Instructions and for Expedited Preliminary Ruling Before Opening Statements by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (lam, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
119 Attachments A and B (APPENDIX) to [118] Requests for Limiting Instructions by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (lam, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
120 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard P. Matsch : Jury Trial Day One held on 5/2/2005; Defendant's contention re: inaccuracy of the employment application is granted; Plaintiffs' [110] MOTION to Limit Evidence Based on Sitpulations is denied; Joint [111] MOTION to Amend PTO is granted

11 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

05/02/2005 05/02/2005 05/03/2005 05/04/2005
05/05/2005 05/06/2005 05/06/2005
05/06/2005 05/17/2005 05/27/2005
06/10/2005

[100]. (Court Reporter -FTR) (lam, ) (Entered: 05/04/2005)
121 Witness List by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (lam, ) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
122 Witness List by Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation. (lam, ) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
123 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard P. Matsch : Jury Trial held on 5/3/2005. Attachment: Note from Juror #9. (Court Reporter -FTR.) (lam, ) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
124 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard P. Matsch : Jury Trial Day 3 held on 5/4/2005; Written stipulations are received and shall be submitted to the jury. Attachments: Note from Juror, Seat 6, Refused Pretext Instruction, and Plaintiffs' Request for "Mixed-Motive" Instruction. (Court Reporter -FTR) (lam, ) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
125 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard P. Matsch : Jury Trial held on 5/5/2005. Trial to Jury Day 4. (Court Reporter FTR.) (dlb, ) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
126 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard P. Matsch : Jury Trial completed on 5/6/2005. 1:54 p.m. Presiding juror states jury has reached a verdict. (Court Reporter 5/6/05.) (dlb, ) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
127 JURY VERDICT. On Pla's claim of failure to administer employment tests we find in favor of plaintiffs. On Pla's claim of failure to provide reasonable accommodation we find in favor of Plaintiffs. On Pla's claim of failure to provide reasonable accommodation for Dale Alton to perform the duties we find in favor of Plaintiffs. On Pla's claim of denial of employment opportunities we find in favor of Plaintiffs. Did the Dft's violation of the ADA cause Dale Alton Lost wages and benefits, yes. State the amount of damages, $2,000. Did Dft's violation of the ADA cause other damages to Dale Alton, yes. State the amount of damages, $5,000. Did Echostar act with malice or reckless indifference to Dale Alton's federally protected rights, yes. State the amount of punitive damages against Echostar Communications Corporation, $8,000,000.(dlb, ) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
128 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS. Signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 5/6/05. (dlb, ) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
129 Post-Trial STATUS REPORT by the parties. (dlb, ) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
130 MOTION for Remittitur (Order) upon entry of Judgment, this Court enter Judgment as set forth in this Motion by Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation. (lam, ) (Modified on 5/31/2005 adding text to clarify)(lam, ). (Modified on 8/26/2005 to re-activate motion -termed in error) (gms, ). (Entered: 05/31/2005)
131 Post-Trial STATUS REPORT by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Echostar Communications Corporation, Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (erv, ) (Entered: 06/13/2005)

12 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

06/16/2005 06/20/2005
08/15/2005 08/16/2005
08/31/2005 09/07/2005 09/07/2005 09/08/2005 09/08/2005

132 Plaintiff's Unopposed MOTION for Enlargement of Time to File Response to Defendant's [130] MOTION for Remittitur to and including 8/15/05 by Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (djs, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
133 ORDER granting Plaintiff and Plaintiff/Intervenor's [132] Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant's [130] MOTION for Remittitur to 8/15/05. Signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 6/20/05. (lam, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
134 STATUS REPORT , Post Trial & Joint Motion for Extension of Time by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kittle, Rita) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
135 ORDER upon Post-Trial Status Report and [130] Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time for Plaintiff to Respond to Motion for Remittitur, that on or before 8/31/05, the parties will submit either a final status report or a stipulation consent decree. That the time within which the Plaintiff and Plaintiff/Intervenor shall respond to the Defendant's Motion for Remittitur is extended to 9/7/05. Signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 8/16/05. (lam, ) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
136 STATUS REPORT Final Joint by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kittle, Rita) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
137 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree (executed by parties) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kittle, Rita) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
138 First MOTION to approve consent decree and dismiss remittitur motion as moot by Intervenor Plaintiff Dale Alton. (Gaar, Dale) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
139 ORDER dismissing [130] Defendant's Motion for Remittitur as moot. Signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 9/8/05. (lam2, ) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
140 CONSENT DECREE resolving all issues alleged in this lawsuit, and constitutes a complete resolution of all of the Plaintiffs' claims of unlawful employment practices under ADA as set forth in this Consent Decree. That Echostar agrees to pay $450,000.00, to be disbursed among the plaintiffs as set forth in this Consent Decree. Echostar shall provide semi-annual reports for each six-month period following the date the Court signs the Decree as set forth in this Consent Decree. Upon submission of the final report, within which the Commission has not filed an objection, the parties shall file a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice as set forth in this Consent Decree, which will dissolve this Decree and this action will be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 9/8/05. (lam2, ) (Entered: 09/08/2005)

