Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 1 of 14
NDISPO,TERMED
U.S. District Court − District of Colorado District of Colorado (Denver)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:16−cv−02471−WYD−MJW

EEOC v. University of Denver Assigned to: Judge Wiley Y. Daniel Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Date Terminated: 05/18/2018 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Michael Holm Imdieke U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1300 Email: Michael.Imdieke@EEOC.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karl R. Tetzlaff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1378 Email: karl.tetzlaff@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rita Byrnes Kittle U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1347 Fax: 303−866−1375 Email: rita.kittle@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wasan Awad U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Phoenix 3300 North Central Avenue Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85102 602−640−5032 Email: Wasan.awad@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Lucy Marsh

represented by Baine P. Kerr Hutchinson, Black and Cook, LLC 921 Walnut Street Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 2 of 14

303−442−6514 Fax: 303−442−6593 Email: kerr@hbcboulder.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer A. Reisch Equal Rights Advocates 1170 Market Street Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−621−0672 Fax: 415−621−6744 Email: jreisch@equalrights.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan B. Boonin Hutchinson, Black and Cook, LLC 921 Walnut Street Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 303−442−6514 Fax: 303−442−6593 Email: boonin@hbcboulder.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren Elizabeth Groth Hutchinson, Black and Cook, LLC 921 Walnut Street Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 303−442−6593 Email: groth@hbcboulder.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Nancy Ehrenreich

represented by Ariel Beryl DeFazio Sweeney & Bechtold, PC 650 South Cherry Street Suite 700 Denver, CO 80246 303−865−3733 Fax: 303−865−3738 Email: abdefazio@sweeneybechtold.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charlotte Noelle Sweeney Sweeney & Bechtold, PC 650 South Cherry Street Suite 700 Denver, CO 80246 303−865−3733 Fax: 303−865−3738 Email: cnsweeney@sweeneybechtold.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joan Marie Bechtold Sweeney & Bechtold, PC 650 South Cherry Street Suite 700 Denver, CO 80246 303−865−3733 Fax: 303−865−3738 Email: jmbechtold@sweeneybechtold.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 3 of 14

Intervenor Plaintiff Kris McDaniel−Miccio
Intervenor Plaintiff Catherine Smith
Intervenor Plaintiff K.K. DuVivier
Intervenor Plaintiff Joyce Sterling
Intervenor Plaintiff Celia Taylor

represented by Ariel Beryl DeFazio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charlotte Noelle Sweeney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joan Marie Bechtold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ariel Beryl DeFazio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charlotte Noelle Sweeney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joan Marie Bechtold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ariel Beryl DeFazio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charlotte Noelle Sweeney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joan Marie Bechtold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ariel Beryl DeFazio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charlotte Noelle Sweeney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joan Marie Bechtold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ariel Beryl DeFazio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charlotte Noelle Sweeney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 4 of 14
Joan Marie Bechtold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant University of Denver

represented by Ellen Cecilia Kearns Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP−Boston 535 Boylston Street Suite 902 Boston, MA 02116 617−849−7881 Fax: 617−849−7871 Email: ekearns@constangy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Rayner Mangum Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP−Denver 600 17th Street Suite 2700−S Denver, CO 80202 720−343−7533 Email: rmangum@constangy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jim Goh Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP−Denver 600 17th Street Suite 2700−S Denver, CO 80202 720−343−7533 Fax: 720−343−7571 Email: jgoh@constangy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LaLonnie Gray Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP−Denver 600 17th Street Suite 2700−S Denver, CO 80202 720−343−7558 Fax: 720−343−7559 Email: lgray@constangy.com TERMINATED: 04/11/2018
Steven W. Moore Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP−Denver 600 17th Street Suite 2700−S Denver, CO 80202 720−343−7533 Fax: 720−343−7541 Email: smoore@constangy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 5 of 14

09/30/2016 09/30/2016 10/03/2016 10/05/2016
10/05/2016 10/18/2016 11/15/2016 11/16/2016 11/16/2016 12/12/2016 12/28/2016 12/28/2016 12/28/2016 01/03/2017

1 COMPLAINT against University of Denver Attorney Michael Holm Imdieke added to party EEOC(pty:pla), filed by EEOC. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
2 Case assigned to Judge Wiley Y. Daniel and drawn to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Text Only Entry (sphil, ) Modified on 10/3/2016 (sphil, ). (Entered: 10/03/2016)
3 SUMMONS issued by Clerk. (Attachments: # 1 Magistrate Judge Consent Form) (sphil, ) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
4 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe for non−dispositive matters. That pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this matter is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge is designated to conduct proceedings in this civil action as follows: (1) Convene a scheduling conference under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2. (2) Conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause. (3) Hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non−dispositive motions. (4) Alternative Dispute Resolution Authority: Court sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLOLCivR 16.6. On the recommendation or informal request of the magistrate judge, or on the request of the parties by motion, the court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding. (5) Conduct a pretrial conference and enter a pretrial order. It is further ORDERED that parties and counsel shall be familiar and comply with the above judge's requirements found at www.cod.uscourts.gov. Entered by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 10/5/16. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
5 ORDER Setting Scheduling/Planning Conference for 12/13/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/05/2016. (slibi, ) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. University of Denver waiver sent on 10/12/2016, answer due 12/12/2016. (Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
7 Unopposed MOTION to Reset Scheduling Conference by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
8 MEMORANDUM regarding 7 Unopposed MOTION to Reset Scheduling Conference filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 11/16/16. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
9 MINUTE ORDER granting 7 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Reschedule Scheduling Conference. Scheduling Conference 12/13/2016 09:00 AM is VACATED. Scheduling Conference RESET for 1/18/2017 10:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/16/2016. (emill) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
10 ANSWER to 1 Complaint Attorney Jim Goh added to party University of Denver(pty:dft) by University of Denver.(Goh, Jim) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
11 MOTION to Intervene as of Right as Party Plaintiff by Interested Party Lucy Marsh. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint in Intervention)(Kerr, Baine) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
12 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jonathan B. Boonin on behalf of Lucy Marsh. Attorney Jonathan B. Boonin added to party Lucy Marsh(pty:ip) (Boonin, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
13 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Lauren Elizabeth Groth on behalf of Lucy Marsh. Attorney Lauren Elizabeth Groth added to party Lucy Marsh(pty:ip) (Groth, Lauren) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
14 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Steven W. Moore on behalf of University of DenverAttorney Steven W. Moore added to party University of Denver(pty:dft)

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 6 of 14

01/03/2017 01/03/2017 01/03/2017 01/03/2017 01/03/2017 01/10/2017 01/11/2017 01/17/2017 01/18/2017
01/18/2017 01/23/2017 01/23/2017 01/25/2017 01/26/2017 01/26/2017
01/26/2017

(Moore, Steven) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
15 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by LaLonnie Gray on behalf of University of DenverAttorney LaLonnie Gray added to party University of Denver(pty:dft) (Gray, LaLonnie) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
16 AMENDED ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Defendant University of Denver. (Goh, Jim) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
17 AMENDED COMPLAINT against University of Denver, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
18 NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading re 10 Answer to Complaint by Defendant University of Denver (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Amended Answer)(Gray, LaLonnie) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
19 NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading re 17 Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Amended Complaint (Redline))(Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
20 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
21 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Karl R. Tetzlaff on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAttorney Karl R. Tetzlaff added to party Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(pty:pla) (Tetzlaff, Karl) (Entered: 01/11/2017)
22 ANSWER to 17 Amended Complaint by University of Denver.(Goh, Jim) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
23 COURTROOM MINUTES for Scheduling Conference held on 1/18/2017 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Discovery due by 11/17/2017. Dispositive Motions due by 1/18/2018. ORDERED: Plaintiff Intervenor Marsh shall exchange initial disclosures with opposing counsel within 10 days, if permitted to intervene. The parties shall submit a motion for protective order, if needed, on or before January 26, 2017. Plaintiff's oral motion to take the preservation deposition of Professor Sheila Hyatt is GRANTED. A Status Conference is set for March 21, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom A− 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe to discuss any updates to discovery and set a date for a Final Pretrial Conference. FTR: MJW A502. (sgrim) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
24 SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/18/17. (sgrim) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
25 ORDER. The Motion of Lucy Marsh to Intervene as of Right as PartyPlaintiff (ECF No. 11 ) is GRANTED. Entered by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 1/23/2017. (agarc, ) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
31 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT against Defendant University of Denver. PLAINTIFF/INTERVENOR DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE, filed by Lucy Marsh.(evana, ) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
26 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jennifer A. Reisch on behalf of Lucy MarshAttorney Jennifer A. Reisch added to party Lucy Marsh(pty:intvp) (Reisch, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
27 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) − Proposed Protective Order)(Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
28 MEMORANDUM regarding 27 Joint MOTION for Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 1/26/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
29 MINUTE ORDER granting 27 Joint Motion for Protective Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/26/2017. (slibi, ) (Entered: 01/26/2017)

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 7 of 14

01/26/2017 02/07/2017 02/13/2017 03/21/2017
04/13/2017
06/07/2017
06/07/2017
06/07/2017 06/08/2017
06/08/2017 06/08/2017
06/08/2017 06/08/2017 06/08/2017 06/13/2017
06/16/2017 06/16/2017