13 of 14

PACER Login:

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/01/2007 10:40:41

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

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

https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?896331079393957-L_35...

Description:

Docket Report

Billable

9

Pages:

Search Criteria:
Cost:

1:02-cv-00581-RPM-BNB 0.72

14 of 14

6/1/2007 11:38 AM

 
 EEOC Wins $8 Million Jury Verdict for Blind Worker In Disability Bia...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/5-6-05.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 6, 2005

CONTACT: JOSEPH H. MITCHELL Denver Regional Attorney (303) 866-1373
JEANETTE M. LEINO Acting District Director (303) 866-1369 (206) 220-6871

EEOC WINS $8 MILLION JURY VERDICT FOR BLIND WORKER IN DISABILITY BIAS CASE AGAINST ECHOSTAR
DENVER - After a three-day trial, a 12-person jury returned an $8 million verdict in federal court today for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in a lawsuit alleging that EchoStar Communications Corp. (EchoStar) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) when it refused to provide a reasonable accommodation to Dale Alton, a qualified blind employee. EchoStar, based in Englewood, Colorado, is a provider of advanced digital television services.
The jury verdict awards $2,000 in back pay, $5,000 in compensatory damages, and $8 million in punitive damages for Mr. Alton. In the trial, presided over by Judge Richard P. Matsch, the plaintiffs alleged the following:
EchoStar failed to accommodate Mr. Alton in the application process;
EchoStar failed to accommodate Mr. Alton in the job by never trying to install adaptative software;
EchoStar denied Mr. Alton an employment opportunity because of his disability or because of the need to provide him an accommodation; and
EchoStar violated a section of the ADA when it failed to use a proper testing device to determine an applicant's skills.
"This verdict should remind employers that refusing to abide by the law in accommodating individuals with disabilities can be costly," said Joseph Mitchell, Regional Attorney of the EEOC's Denver District Office. "Many individuals with disabilities, such as Dale Alton, are ready, eager and able to work. All they need is the opportunity to do the job without discriminatory barriers based on myths, fears and stereotypes. Employers must remember that disability does not mean inability."
In the trial, the plaintiffs presented evidence that Mr. Alton, who is blind, applied for a customer service representative job at EchoStar in 1999. Prior to applying, Mr. Alton had completed training at the Colorado Center for the Blind for that very type of position. Blind individuals can perform the customer service representative job by using a computer program called JAWS (Job Access With Speech), which translates text into speech. A blind customer service rep uses a split headset, in which he hears the JAWS voice in one ear, and the customer conversation in the other ear. Using JAWS, people with vision impairments can process written language at 400 to 700 words per minute, which is faster than many sighted individuals read. At trial, the plaintiffs' expert, Nelson Reiser, demonstrated to the jury how JAWS works.
When Mr. Alton first went to EchoStar to apply, EchoStar told him it would not do him any good to put in an application because they were not set up to handle blind people. However, after receiving a copy of his charge of discrimination, EchoStar invited Mr. Alton back and put him through a sham interview process that included a Braille test, which was longer and more difficult that the test given sighted people, and a Windows skill test that consisted of a person giving him directions on how to access icons, such as "move to the left, move down, now click."
Much of the testimony related to whether, if EchoStar had tried to install JAWS in 1999, it could have worked. EchoStar asserted that JAWS could not have worked because of the complexity of the software environment. Contrary evidence presented by plaintiffs reflected that, in 1999, numerous employers in Denver such as Norwest Bank, American Express, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, and MCI had installed JAWS and employed blind customer service representatives at their call centers.
Dale Gaar, Mr. Alton's private lawyer, said, "This verdict is very rewarding because it has the potential for opening thousands of customer service representative jobs to qualified blind people around the country."