30 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/26/2017. (slibi, ) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
32 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Wasan Awad on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAttorney Wasan Awad added to party Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(pty:pla) (Awad, Wasan) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
33 ANSWER to 31 Intervenor Complaint by University of Denver.(Goh, Jim) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
34 COURTROOM MINUTES for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Status Conference held on 3/21/2017. Status Conference set for 6/13/2017 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. FTR: Courtroom A−502. (slibi, ) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
35 STIPULATION for Extension of Time To Respond to (1) Defendant's First Set of Written Discovery Requests to the EEOC and (2) The EEOC's First Set of Written Discovery Requests to Defendant by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
36 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order To Extend Expert Disclosure, Discovery Cutoff, and Dispositive Motions Deadlines by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
37 MEMORANDUM regarding 36 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order To Extend Expert Disclosure, Discovery Cutoff, and Dispositive Motions Deadlines filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 6/7/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
38 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Awad, Wasan) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
39 MEMORANDUM regarding 38 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 6/8/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
40 MINUTE ORDER granting 38 Motion to Appear Telephonically, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/08/2017. (slibi, ) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
41 MINUTE ORDER granting 36 Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Extend Expert Disclosure, Discovery Cutoff, and Dispositive Motions Deadline, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/08/2017. Discovery due by 1/16/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 3/19/2018. (slibi, ) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
42 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Intervenor Plaintiff Lucy Marsh. (Groth, Lauren) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
43 MEMORANDUM regarding 42 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically filed by Lucy Marsh. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 6/8/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
44 MINUTE ORDER granting 42 Plaintiff Intervenor's Motion to Appear Telephonically, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/08/2017. (slibi, ) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
45 COURTROOM MINUTES for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Status Conference held on 6/13/2017. ORDERED: Parties shall come up with an agreement regarding the ESI issues on or before June 27, 2017. Status Conference set for 8/29/2017 09:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. FTR: Courtroom A−502. (slibi, ) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
46 Unopposed MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiffs by Intervenor Plaintiffs Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel−Miccio, Catherine Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint in Intervention)(DeFazio, Ariel) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
47 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Charlotte Noelle Sweeney on behalf of Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel−Miccio, Catherine SmithAttorney Charlotte Noelle

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 8 of 14

06/16/2017 06/28/2017 06/28/2017 07/19/2017 07/20/2017
07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/26/2017 08/15/2017 08/15/2017 08/17/2017 08/17/2017

Sweeney added to party Nancy Ehrenreich(pty:intvp), Attorney Charlotte Noelle Sweeney added to party Kris McDaniel−Miccio(pty:intvp), Attorney Charlotte Noelle Sweeney added to party Catherine Smith(pty:intvp) (Sweeney, Charlotte) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
48 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Joan Marie Bechtold on behalf of Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel−Miccio, Catherine SmithAttorney Joan Marie Bechtold added to party Nancy Ehrenreich(pty:intvp), Attorney Joan Marie Bechtold added to party Kris McDaniel−Miccio(pty:intvp), Attorney Joan Marie Bechtold added to party Catherine Smith(pty:intvp) (Bechtold, Joan) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
49 ORDER that the Unopposed Motion of Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel−Micchio, and Catherine Smith to Intervene as Plaintiffs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) ECF No. 46 is GRANTED, and the Complaint in Intervention is ACCEPTED FOR FILING, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 6/28/2017. (evana, ) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
50 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT against University of Denver, filed by Catherine Smith, Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel−Miccio.(evana, ) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
51 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to 50 Complaint in Intervention by Defendant University of Denver. (Goh, Jim) (Modified on 7/20/2017 edited to add link to 50 )(evana, ). (Entered: 07/19/2017)
52 MINUTE ORDER Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff−Intervenors' Complaint in Intervention filed July 19, 2017 ECF No. 51 is GRANTED. Defendant has 21 days after the Court rules on the anticipated motion to intervene and proposed Complaint in Intervention on behalf of K.K. DuVivier and Joyce Sterling, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff−Intervenors Ehrenreich, McDaniel−Miccio, and Smiths Complaint in Intervention ECF No. 50 , by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 7/20/2017. (evana, ) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
53 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order to Extend Expert Disclosure, Discovery Cutoff, and Dispositive Motions Deadlines by Intervenor Plaintiffs Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel−Miccio, Catherine Smith. (DeFazio, Ariel) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
54 MEMORANDUM regarding 53 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order to Extend Expert Disclosure, Discovery Cutoff, and Dispositive Motions Deadlines filed by Catherine Smith, Kris McDaniel−Miccio, Nancy Ehrenreich. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 7/26/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
55 MINUTE ORDER granting 53 Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Extend Expert Disclosure, Discovery Cutoff, and Dispositive Motions Deadlines, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/26/2017. Discovery due by 2/15/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 4/18/2018. (slibi, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
56 Unopposed MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiffs Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(1) by Movants K.K. DuVivier, Joyce Sterling. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document )(DeFazio, Ariel) (Modified on 8/16/2017 edited named parties to Movant)(evana, ). (Entered: 08/15/2017)
57 NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading re 49 Order on Motion to Intervene, 46 Unopposed MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiffs by Movants K.K. DuVivier, Joyce Sterling (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(DeFazio, Ariel) (Modified on 8/16/2017 edited named parties to Movant)(evana, ). (Entered: 08/15/2017)
58 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Charlotte Noelle Sweeney on behalf of K.K. DuVivier, Joyce SterlingAttorney Charlotte Noelle Sweeney added to party K.K. DuVivier(pty:mov), Attorney Charlotte Noelle Sweeney added to party Joyce Sterling(pty:mov) (Sweeney, Charlotte) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
59 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Joan Marie Bechtold on behalf of K.K. DuVivier, Joyce SterlingAttorney Joan Marie Bechtold added to party K.K. DuVivier(pty:mov), Attorney Joan Marie Bechtold added to party Joyce Sterling(pty:mov) (Bechtold, Joan) (Entered: 08/17/2017)

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 9 of 14

08/22/2017 08/22/2017 08/22/2017 08/23/2017 08/23/2017 08/25/2017 08/25/2017 08/25/2017
08/29/2017
09/13/2017 09/13/2017 09/13/2017 09/13/2017 09/14/2017

60 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Propound Discovery Requests by Intervenor Plaintiffs Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel−Miccio, Catherine Smith. (DeFazio, Ariel) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
61 MEMORANDUM regarding 60 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Propound Discovery Requests filed by Catherine Smith, Kris McDaniel−Miccio, Nancy Ehrenreich. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 8/22/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
62 MINUTE ORDER granting 60 Unopposed Motion For Leave to Propound Discovery Requests, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 8/22/2017. (slibi, ) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
63 ORDER Granting 56 the Unopposed Motion of K.K. DuVivier and Joyce Sterling to Intervene as Plaintiffs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1). The Amended Complaint in Intervention is ACCEPTED FOR FILING, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 8/23/2017. (evana, ) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
64 AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION With Jury Demand against University of Denver, filed by Catherine Smith, K.K. DuVivier, Kris McDaniel−Miccio, Nancy Ehrenreich, Joyce Sterling.(evana, ) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
65 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Intervenor Plaintiff Lucy Marsh. (Groth, Lauren) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
66 MEMORANDUM regarding 65 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically filed by Lucy Marsh. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 8/25/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
67 MINUTE ORDER granting 65 Plaintiff Intervenor Lucy Marshs Motion to Appear Telephonically, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 8/25/2017. All counsel appearing by telephone at the Status Conference are directed to jointly contact chambers (303−844−2403) at 9:30 a.m. on August 29, 2017. (slibi, ) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
68 COURTROOM MINUTES for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Status Conference held on 8/29/2017. ORDERED: Parties are to meet and confer regarding the search terms and filing an amended complaint to add an additional intervenor plaintiff. Status Conference set for 11/6/2017 11:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. FTR: Courtroom A−502. (slibi, ) (Entered: 08/29/2017)
69 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 64 Amended Complaint in Intervention by Defendant University of Denver. (Goh, Jim) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
70 MEMORANDUM regarding 69 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 64 Amended Complaint in Intervention filed by University of Denver. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 9/13/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
71 MINUTE ORDER granting 69 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Amended Complaint in Intervention, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 9/13/2017. University of Denver answer due 10/25/2017. (slibi, ) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
72 MOTION to Vacate 71 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond and renew Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Amended Complaint in Intervention by Defendant University of Denver. (Goh, Jim) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
73 MEMORANDUM regarding 72 MOTION to Vacate 71 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond and renew Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Amended Complaint in Intervention filed by University of Denver. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 9/14/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 09/14/2017)

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 10 of 14

09/14/2017
09/14/2017
09/25/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/29/2017 10/02/2017 10/02/2017 10/16/2017 10/16/2017 10/16/2017 10/17/2017 10/23/2017 11/01/2017

74 MINUTE ORDER granting 72 Defendants Motion to Vacate and Renew its Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Amended Complaint in Intervention, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 9/14/2017. Defendant shall have up to and including September 25, 2017, in which to answer the Amended Complaint in Intervention Docket No. 64 . This Minute Order supercedes the Minute Order entered on September 13, 2017 Docket No. 71 . (slibi, ) (Entered: 09/14/2017)
75 ADVISORY NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT RULES/PROCEDURES: re: 72 MOTION to Vacate 71 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond and renew Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Amended Complaint in Intervention filed by attorney LaLonnie Gray; Jim Goh. The s/signature did not match the filers name on the account for which the login and password are registered. DO NOT REFILE THE DOCUMENT. Action to take − future documents must be filed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(a) and 4.3(c) of the Electronic Case Filing Procedures (Civil cases). (Text Only Entry) (athom, ) (Entered: 09/14/2017)
76 ANSWER to 64 Amended Complaint in Intervention by University of Denver.(Goh, Jim) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
77 Unopposed MOTION to Intervene by Movant Celia Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(DeFazio, Ariel) (Modified on 9/28/2017 edited the party name to Movant)(evana, ). (Entered: 09/28/2017)
78 NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading re 64 Amended Complaint in Intervention by Movant K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel−Miccio, Catherine Smith, Joyce Sterling, Celia Taylor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(DeFazio, Ariel) Modified on 9/28/2017 to reflect Movant as filer) (evana, ). (Entered: 09/28/2017)
79 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Ellen Cecilia Kearns on behalf of University of DenverAttorney Ellen Cecilia Kearns added to party University of Denver(pty:dft) (Kearns, Ellen) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
80 ORDER Granting 77 the Unopposed Motion of Celia Taylor to Intervene as Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1). The Second Amended Complaint in Intervention is ACCEPTED FOR FILING, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 10/2/2017. (evana, ) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
81 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT in Intervention against University of Denver, Attorney Charlotte Noelle Sweeney added to party Celia Taylor(pty:intvp), filed by Catherine Smith, K.K. DuVivier, Kris McDaniel−Miccio, Nancy Ehrenreich, Celia Taylor, Joyce Sterling.(evana, ) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
82 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 81 Amended Complaint, by Defendant University of Denver. (Gray, LaLonnie) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
83 MEMORANDUM regarding 82 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 81 Amended Complaint, filed by University of Denver. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 10/16/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
84 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/16/2017 granting 82 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond re 81 Amended Complaint. University of Denver answer due 10/23/2017. (tsher, ) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
85 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Joan Marie Bechtold on behalf of Celia TaylorAttorney Joan Marie Bechtold added to party Celia Taylor(pty:intvp) (Bechtold, Joan) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
86 ANSWER to 81 Amended Complaint, in Intervention by University of Denver.(Goh, Jim) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
87 Third MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Intervenor Plaintiff Lucy Marsh. (Groth, Lauren) (Entered: 11/01/2017)

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 11 of 14

11/01/2017 11/01/2017
11/02/2017 11/02/2017 11/02/2017 11/03/2017 11/03/2017 11/06/2017
11/06/2017 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 01/04/2018 01/04/2018 01/05/2018

88 MEMORANDUM regarding 87 Third MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically filed by Lucy Marsh. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 11/1/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
89 MINUTE ORDER granting 87 Plaintiff Intervenor Lucy Marshs Motion to Appear Telephonically, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/01/2017. All counsel appearing by telephone at the Status Conference are directed to jointly contact chambers (303−844−2403) at 11:30 a.m. on November 6, 2017. (slibi, ) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
90 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Awad, Wasan) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
91 MEMORANDUM regarding 90 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 11/2/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
92 MINUTE ORDER granting 90 Motion to Appear Telephonically, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/02/2017. (slibi, ) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
93 MOTION for Extension of Time to Conduct Discovery by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Awad, Wasan) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
94 MEMORANDUM regarding 93 MOTION for Extension of Time to Conduct Discovery filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 11/3/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
95 COURTROOM MINUTES ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Status Conference held on 11/6/2017. It is ORDERED: Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Extend Expert Disclosure, Discovery Cutoff, and Dispositive Motion Deadlines Docket No. 93 is GRANTED. Status Conference for 2/1/2018 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. It is ORDERED: Parties are to meet and confer regarding the chop resolution to reach an agreement by November 17, 2017. FTR: Courtroom A−502. (slibi, ) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
96 MINUTE ORDER granting 93 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Extend Expert Disclosure, Discovery Cutoff, and Dispositive Motion Deadlines, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/06/2017. Discovery due by 4/16/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 6/18/2018. (slibi, ) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
97 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff−Intervenors' First Set of Discovery Requests by Defendant University of Denver. (Gray, LaLonnie) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
98 MEMORANDUM regarding 97 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff−Intervenors' First Set of Discovery Requests filed by University of Denver. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 11/13/17. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
99 MINUTE ORDER granting 97 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff−Intervenors First set of Discovery Requests, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/13/2017. (slibi, ) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
100 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
101 MEMORANDUM regarding 100 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 1/4/18. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
102 MINUTE ORDER granting 100 Joint Motion to Further Amend Scheduling Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/05/2018. Discovery due by 5/16/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 7/18/2018. (slibi, ) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 12 of 14

01/16/2018 01/16/2018 01/16/2018 02/01/2018
02/05/2018 02/05/2018 02/05/2018 03/06/2018 03/06/2018 03/07/2018
04/02/2018 04/02/2018 04/02/2018 04/02/2018

103 MOTION to Compel by Intervenor Plaintiff Lucy Marsh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Kerr, Baine) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
104 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT − Level 1: Exhibits to 103 Motion to Compel by Intervenor Plaintiff Lucy Marsh.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H, # 2 Exhibit I)(Kerr, Baine) Modified on 1/17/2018 to add document title(agarc, ). (Entered: 01/16/2018)
105 MEMORANDUM regarding 103 MOTION to Compel filed by Lucy Marsh. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 1/16/18. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
106 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Status Conference held on 2/1/2018. Status Conference set for 4/4/2018 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. It is ORDERED: Parties are to meet and confer regarding filing a joint motion to extend deadlines and extend the response deadline regarding Motion to Compel on or before February 5, 2018. FTR: Courtroom A−502. (slibi, ) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
107 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order and to Extend Deadline for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
108 MEMORANDUM regarding 107 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order and to Extend Deadline for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 2/5/18. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
109 MINUTE ORDER granting 107 Joint Motion to Further Amend Scheduling Order and to Extend Deadline for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/05/2018. Discovery due by 6/13/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 8/15/2018. (slibi, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
110 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order And To Extend Deadline For Defendant To Respond To Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
111 MEMORANDUM regarding 110 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order And To Extend Deadline For Defendant To Respond To Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 3/6/18. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
112 MINUTE ORDER granting 110 Joint Motion to Further Amend Scheduling Order and to Extend Deadline for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/07/2018. Discovery due by 7/13/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 9/14/2018. ORDERED that the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is extended to April 6, 2018. (slibi, ) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
113 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Intervenor Plaintiff Lucy Marsh. (Boonin, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
114 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Awad, Wasan) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
115 MEMORANDUM regarding 114 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 113 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically filed by Lucy Marsh. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 4/2/18. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
116 MINUTE ORDER granting 113 Unopposed Motion to Appear Telephonically and granting 114 Motion to Appear Telephonically, by Magistrate Judge Michael J.

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 13 of 14

04/04/2018
04/10/2018 04/10/2018 04/10/2018 04/11/2018 04/13/2018 04/13/2018 04/13/2018 04/24/2018 04/24/2018 04/24/2018 04/26/2018
05/02/2018 05/17/2018 05/18/2018

Watanabe on 4/02/2018. (slibi, ) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
117 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Status Conference held on 4/4/2018. ORDERED: Defendants oral motion to extend the response deadline regarding Motion to Compel [Docket No. 103] is GRANTED for good cause shown. Defendants shall respond to the Motion to Compel on or before April 27, 2018. Status Report due on or before 5/25/2018. FTR: Courtroom A−502. (slibi, ) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
118 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Erin Rayner Mangum on behalf of All Defendants Attorney Erin Rayner Mangum added to party University of Denver(pty:dft) (Mangum, Erin) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
119 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Defendant University of Denver. (Gray, LaLonnie) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
120 MEMORANDUM regarding 119 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by University of Denver. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 4/10/18. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
121 MINUTE ORDER granting 119 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney LaLonnie Gray terminated, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/11/2018. (slibi, ) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
122 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Imdieke, Michael) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
123 MEMORANDUM regarding 122 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 4/13/18. Text Only Entry (rkeec) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
124 MINUTE ORDER granting 122 Joint Motion to Further Amend Scheduling Order and to Extend Deadline for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/13/2018. Discovery due by 8/13/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 10/15/2018. (slibi, ) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
125 Joint MOTION for Order to Enter Consent Decree by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Consent Decree)(Kittle, Rita) (Entered: 04/24/2018)
126 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT − Level 1: EXHIBIT B to 125 by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (Kittle, Rita) (Modified on 4/25/2018 edited to add title of document and link)(evana, ). (Entered: 04/24/2018)
127 Joint MOTION for Leave to Restrict by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kittle, Rita) (Entered: 04/24/2018)
128 ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Restrict Public Access to Exhibit B ECF 126 filed April 24, 2018. The Court, having reviewed the motion and being fully advised in the premises, ORDERS that the "Joint Motion to Restrict Public Access to Exhibit B ECF 126 " ECF No. 127 is GRANTED. Exhibit B to the Consent Decree ECF No. 126 shall be RESTRICTED at Level 1, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 4/26/2018. (evana, ) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
129 MINUTE ORDER A hearing is set for Thursday, May 17, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. on the parties' Joint Motion to Enter Consent Decree and for Administrative Closure, Subject to the Terms of the Consent Decree ECF No. 125 , by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 5/2/2018. (evana, ) (Entered: 05/02/2018)
130 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Wiley Y. Daniel: Motion Hearing held on 5/17/2018. Granting 125 Motion for Order. Parties shall submit a revised Consent Decree not later than Thursday, May 17, 2018. Court Reporter: Tracy Weir. (rkeec) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
131 ORDER that the Joint Motion to Enter Consent Decree and for Administrative Closure, Subject to the Terms of the Consent Decree ECF No. 125 is GRANTED. The revised Consent Decree, as modified in Court with the approval of the parties, and

Case: 1:16-cv-2471 As of: 05/25/2018 12:55 PM MDT 14 of 14

05/18/2018 05/18/2018

submitted by the parties to the Court after the hearing, is APPROVED and is filed separately. It is FURTHER ORDERED that this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, subject to reopening for good cause. The parties shall file a motion for dismissal of the case once the terms of the Consent Decree have been complied with, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 5/18/2018. (evana, ) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
132 CONSENT DECREE by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 5/18/2018. (evana, ) (Modified on 5/18/2018 Not a Restricted Document)(evana, ). (Entered: 05/18/2018)
133 MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 103 MOTION to Compel, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 5/18/2018. It is ordered that all pending discovery deadlines are VACATED. (tsher, ) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

 
 Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF DENVER,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to restrain the unlawful payment of wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex, and to collect back wages due to employees as a result of such unlawful payments, and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to Professors Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, Celia Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors who were or are adversely affected by Defendant University of Denver’s unlawful compensation practices. As alleged with greater particularity in the below, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC” or “Commission”) alleges that Defendant University of Denver discriminated
-1-

Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 13
against female Full Law Professors by paying them substantially less than male Full Law Professors, despite performing work that was substantially equal, in violation of both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 16(c) and Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the “FLSA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217, to enforce the requirements of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (the “EPA”), codified as Section 6(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), and pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by sections 16(c) and 17 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217, as amended by Section 1 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705, and by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
-2-

Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 13
4. At all relevant times, Defendant University of Denver, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Colorado and the City of Denver, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant University of Denver has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant University of Denver has acted directly or indirectly as an employer in relation to employees and has continuously been an employer within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
7. At all relevant times, Defendant University of Denver has continuously employed employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(b), (i) and (j) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), (i) and (j), has continuously been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(r) and (s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and (s), in that said enterprise has continuously been engaged in the operation of an institution of higher education.
8. At all relevant times, Defendant University of Denver has employed Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, and Celia Taylor.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 9. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Lucy Marsh filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII
-3-

Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 13
by Defendant University of Denver. 10. The EEOC provided Defendant with notice of the charge. 11. The EEOC investigated the charge of discrimination. 12. On August 27, 2015, the Commission issued to Defendant a Letter of
Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that Defendant had violated Title VII and the EPA and inviting Defendant to join with the Commission in informal methods of conciliation to endeavor to eliminate the unlawful employment practices and provide appropriate relief.
13. The Commission engaged in communications with Defendant to provide Defendant the opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practices described in the Letter of Determination.
14. The Commission was unable to secure from Defendant an agreement acceptable to the Commission through the conciliation process.
15. On May 6, 2016, the Commission issued to Defendant notice that conciliation had failed.
16. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
17. Defendant University of Denver is a private university in Denver, Colorado. 18. The University of Denver is made up of 13 undergraduate and graduate schools and colleges, including the University of Denver Sturm College of Law (hereinafter, the “Law School”). 19. Charging Party Lucy Marsh (female) began working for Defendant full-time
-4-

Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 13
in the fall of 1976 as an Assistant Law Professor at the Law School for an annual salary of $16,800.
20. In the fall of 1976, Defendant also hired a male as an Assistant Law Professor at the Law School for an annual salary of $19,000.
21. In fall 1982, Marsh was promoted to Full Law Professor at an annual salary of $37,320.
22. In fall 1982, the male professor hired the same year as Marsh was also promoted to Full Law Professor at a salary of $40,500.
23. As of October 2013, Marsh’s annual salary was $111,977. 24. Despite having worked for Defendants for over 37 years at the time, Marsh’s annual salary in October 2013 was less than every one of the male full-time Full Law Professors, including many hired years after Marsh was hired. 25. As of October 2013, the male professor hired the same year as Marsh was paid an annual salary more than $75,000 greater than Marsh’s annual salary. 26. Currently, Marsh’s annual salary is $115,998. 27. Upon information and belief, the male professor hired the same year as Marsh continues to be paid significantly more than Marsh. 28. As of October 2013, excluding the Law School Dean at the time, Defendant University of Denver employed twenty-five Full Professors. 29. As of October 2013, excluding the Law School Dean at the time, Defendant University of Denver employed 16 male Full Professors. 30. As of October 2013, Defendant University of Denver employed nine
-5-

Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 13
female Full Professors. 31. As of October 2013, the mean annual salary for female Full Law
Professors was approximately $139,940. 32. As of October 2013, the mean annual salary for male Full Law Professors
was approximately $159,721. 33. As of October 2013, the difference between the mean annual salary for
male Full Law Professors and female Full Law Professors was approximately $19,781. 34. As of October 2013, no female Full Professor earned an annual salary
greater than the mean annual salary for male Full Law Professors. 35. As of October 2013, the disparity between the mean salaries for male and
female Full Law Professors is statistically significant. 36. At all relevant times, all Full Law Professors have performed substantially
equal work, considering the skills, effort, and responsibilities of the job, under similar working conditions.
37. Since at least September 30, 2013, all Full Law Professors were subject to the same Promotion and Tenure Procedures.
38. Defendant considers the Promotion and Tenure Procedures to be the job description for all Full Law Professors.
39. Under the Promotion and Tenure Procedures, all Full Law Professors are responsible for teaching courses, producing legal scholarship, and providing service to the university, the public, and the legal profession.
40. Since at least September 30, 2013, all Full Law Professors have been
-6-

Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 13
evaluated on the same standards, measuring their teaching, scholarship, and service. 41. All Full Law Professors are employed at the Law School, under similar
working conditions. 42. In December 2012, the Dean of the Law School, Martin Katz, authored a
memorandum regarding the allocation of raises pursuant to a Faculty Salary Competitiveness Initiative.
43. In the December 2012 memorandum, Katz admitted the salary disparity between male and female Full Law Professors as follows:
a. “The median salary for female Full Professors was $7,532 less than that for males before this round of raises and $11,282/year less than that of males after this round of raises.”
b. “The mean salary for female Full Professors was $14,870/year less than that for males before this round of raises and $15,859/year less than that for males after this round of raises.”
44. In the memorandum, Katz offered to provide an “individualized analysis” of “whether a salary gap reflects inequity” for “anyone who would like.”
45. In January 2013, Marsh met with Katz to discuss the pay disparity between male and female Full Law Professors.
46. At the meeting, Marsh asked Katz for specific data on the faculty salaries. 47. Katz informed Marsh that she was the lowest paid Full Law Professor at the law school. 48. Katz refused to provide Marsh with any salary data for the Law School
-7-

Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 13
faculty. 49. When Marsh asked Katz what was going to be done about adjusting her
salary, Katz replied “nothing.” 50. Katz subsequently held a meeting with several female Full Law
Professors, including K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, and Celia Taylor, regarding the pay disparity between male and female Full Law Professors.
51. At the meeting, Katz speculated to the female Full Law Professors present that female Full Law Professors may be paid less because they were not performing as well as male Full Professors.
52. Upon information and belief, at the time of the meeting, Katz had not conducted any investigation into the reason(s) for the pay disparity.
53. After the meeting, Katz did not adjust the salary of any female Full Law Professor in response to the pay disparity between male and female Full Law Professors.
54. Upon information and belief, excluding the current Law School Dean, Defendant University of Denver currently employs 31 Full Law Professors.
55. Upon information and belief, excluding the current Law School Dean, Defendant University of Denver currently employs 18 male Full Law Professors.
56. Upon information and belief, Defendant University of Denver currently employs 13 female Full Law Professors.
57. Upon information and belief, Defendant continues to pay female Full Law
-8-

Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 13
Professors significantly less than it pays male Full Law Professors. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS First Claim for Relief
[Title VII Compensation Discrimination – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)] 58. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 59. Since at least October 2, 2012, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), by discriminating against female Full Law Professors with respect to their compensation because of their sex, female. 60. Female Full Professors occupy jobs similar to those of higher-paid male Full Law Professors. 61. The effects of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Marsh, DuVivier, Ehrenreich, Hyatt, McDaniel-Miccio, Sterling, Smith, Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their employment status because of their sex, female. 62. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional. 63. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are being done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Marsh, DuVivier, Ehrenreich, Hyatt, McDaniel-Miccio, Sterling, Smith, Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors.
-9-

Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 13
Second Claim for Relief [Violation of the Equal Pay Act – 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d)(1) & 215(a)(2)] 64. Since at least September 30, 2013 , Defendant University of Denver has violated Sections 6(d)(1) and 15(a)(2) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d)(1) and 215(a)(2), by paying female Full Law Professors wages at a rate less than the rate at which it pays male Full Law Professors. 65. At all relevant times, female Full Law Professors have performed work that was and is substantially equal to that of male Full Law Professors considering the skills, effort, and responsibilities of the job. At all relevant times, female Full Law Professors have worked under conditions similar to male Full Law Professors. 66. At all relevant times, Defendant has paid and continues to pay female Full Law Professors at lower rates than male Full Professors. 67. As a result of the acts complained of above, Defendant University of Denver unlawfully has withheld and is continuing to withhold the payment of wages due to Marsh, DuVivier, Ehrenreich, Hyatt, McDaniel-Miccio, Sterling, Smith, Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors. 68. The unlawful practices complained of above were and are willful.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant University of Denver, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in compensation discrimination based on sex.
-10-

Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 13
B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant University of Denver, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from paying wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates at which they pay employees of the opposite sex for substantially equal work, considering the skills, effort, and responsibilities of the jobs, under similar working conditions.
C. Order Defendant University of Denver to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
D. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant University of Denver to pay appropriate back pay wages in amounts to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest to employees whose wages are being unlawfully withheld as a result of the acts complained of above, including Marsh, DuVivier, Ehrenreich, Hyatt, McDaniel-Miccio, Sterling, Smith, Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors.
E. Order Defendant University of Denver to make whole Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, Celia Taylor and other female Full Law Professors, 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 front pay in the form of prospective salary increases for Marsh, DuVivier, Ehrenreich, Hyatt, McDaniel-Miccio, Sterling, Smith, Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors.
-11-

Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 13
F. Order Defendant University of Denver to make whole those employees whose wages are being unlawfully withheld as a result of the acts complained of above, by restraining the continued withholding of amounts owing as back wages with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Order Defendant University of Denver to make whole Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, Celia Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
K. Order Defendant University of Denver to make whole Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, Celia Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
L. Order Defendant University of Denver to pay Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, Celia Taylor, and other female Full Professors punitive damages for its malicious conduct or reckless indifference to their federally protected rights, as described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
M. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
-12-

Case 1:16-cv-02471 Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 13

N. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

DATED: September 30, 2016.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
P. DAVID LOPEZ General Counsel
GWENDOLYN REAMS Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 131 M Street NE, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20507
MARY JO O’NEILL Regional Attorney Phoenix District Office
RITA BYRNES KITTLE Supervisory Trial Attorney
/s/ Michael Imdieke MICHAEL IMDIEKE Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Denver Field Office 303 E 17th Avenue, Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303)-866-1320 Email: michael.imdieke@eeoc.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff

-13-

 
 Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF DENVER,
Defendant.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to restrain the unlawful payment of wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex, and to collect back wages due to employees as a result of such unlawful payments, and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to Professors Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, Celia Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors who were or are adversely affected by Defendant University of Denver’s unlawful compensation practices. As alleged with greater particularity in the below, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC” or “Commission”) alleges that Defendant University of Denver discriminated
-1-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 14
against female Full Law Professors by paying them substantially less than male Full Law Professors, despite performing work that was substantially equal, in violation of both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 16(c) and Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the “FLSA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217, to enforce the requirements of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (the “EPA”), codified as Section 6(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), and pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by sections 16(c) and 17 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217, as amended by Section 1 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705, and by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
-2-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 14
4. At all relevant times, Defendant University of Denver, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Colorado and the City of Denver, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant University of Denver has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant University of Denver has acted directly or indirectly as an employer in relation to employees and has continuously been an employer within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
7. At all relevant times, Defendant University of Denver has continuously employed employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(b), (i) and (j) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), (i) and (j), has continuously been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(r) and (s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and (s), in that said enterprise has continuously been engaged in the operation of an institution of higher education.
8. At all relevant times, Defendant University of Denver has employed Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, and Celia Taylor.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 9. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Lucy Marsh filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII
-3-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 14
by Defendant University of Denver. 10. The EEOC provided Defendant with notice of the charge. 11. The EEOC investigated the charge of discrimination. 12. On August 27, 2015, the Commission issued to Defendant a Letter of
Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that Defendant had violated Title VII and the EPA and inviting Defendant to join with the Commission in informal methods of conciliation to endeavor to eliminate the unlawful employment practices and provide appropriate relief.
13. The Commission engaged in communications with Defendant to provide Defendant the opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practices described in the Letter of Determination.
14. The Commission was unable to secure from Defendant an agreement acceptable to the Commission through the conciliation process.
15. On May 6, 2016, the Commission issued to Defendant notice that conciliation had failed.
16. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
17. Defendant University of Denver is a private university in Denver, Colorado. 18. The University of Denver is made up of 13 undergraduate and graduate schools and colleges, including the University of Denver Sturm College of Law (hereinafter, the “Law School”). 19. Charging Party Lucy Marsh (female) began working for Defendant full-time
-4-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 14
in the fall of 1976 as an Assistant Law Professor at the Law School for an annual salary of $16,800.
20. In the fall of 1976, Defendant also hired a male as an Assistant Law Professor at the Law School for an annual salary of $19,000.
21. In fall 1982, Marsh was promoted to Full Law Professor at an annual salary of $37,320.
22. In fall 1982, the male professor hired the same year as Marsh was also promoted to Full Law Professor at a salary of $40,500.
23. As of October 2013, Marsh’s annual salary was $111,977. 24. Despite having worked for Defendants for over 37 years at the time, Marsh’s annual salary in October 2013 was less than every one of the male full-time Full Law Professors, including many hired years after Marsh was hired. 25. As of October 2013, the male professor hired the same year as Marsh was paid an annual salary more than $75,000 greater than Marsh’s annual salary. 26. Currently, Marsh’s annual salary is $115,998. 27. Upon information and belief, the male professor hired the same year as Marsh continues to be paid significantly more than Marsh. 28. As of October 2013, excluding the Law School Dean at the time, Defendant University of Denver employed twenty-five Full Professors. 29. As of October 2013, excluding the Law School Dean at the time, Defendant University of Denver employed 16 male Full Professors. 30. As of October 2013, Defendant University of Denver employed nine
-5-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 14
female Full Professors. 31. As of October 2013, the mean annual salary for female Full Law
Professors was approximately $139,940. 32. As of October 2013, the mean annual salary for male Full Law Professors
was approximately $159,721. 33. As of October 2013, the difference between the mean annual salary for
male Full Law Professors and female Full Law Professors was approximately $19,781. 34. As of October 2013, no female Full Professor earned an annual salary
greater than the mean annual salary for male Full Law Professors. 35. As of October 2013, the disparity between the mean salaries for male and
female Full Law Professors is statistically significant. 36. At all relevant times, all Full Law Professors have performed substantially
equal work, considering the skills, effort, and responsibilities of the job, under similar working conditions.
37. Since at least September 30, 2013, all Full Law Professors were subject to the same Promotion and Tenure Procedures.
38. Defendant considers the Promotion and Tenure Procedures to be the job description for all Full Law Professors.
39. Under the Promotion and Tenure Procedures, all Full Law Professors are responsible for teaching courses, producing legal scholarship, and providing service to the university, the public, and the legal profession.
40. Since at least September 30, 2013, all Full Law Professors have been
-6-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 14
evaluated on the same standards, measuring their teaching, scholarship, and service. 41. All Full Law Professors are employed at the Law School, under similar
working conditions. 42. In December 2012, the Dean of the Law School, Martin Katz, authored a
memorandum regarding the allocation of raises pursuant to a Faculty Salary Competitiveness Initiative.
43. In the December 2012 memorandum, Katz admitted the salary disparity between male and female Full Law Professors as follows:
a. “The median salary for female Full Professors was $7,532 less than that for males before this round of raises and $11,282/year less than that of males after this round of raises.”
b. “The mean salary for female Full Professors was $14,870/year less than that for males before this round of raises and $15,859/year less than that for males after this round of raises.”
44. In the memorandum, Katz offered to provide an “individualized analysis” of “whether a salary gap reflects inequity” for “anyone who would like.”
45. In January 2013, Marsh met with Katz to discuss the pay disparity between male and female Full Law Professors.
46. At the meeting, Marsh asked Katz for specific data on the faculty salaries. 47. Katz informed Marsh that she was the lowest paid Full Law Professor at the law school. 48. Katz refused to provide Marsh with any salary data for the Law School
-7-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 14
faculty. 49. When Marsh asked Katz what was going to be done about adjusting her
salary, Katz replied “nothing.” 50. Katz subsequently held a meeting with several female Full Law
Professors, including K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, and Celia Taylor, regarding the pay disparity between male and female Full Law Professors.
51. At the meeting, Katz speculated to the female Full Law Professors present that female Full Law Professors may be paid less because they were not performing as well as male Full Professors.
52. Upon information and belief, at the time of the meeting, Katz had not conducted any investigation into the reason(s) for the pay disparity.
53. After the meeting, Katz did not adjust the salary of any female Full Law Professor in response to the pay disparity between male and female Full Law Professors.
54. Upon information and belief, excluding the current Law School Dean, Defendant University of Denver currently employs 31 Full Law Professors.
55. Upon information and belief, excluding the current Law School Dean, Defendant University of Denver currently employs 18 male Full Law Professors.
56. Upon information and belief, Defendant University of Denver currently employs 13 female Full Law Professors.
57. Upon information and belief, Defendant continues to pay female Full Law
-8-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 14
Professors significantly less than it pays male Full Law Professors. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS First Claim for Relief
[Title VII Compensation Discrimination – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)] 58. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 59. Defendant University of Denver has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), by discriminating against female Full Law Professors with respect to their compensation because of their sex, female. 60. Female Full Professors occupy jobs similar to those of higher-paid male Full Law Professors. 61. The effects of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Marsh, DuVivier, Ehrenreich, Hyatt, McDaniel-Miccio, Sterling, Smith, Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their employment status because of their sex, female. 62. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional. 63. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are being done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Marsh, DuVivier, Ehrenreich, Hyatt, McDaniel-Miccio, Sterling, Smith, Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors.
-9-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 14
Second Claim for Relief [Violation of the Equal Pay Act – 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d)(1) & 215(a)(2)] 64. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 65. Defendant University of Denver has violated Sections 6(d)(1) and 15(a)(2) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d)(1) and 215(a)(2), by paying female Full Law Professors wages at a rate less than the rate at which it pays male Full Law Professors. 66. At all relevant times, female Full Law Professors have performed work that was and is substantially equal to that of male Full Law Professors considering the skills, effort, and responsibilities of the job. At all relevant times, female Full Law Professors have worked under conditions similar to male Full Law Professors. 67. At all relevant times, Defendant has paid and continues to pay female Full Law Professors at lower rates than male Full Professors. 68. As a result of the acts complained of above, Defendant University of Denver unlawfully has withheld and is continuing to withhold the payment of wages due to Marsh, DuVivier, Ehrenreich, Hyatt, McDaniel-Miccio, Sterling, Smith, Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors. 69. The unlawful practices complained of above were and are willful.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant University of Denver, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or
-10-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 14
participation with it, from engaging in compensation discrimination based on sex. B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant University of Denver, its
officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from paying wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates at which they pay employees of the opposite sex for substantially equal work, considering the skills, effort, and responsibilities of the jobs, under similar working conditions.
C. Order Defendant University of Denver to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
D. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant University of Denver to pay appropriate back pay wages in amounts to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest to employees whose wages are being unlawfully withheld as a result of the acts complained of above, including Marsh, DuVivier, Ehrenreich, Hyatt, McDaniel-Miccio, Sterling, Smith, Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors.
E. Order Defendant University of Denver to make whole Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, Celia Taylor and other female Full Law Professors, 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 front pay in the form of prospective salary increases for Marsh, DuVivier, Ehrenreich, Hyatt, McDaniel-Miccio, Sterling, Smith,
-11-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 14
Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors. F. Order Defendant University of Denver to make whole those employees
whose wages are being unlawfully withheld as a result of the acts complained of above, by restraining the continued withholding of amounts owing as back wages with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Order Defendant University of Denver to make whole Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, Celia Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
K. Order Defendant University of Denver to make whole Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, Celia Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
L. Order Defendant University of Denver to pay Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, Celia Taylor, and other female Full Professors punitive damages for its malicious conduct or reckless indifference to their federally protected rights, as described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
M. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the
-12-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 14

public interest. N. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

DATED: January 3, 2017

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

/s/ Michael Imdieke MICHAEL IMDIEKE Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Denver Field Office 303 E 17th Avenue, Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303)-866-1320 Email: michael.imdieke@eeoc.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff

-13-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I hereby certify that on January 3, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:
Jim Goh, Esq. Steven Moore, Esq. LaLonnie Gray, Esq. Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP 600 17th Street, Suite 2700-S Denver, CO 80202 Tel: 720.343.7570 Fax: 720.343.7571 jgoh@constangy.com smoore@constangy.com lgray@constangy.com Attorneys for Defendants
s/ Michael Imdieke Trial Attorney
-14-