1 of 2

6/1/2007 11:56 AM

EEOC Wins $8 Million Jury Verdict for Blind Worker In Disability Bia...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/5-6-05.html

According to its web site, www.echostar.com, "EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:DISH) serves more than 11.2 million satellite TV customers through its DISH Network(TM), and is a leading U.S. provider of advanced digital television services. DISH Network's services include hundreds of video and audio channels, Interactive TV, HDTV, sports and international programming, together with professional installation and 24-hour customer service. EchoStar has been a leader for 25 years in satellite TV equipment sales and support worldwide. EchoStar is included in the Nasdaq-100 Index (NDX) and is a Fortune 500 company."
EEOC is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the federal statutes which prohibit employment discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, or religion; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits job discrimination based on the existence or perception of a disability; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits discrimination against persons age 40 and over; and the Equal Pay Act (EPA), which prohibits wage discrimination based on sex. The EEOC's Denver District Office, located at 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 510, in Denver, enforces the anti-discrimination laws in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on May 6, 2005.

Return to Home Page

2 of 2

6/1/2007 11:56 AM

 
 EEOC Performance and Accountability Report FY 2005: Strategic Objec...

http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/par/2005/mda_objective1.html

EEOC v. EchoStar Communications Corp. No. 02-CV-00581 (D. Colo. May 6, 2005)
The Denver District Office alleged in this ADA action that EchoStar, a leading provider of satellite television equipment and services, based in Englewood, Colorado, discriminated against Dale Alton, a blind applicant for a customer service representative position. After completing training at the Colorado Center for the Blind on working in customer service representative positions, Mr. Alton went to EchoStar to apply in response to a newspaper advertisement for customer service representatives. He was told it would not do him any good to put in an application because EchoStar was not set up to handle blind people. After Mr. Alton filed his charge, EchoStar called him back for an interview that included a braille test that had three times as many questions as the written test given to sighted applicants. Following a 3-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for EEOC and Mr. Alton, awarding him $2,000 in back pay, $5,000 in compensatory damages, and $8 million in punitive damages. While this case was brought on behalf of a single individual, we believe it has far-reaching implications because some employers are relying on stereotypical notions associated with disability even in the face of evidence of workable, inexpensive technology-based reasonable accommodations.

1 of 1

6/1/2007 11:57 AM

 
 EEOC Performance and Accountability Report FY 2005: Appendixes

http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/par/2005/appendixes.html

EEOC v. EchoStar Communications Corp. No. 02-CV-00581 (D. Colo. May 6, 2005)
The Denver District Office alleged in this ADA action that defendant, a leading provider of satellite television equipment and services based in Englewood, Colorado, discriminated against a blind applicant for a customer service representative position by failing to provide reasonable accommodation in the application process, failing to administer employment tests in the most effective manner, failing to provide reasonable accommodation for him to perform the duties of a customer service representative, and denying him employment opportunities because of his disability. Following a 3-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for the EEOC and the intervening charging party, awarding charging party $2,000 in backpay, $5,000 in compensatory damages, and $8 million in punitive damages. The damages cap is $300,000.
After completing training at the Colorado Center for the Blind on working in customer service representative positions, charging party went to defendant to apply in response to a newspaper advertisement for customer service representatives. He was told it would not do him any good to put in an application because defendant was not set up to handle blind people. After charging party filed his charge, defendant called him back for an interview that included a braille test that had three times as many questions as the written test given to sighted applicants. At trial, plaintiffs introduced evidence that charging party had been specifically trained to perform a customer service job with the aid of screen-reading technology called JAWS (Job Access with Speech), which translates text into speech. The defendant never attempted to install JAWS or otherwise investigate whether an accommodation could be made to enable charging party to do the job. The defendant also failed to call the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), even though at the time charging party applied, the defendant was aware that DVR often paid some or all of the costs of implementing adaptive technology. The EEOC presented expert testimony on how JAWS works and on the expert's installation of screen-reading software in a number of business call centers, including Norwest Bank, Diner's Club, American Express, Pizza Hut, and MCI.
While this case was brought on behalf of a single individual, we believe it has far reaching implications. Breakthroughs in computer technology have opened up doors to individuals with disabilities. However, some employers have closed those doors by relying on stereotypical notions associated with disability even in the face of evidence of workable, inexpensive technology-based reasonable accommodations. We believe that this case, and others like it, will raise consciousness of these issues, and increase the likelihood that other applicants with disabilities will be given the opportunity to show their qualifications and be judged based on their abilities rather than their disabilities.

1 of 1

6/1/2007 11:58 AM