 
 Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 36
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, LUCY MARSH, NANCY EHRENREICH, KRIS McDANIEL-MICCIO, CATHERINE SMITH, K.K. DuVIVIER, JOYCE STERLING, and CELIA TAYLOR
Intervenors, v. UNIVERSITY OF DENVER,
Defendant.
CONSENT DECREE
I. RECITALS 1. This matter was instituted by Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Commission” or “Plaintiff” or “EEOC”), an agency of the United States government, alleging that Defendant, University of Denver (“University”), including the Sturm College of Law (“Law School”) discriminated against Professors Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Sheila Hyatt, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, Celia Taylor, and other female Full Law Professors by paying them less than male Full Professors, despite performing work that was substantially equal, in violation of both the
Page 1 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 36
Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. University of Denver denies that its pay decisions were discriminatory on the basis of gender or any other protected characteristics. The Parties to this Decree are the Plaintiff EEOC, PlaintiffIntervenors Lucy Marsh, K.K. DuVivier, Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, Joyce Sterling, Catherine Smith, and Celia Taylor, and the Defendant University of Denver, including the Law School. 2. The Parties, desiring to settle this action by an appropriate Consent Decree (“Decree”), and without any admission of liability or wrongdoing, agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the Parties and the subject matter of this action, and agree to the power of this Court to enter a Consent Decree enforceable against Defendant. 3. As to the issues resolved, this Decree is final and binding upon the Parties and their successors and assigns. 4. For the purpose of amicably resolving disputed claims, and minimizing the costs and disruption of continued litigation, the Parties jointly request this Court to adjudge as follows: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
II. JURISDICTION 5. The Parties stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court over the Parties and subject matter of this action and have waived the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
III. TERM AND SCOPE 6. Term: The duration of this Decree shall be six (6) years from the date of entry by the Court, except that the Decree may end after five (5) years, if the Independent Consultant has found Defendant in compliance for at least the three preceding years.
Page 2 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 36
7. Scope: Except as specifically provided otherwise, the terms of this Decree shall apply to Sturm College of Law, owned and operated by Defendant University of Denver in Denver, Colorado. Where the term “Defendant” is used, the terms of this Decree shall apply to the Defendant University of Denver (including the Sturm College of Law). Where the term “Sturm College of Law” or “Law School” is used, the terms of this Decree shall apply to the Sturm College of Law at the Defendant University of Denver.
IV. ISSUES RESOLVED 8. This Decree resolves the claims alleged in the above-captioned lawsuit, and constitutes a complete resolution of all of the Commission’s and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ claims of unlawful employment practices under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act that arise from Charge of Discrimination Number 541-2013-01830C, filed by Lucy Marsh, alleging pay discrimination against herself and other female law professors at the Law School. 9. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them will not interfere with the relief herein ordered, but shall cooperate in the implementation of this Decree.
V. MONETARY RELIEF – University of Denver 10. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Commission and Plaintiff-Intervenors and against Defendant in the amount of $2,660,000. 11. Defendant will not condition the receipt of individual relief upon any PlaintiffIntervenor’s agreement to: (a) maintain as confidential the terms of this Decree or the allegations or claims of the case; (b) waive her statutory right to file a charge with any federal or state anti-discrimination agency; or (c) promise to resign and/or not reapply for a position at any of University of Denver’s facilities. Subsection (c) of this provision does not
Page 3 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 36
affect any tenure relinquishment or other agreements previously entered into between DU and any Plaintiff-Intervenor; nor does it preclude any Plaintiff-Intervenor from voluntarily entering into tenure relinquishment or other agreements with the University in the future, so long as the payments required under this Decree are not conditioned on the PlaintiffIntervenor entering into such agreement in the future. 12. To resolve these claims, Defendant shall pay a total of $2,660,000, distributed among the Plaintiff-Intervenors and their attorneys, and allocated between backpay and compensatory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, as determined by the EEOC. The receipt of this payment and any other relief is conditioned upon Plaintiff-Intervenors’ agreement to execute a Release in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, which releases and waives each individual’s right to recover for any claims that were asserted in the above-captioned lawsuit and any claims of unlawful employment practices under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act that arise from Charge of Discrimination Number 541-201301830C, filed by Lucy Marsh, alleging pay discrimination against herself and other female law professors at the Law School. 13. Payments: The payments required under this Decree shall be hand-delivered to each Plaintiff-Intervenor’s attorney within twenty (20) calendar days after the Court’s entry of this Decree or the Plaintiff-Intervenor’s execution of the Release attached as Exhibit A (whichever occurs later), to the addresses provided by the EEOC. Within three (3) business days after payments are delivered to payees, Defendant shall submit to EEOC a copy of the checks issued. 14. Tax Reporting Forms: In January 2019, Defendant will prepare and distribute W-2 and 1099 tax reporting forms to each Plaintiff-Intervenor who receives payment under this
Page 4 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 36
Consent Decree, based on the allocation provided by the EEOC. Defendant is responsible for withholding payroll taxes from back pay amounts, paying withheld funds to the IRS, and paying the employer’s share of payroll taxes. Defendant agrees to provide written notice to the EEOC within ten (10) calendar days of satisfying the obligation specified in this Paragraph 14. 15. Salary Increases: Effective May 1, 2018 (payment for May 2018 work is made in June 2018), Defendant shall increase the pay of the Plaintiff-Intervenors to the amounts set forth in Exhibit B, filed under seal. Back pay for the period between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2018 is included in the $2,660,000 settlement.
VI. EQUITABLE RELIEF A. Injunctive Relief - University of Denver 16. Defendant, its officers, agents, successors, and other persons in active concert or participation with it, or any of them, are permanently enjoined from engaging in any sex discrimination affecting compensation. 17. Defendant, its officers, agents, successors, and other persons in active concert or participation with it, or any of them, are permanently enjoined from engaging in reprisal or retaliation of any kind against any person because of such person’s opposition to any gender-based pay practice made unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or the Equal Pay Act, or because such person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or prosecution of an alleged gender-based pay violation under these statutes. Defendant shall not retaliate in any manner against individuals identified as witnesses in this action or who assisted in the investigation giving rise to this action. Nor shall Defendant retaliate against any such
Page 5 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 36
persons identified as a witness or possible witnesses of alleged gender-based pay discrimination in future investigations or proceedings. B. Anti-discrimination Policy and Related Complaint Procedures – University of
Denver and Sturm College of Law 18. Within 180 days of the Court’s entry of this Decree, the Law School shall, in consultation with the Independent Consultant, adopt and maintain a policy statement encouraging Law School employees to report any conduct believed to be discriminatory, and expressly stating that such reports of alleged discriminatory conduct will be appropriately investigated. 19. Within 180 days after entry of this Decree, the Defendant shall, in consultation with the Independent Consultant, revise its existing “Discrimination/Equal Opportunity” policy (“Policy”), and its existing procedures titled “Office of Equal Opportunity & Office of Title IX Procedures 2017-2018” (“Procedures”) to accomplish at least the following:
19.1. Expressly state that the University prohibits pay discrimination based on sex, discriminatory pay practices based on sex, and sex discrimination affecting compensation; 19.2. Include the Equal Pay Act of 1963 in any section or provision that specifies Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or “Title VII”; 19.3. Expressly state that employees are not prohibited from discussing their salaries and/or compensation with other employees and non-employees; 19.4. Clearly specify in both the Policy and Procedures the scope of consequences to employees found to have engaged in discriminatory conduct – discipline up to and including discharge – and emphasize the University’s commitment to enforcing
Page 6 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 36
the anti-discrimination policies and ensuring the University of Denver is a nondiscriminatory work environment; and 19.5. Provide that records related to the investigation of any allegations of discrimination will not be stored in personnel files of employees reporting alleged discrimination, and instead must be retained in a separate secure location. 20. The Defendant will further review its Policy and Procedures, in consultation with the Independent Consultant, and may, in its discretion, make additional revisions, including some or all of the following: 20.1. Provide a more easily understood process for University of Denver employees to complain about or report alleged discrimination relating to their employment; 20.2. Provide a more easily understood process for prompt, fair, and thorough investigation of employee complaints or reports of alleged employment discrimination, utilizing generally accepted “best practices” among college and university discrimination investigators, to include, at a minimum, the following: (a) documentation of the complaint; (b) a finding of whether discrimination occurred; (c) a credibility assessment as appropriate; (d) interviews of potential victims and witnesses identified, including the individual(s) alleged to have participated in or condoned the unlawful conduct; (e) a review of all documents which might reasonably shed light on the allegation, where such exist; (f) contemporaneous notes of the investigation and conclusions; (g) contemporaneous notes of all corrective and remedial measures where discrimination is found; and (h) written notice to the employee who initiated the complaint or report of employment
Page 7 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 36
discrimination as to the outcome of the investigation. Where discrimination is found, the University of Denver shall take prompt appropriate corrective action to make discrimination victims whole, to discipline violators, and to eradicate the discrimination as appropriate; 20.3. Clarify whether employee complaints or reports of alleged discrimination relating to employment must be made to a supervisor, manager, or the University of Denver Office of Equal Opportunity, and that non-supervisory employees are not individuals authorized to receive employee complaints or reports of alleged employment discrimination; 20.4. Consider the circumstances under which a non-supervisory employee is an authorized agent of the University of Denver to receive complaints or reports of alleged discrimination from non-employees, and the extent to which such employees will be provided annual training regarding their responsibilities as a person authorized to receive such complaints on behalf of the University of Denver. 20.5. Provide that all disciplinary actions taken against employees for violation of the University’s Discrimination/Equal Opportunity Policy will be retained in the violator's personnel file; 20.6. To the extent that employee complaints or reports of alleged employment discrimination are subject to the Initial Assessment Process, consider whether the Procedures should be modified to specify the standards applied to determine that no investigation is necessary;
Page 8 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 36
20.7. Provide alternative procedures for occasions when the “appropriate administrator” or decisionmaker is the person accused of engaging in the discriminatory actions; 20.8. Clarify the provision in the Definitions section of the Procedures that the “Outcome Council” has no role in employee complaints or reports of alleged employment discrimination; 20.9. Explain the application of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 to student employment, and clarify the extent to which provisions allowing for information to be shared with parents or guardians are not applicable to employee or student-employee complaints or reports of alleged employment discrimination; 20.10. Clarify the extent to which the “Confidentiality” provision of the Procedures is applicable to employees; and 20.11. Consider whether employee appeals could also be based on outcomes that are substantially disproportionate to the alleged violation. 21. Distribution of Revised Policy and Procedures. Upon completion, the revised Policy and Procedures will be immediately published on the University of Denver website, and a copy emailed to the EEOC and Independent Consultant. The revised Policy and Procedures will be provided to new employees within ten (10) days of their starting date. 22. Informational Campaign. Within 180 days of the Court’s entry of this Decree, in consultation with the Independent Consultant, the Law School will commence an informational campaign to inform its faculty and staff about the policy statement described in Paragraph 18 of this Decree, the protections afforded to Law School faculty and staff under the Policy and Procedures revised under Paragraph 19 or 20, and the availability of
Page 9 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 36

the University’s 24-hour hotline to report suspected violations of the University’s

Discrimination/Equal Opportunity Policy.

22.1. In addition to the information described in the preceding paragraph, the

informational campaign will also specifically inform faculty and staff about DU’s

policies prohibiting discrimination based on sex, including sex discrimination

affecting compensation, the proscription of retaliation against any employee who

opposes discrimination or otherwise engages in protected conduct under Title VII or

the EPA, and new University websites described below.

22.2. New Webpages. The informational campaign shall include creation of two

new webpages.

22.2.1.

University of Denver. The University of Denver will create a

new webpage on the University’s internal website communicating specifically

to all University employees (as opposed to students or students who are

employees) their rights and protections under Title VII and the EPA and how

employees can file complaints of suspected or potential violations of those

rights. The webpage shall contain a prominent link to allow individuals to file

a complaint with the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity.

22.2.2.

Sturm College of Law. The Sturm College of Law will also

create a new webpage on its website communicating specifically to its faculty

and staff their rights and protections under Title VII and the EPA and how

employees can file complaints of potential violations of those rights. The

webpage shall contain a prominent link to allow individuals to file a complaint

with the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity. Page 10 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 36

22.2.3.

The web pages described in this paragraph 22 shall

communicate the policies and procedures for filing and investigating

complaints in as simple and efficient a manner as is reasonably practicable.

The web pages will include a summary and simplified explanation of the

procedure for filing a complaint and a simplified explanation of the steps

involved in filing, investigating, deciding, and resolving any complaints filed.

22.2.4.

The University will publicize the creation of these new web

pages in University-wide communications to employees, either electronic or

written, at least twice per year for the year following the adoption of this

Decree, and at least annually for the duration of this Decree.

C. Advanced Notice of Evaluation Criteria and Methods.

23. Prior to the beginning of each evaluation year, the Dean of the Law School will

publish to tenured and tenure-track faculty and long-term contract faculty with governance

rights an explanation of the method(s) and criteria that will be used to determine merit

increases or other salary increases, and other forms of compensation for the upcoming

year.

D. Salary and Compensation Disclosures – Sturm College of Law

24. In January of each year, after annual merit increases have been determined, the

Law School will post on a password-protected website a written publication of salary and

compensation data for tenured and tenure-track faculty and long-term contract faculty with

governance rights, employed at the Law School. The publication shall include:

24.1. A table listing the salaries and other forms of compensation provided to each

faculty member, position held, date of hire, and EEO reporting categories (including Page 11 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 36

race, national origin, and gender) but without any disclosure of faculty names.

24.2. Access to such salary data is limited to the same or lower faculty rank or

classification of the person accessing the data, and cannot be disseminated outside

the Law School except for purposes of exercising rights under federal, state, or local

anti-discrimination laws. Nothing in this provision shall prohibit faculty members

from discussing their own salaries with other employees or non-employees.

E. Annual Compensation Equity Study – Sturm College of Law

25. The Law School shall contract with a qualified labor economist to conduct an

annual study of compensation equity at the Law School. The labor economist shall be

jointly selected by the EEOC and Defendant. If the EEOC and Defendant are unable to

agree on a labor economist within thirty (30) days after entry of this Decree, they will each

provide the Independent Consultant with a list of three (3) qualified labor economists.

Within ten (10) days after receiving proposed candidate names, the Independent

Consultant shall select the most qualified candidate from the lists submitted. If both the

EEOC and Defendant have submitted the same candidate for consideration, the

Independent Consultant shall select that candidate as the labor economist.

26. The study shall consider whether any disparities in compensation are attributable

to gender or to gender combined with other protected characteristics (race, color, national

origin, age (over 40), disability), and will consider all components of compensation,

including without limitation, salary, raises, bonuses, chair and committee assignments,

and stipends paid for additional assignments.

26.1.

The Labor Economist will determine what statistical analysis and

methodology to employ, including consideration of various factors affecting Page 12 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 36

compensation, and controlling for the factors the Labor Economist considers

appropriate to include in the analysis.

26.2.

Study of compensation paid during the calendar year will be

completed by July 1st, each year, and by July 15th, each year, will be provided to

the Independent Consultant, and made accessible to the EEOC, who may rely on

the Pay Equity Study in their assessments of whether Defendant is in compliance

with the Decree and applicable laws.

F. Independent Consultant – University and the Law School

27. Appointment of Independent Consultant: Within sixty (60) days after entry of

the Decree, the Defendant and the EEOC shall agree upon a qualified, professional

Independent Consultant, who is not employed by or otherwise associated with Defendant,

to evaluate Defendant’s compliance with the provisions of this Consent Decree, and with

Title VII and the Equal Pay Act regarding decisions affecting compensation. The

Independent Consultant shall have significant experience in university faculty pay

practices and with employment discrimination laws generally and with Title VII and the

Equal Pay Act, in particular.

28. Replacement of Independent Consultant: In the event the Independent

Consultant is unable or unwilling to continue to serve, the EEOC and the Defendant shall

jointly select a replacement.

29. Resolving Disputes Over Independent Consultant Appointment: If the EEOC

and the Defendant cannot agree upon an Independent Consultant, the EEOC and the

Defendant shall each provide a list of 2 candidates to an agreed-upon neutral third party,

who shall select the Independent Consultant. Any cost for the neutral third party will be Page 13 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 36
borne by Defendant. 30. Compensation of Independent Consultant: Defendant shall compensate the Independent Consultant at an agreed-upon rate that is consistent with market rates in the Denver metropolitan area and shall reimburse the Independent Consultant’s expenses. Defendant shall pay any and all reasonable costs necessary to fulfill the work of the Independent Consultant. 31. Cooperation: Defendant agrees to cooperate with the Independent Consultant. 32. Access to Region, Premises, Employees, and Information: The Independent Consultant shall have access to all relevant documents, premises, employees, and other sources of information necessary to exercise his/her duties and responsibilities under this Consent Decree. The Independent Consultant and the EEOC shall have access to review all records maintained by Defendant relating to the implementation or administration of this Consent Decree, including all records relating to compensation of law professors. 33. Independent Consultant Responsibilities: For the duration of this Consent Decree, the Independent Consultant will have the following responsibilities:
33.1. Upon selection, the Independent Consultant will confirm that a qualified labor economist has been selected. If the labor economist has not been selected within thirty (30) days after the Independent Consultant’s appointment, the Independent Consultant will require Defendant and the EEOC to submit lists, as specified in Paragraph 25. If a new labor economist is required for any subsequent year of the Decree, the same procedure will be followed; 33.2. Advise and make recommendations regarding development and update of objective and equitable methods and criteria for setting faculty compensation at
Page 14 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 36

the Law School, including merit raises, bonuses, and stipends;

33.2.1.

During the first year of the Decree, the Independent

Consultant will advise and make recommendations to the Dean of the Law

School regarding methods and criteria for use in setting salaries, awarding

merit increases, determining chair and committee assignments related to

service, paying stipends, and awarding bonuses for the following academic

year. The Dean of the Law School and DU administration shall have

ultimate authority to make final decisions concerning all such methods and

criteria. The Independent Consultant will advise the EEOC of any

recommendations that are not adopted at the Law School.

33.2.2.

During each subsequent year of the Decree, the Independent

Consultant will review and make recommendations to the Law School Dean

as to what, if any, modification of the compensation system is necessary or

advisable, based on the annual compensation equity study and input from

the Dean, faculty, and staff of the Law School. The Independent Consultant

will advise the EEOC of any recommendations that are not adopted at the

Law School.

33.2.3.

The Independent Consultant will also review the process for

committee chair and committee appointments, and make recommendations

for revisions necessary to ensure gender equity in these service-related

appointments.

33.3. Semi-Annually, review and analyze all records relating to complaints or

reports of alleged sex discrimination affecting compensation, or related retaliation, Page 15 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 36
filed by individuals employed at the Law School (including full-time and part-time employees, and all categories of faculty);
33.3.1. As to each complaint or report of alleged sex discrimination affecting compensation, or related retaliation, the Independent Consultant shall have access to Defendant’s investigatory process and determination so as to evaluate Defendant’s compliance with its Anti-Discrimination Policy and Title VII and EPA. 33.3.2. After reviewing the complaint, investigative records, and determination, the Independent Consultant shall identify any material deficiencies in the Defendant’s investigatory processes and may provide advice and recommendations as the Independent Consultant deems appropriate. 33.3.3. The Independent Consultant will report to the EEOC any recommendations which are not adopted by Defendant. 33.4. Receive the reports required under any provision of this Decree, including Paragraphs 41-43 and review the reports for compliance with this Decree; 33.5. For the first 3 years of the Decree, every six months, beginning from the date of appointment, the Independent Consultant will provide the EEOC and Defendant with a report containing the Independent Consultant’s assessment of whether Defendant has complied with the provisions of this Decree, the Equal Pay Act, and Title VII prohibitions on sex discrimination affecting compensation, and detailing the specifics of any lack of compliance, and annually thereafter unless the Independent Consultant finds the Defendant to be materially out of compliance at any time;
Page 16 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 36
33.6. Consult with Defendant as necessary to provide advice about ways to better achieve full compliance with this Consent Decree, the Equal Pay Act, and Title VII prohibitions on sex discrimination affecting compensation; 33.7. Review the compensation system and provide suggestions for improvement; and 33.8. Advise and consult regarding development and implementation of the training required under Paragraphs 34-37 of this Decree. As to each component of training, the Independent Consultant is specifically charged with responsibility for ensuring that (a) the allocated training time and substantive coverage for each category of employees included in paragraphs 35.1-35.5 is sufficient to instruct on the required material; and (b) the proposed trainers are qualified to instruct on the required material, based on a review of the trainers’ qualifications and experience. G. Training 34. Orientation on Consent Decree – University of Denver: Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendant shall conduct Consent Decree Orientation Meetings with all its Human Resources (“HR”) and administrative employees who discharge HR and/or administrative functions (currently referred to as OEO/Title IX employees), the Law School Dean, and all employees with responsibilities for or involved in compensation decisions at the Law School, and all staff employed in its Legal Department. 34.1. During the Consent Decree Orientation Meetings, Defendant will thoroughly detail all provisions of the Decree, discuss and explain all changes in policy and procedures effected as a result of the Decree, describe the Informational Campaign, and emphasize to the participants that any breach of, or failure to
Page 17 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 36
comply with, the terms and conditions set forth in this Decree shall subject them to dismissal or other appropriate disciplinary action. 34.2. Attendance at the Consent Decree Orientation Meetings will be mandatory for all individuals specified above. 34.3. Prior to commencing the Orientation Meetings, Defendant will provide the EEOC with a schedule of the dates, times, and locations for when such meetings will be conducted, and the EEOC, with appropriate notice to Defendant, may choose to send up to two representatives to attend any Orientation Meeting. 35. EEO Training – Sturm College of Law: At least annually, Defendant shall provide EEO training for all individuals employed at the Law School in any capacity, full-time or part-time. Under this provision, employees will be trained at a minimum in the following areas: (a) policy and procedures for Law School employees to report alleged discrimination; (b) understanding the kind of conduct which may constitute unlawful discrimination or retaliation; (c) the penalties of engaging in discriminatory behavior; and (d) the anti-retaliation policy applicable to Law School employees. All training under this Paragraph 35 shall be at Defendant’s selection and expense. Training may be by live presentation, online interactive training, and/or computer training, or any combination of the foregoing. Different levels of training will be provided based on the following categories of employees: Non-supervisory employees; Supervisory and Managerial employees; Human Resource employees; employees who conduct any of the training required under this provision; and employees with responsibility for investigating allegations of discrimination. The Parties recognize that supervisory and managerial employees generally require more training and more detailed training than non-supervisory
Page 18 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 36
employees because supervisors and managers have greater responsibilities with respect to the EEO policy and the complaint process. Similarly, Human Resource employees generally require more training and more detailed training than supervisors and managers because HR employees have even greater responsibilities with respect to the EEO policy and the complaint policy. Training for each category of employees will encompass the following matters:
35.1. Non-supervisory Employees: Defendant will provide non-supervisory Law School employees annual training each year. Attendance will be mandatory for every non-managerial employee, and makeup sessions will be provided for employees unable to attend. At least 25% of this annual training must focus on compensation discrimination under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII and at least 25% of this annual training must focus on the available options and procedures for making or reporting a complaint of discrimination. Additionally, non-supervisory employees will be provided comprehensive training as to their responsibilities as an agent of the Defendant, who is charged with responsibility for receiving and acting on employee and/or student complaints about discrimination, including employee complaints from peers, subordinates, and supervisors. 35.2. Managerial and Supervisory Employees: During the term of this Decree, Defendant will require all individuals who work in a managerial or supervisory capacity at the Law School, including the Dean and all Associate Deans, and other employees who have authority over employee compensation, to receive annual training regarding Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and other federal anti-discrimination laws. At least 25% of the training will directly address sex discrimination affecting
Page 19 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 36
compensation, and at least 25% of the training will be instruction in the proper methods of receiving, communicating, investigating (where applicable), and ameliorating discrimination. Defendant shall emphasize with managerial and supervisorial employees that due to their position of power, such employees (a) must be particularly vigilant not to discriminate, whether consciously or because they rely on subconscious stereotypes; (b) must be sensitive of how their actions or words might be perceived by subordinate employees; and (c) must avoid the temptation to retaliate against an employee because a complaint is made, or might be made, against them. Additionally, Defendant will require employees who are newly hired or recently promoted into a managerial or supervisory position at the Law School to complete the requisite complaint-handling training and training regarding sex discrimination affecting compensation within thirty (30) days of being hired or promoted. 35.3. Human Resource Employees: Defendant will require all individuals who work in a human resource capacity at the Law School, or provide human resource services to the Law School, to receive annual training regarding Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and other federal anti-discrimination laws. At least 25% of the training will directly address sex discrimination affecting compensation, and at least 25% will be instruction in the proper methods of receiving, communicating, investigating, and ameliorating discrimination, including the proper procedures for documenting and preserving evidence of discrimination, archiving the University’s investigation of complaints, as well as detailing the consequences and result of the investigation where discrimination is found. Additionally, Defendant will require employees who
Page 20 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 36
are newly hired or promoted into a human resource position at the Law School or providing human resource services to the Law School to complete general EEO training within thirty (30) days of being hired or promoted into a human resource position at the Law School or providing human resource services to the Law School. 35.4. Train the Trainers: Any manager or human-resources employee with responsibility for training other employees under Paragraph 35 will be provided additional training on the materials to be presented and the proper techniques for teaching the materials. 35.5. Training on Investigative Techniques: All employees with responsibility for responding to or investigating complaints of discrimination regarding the Law School shall be provided additional annual training on accepted professional standards for receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination, including such matters as witness interview techniques, other evidence-gathering techniques, maintaining investigative notes and records, legal analysis of the evidence, and methods for eliminating and ameliorating violations of anti-discrimination law. 35.6. The training required under this section 35.3 – 35.5 may take the form of internal or external training, or a combination of both. 36. Defendant agrees that the first such training session for each employee group identified in Paragraph 35 above, will take place within sixty (60) days after the Court’s entry of this Decree. Defendant agrees that all of its personnel required to attend training under Paragraph 35 shall both register and attend the training sessions. 37. The Commission, at its discretion, may designate one or more Commission representatives to attend any of the training sessions described above, and the
Page 21 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 36
Commission representatives, with appropriate notice to Defendant, shall have the right to attend, observe, and fully participate in all of the sessions. Defendant shall provide the Commission with thirty (30) days’ notice that a training session (other than for new hires) will be conducted, or alternatively, Defendant may provide a comprehensive schedule of trainings planned for the year or for a number of months if such is more convenient. H. Notice Posting – Sturm College of Law 38. Within five (5) business days after the Court’s entry of this Decree, Defendant shall post in the Law School building (or any additional facilities utilized by the Law School during the Decree where law school employees are regularly housed and assigned), in a conspicuous place frequented by employees, the Notice attached as Exhibit C. The Notice shall be the same type and style as set forth in Exhibit C, but enlarged to at least 16” x 24”. The Notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree. If the Notice becomes defaced or illegible, Defendant will replace it with a clean copy. Defendant shall certify to the Commission, in writing, within ten (10) days of entry of this Decree that the Notice has been properly posted and shall provide recertification in each of the semi-annual reports required under the Reporting provisions of this Consent Decree. I. EEO Compliance as a Component of Management Evaluation – Sturm College
of Law 39. Defendant shall, within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, and at least continuously for the duration of this Decree, revise the Law School’s management evaluation and compensation system to include EEO compliance, compliance with policies and laws prohibiting discrimination and retaliation, and compliance with this Decree, as factors which shall be used to evaluate all managerial employees, including but not limited
Page 22 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 36

to all Deans, Assistant Deans, and Department Chairs. Defendant shall also, within sixty

(60) days of the Court’s entry of this Decree, and continuously for the duration of this

Decree, advise the Law School’s managerial officials that any compensation these

managers may be eligible for during this Decree are subject to reductions based on

established non-compliance with EEO policies and procedures, policies and laws

prohibiting retaliation, and this Decree.

VII. RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING PROVISIONS

40. Recordkeeping: For the duration of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall maintain

all records concerning implementation of this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to,

all of the following records relating to faculty for the Sturm College of Law:

40.1. Applications of faculty hired;

40.2. Personnel files;

40.3. Payroll records;

40.4. Employee evaluations;

40.5. All documents relating to compensation, including documents or records

relating to starting salary or wage determinations, salary or wage increases,

bonuses, stipends and any increases thereto, and other documentation relating to

setting, increasing, or adjusting employee salaries or wages;

40.6. Teaching load; and

40.7. Complaints or reports of alleged sex discrimination affecting compensation,

and records documenting investigation of such complaints, including witness

statements, documents compiled, conclusions and findings, and any corrective and

remedial actions taken.

Page 23 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 36

41. Reporting: Defendant shall provide an initial report three (3) months after the entry

of this Decree, a second report nine (9) months after the entry of this decree, and then

semi-annual reports for each subsequent six-month period thereafter. The reports shall be

due thirty (30) days following the respective six-month reporting period. The final report

shall be submitted to the Independent Consultant and the Commission at least two months

prior to the date on which the Consent Decree expires.

42. Initial Report Requirements: In the initial report, due three (3) months after entry

of the Decree, Defendant will confirm its compliance with the initial obligations under

Paragraphs 12 (monetary payments), 15 (Salary Increases); 27 (Independent Consultant

appointment), 34 (Orientation on Decree), and 38 (notice posting). Additionally, Defendant

will report on its progress toward complying with the following provisions: Paragraphs 18-

24 (revised EEO policy and complaint procedure); 26 (Annual Compensation Equity

Study), 36 (initial annual EEO training), and 39 (EEO compliance in management

evaluations).

43. Semi-Annual Report requirements: Semi-Annual reports (due nine (9) months

after entry of the Decree, and every six (6) months thereafter) will contain the following

information:

43.1. Complaints or Reports of Alleged Sex Discrimination Affecting Compensation, or Related Retaliation at Sturm College of Law.

43.1.1.

For purposes of this Paragraph 43.1, the term “complaint of

report of alleged sex discrimination affecting compensation, or related

retaliation” will include any written or verbal complaint made to any manager,

administrator, dean (including associate deans and other categories of

Page 24 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 36
deans) or HR employee, or of which a manager, administrator, dean or HR employee is aware, which alleges sex discrimination affecting compensation, or related retaliation, or the witnessing of such discrimination or retaliation, even if such terminology is not used by the complainant. The complainant need not invoke the terms “discrimination,” “Title VII,” “disparate treatment,” “violation,” or “rights,” etc. 43.1.2. The report will include:
a. The name, address, email address, and telephone number of each person making a complaint of sex discrimination affecting compensation at the Law School, or related retaliation to Defendant, and making such allegations to the Law School, or to any federal, state, or local government agency; b. The name, address, email address, and telephone number of each person identified as a potential witness to the incident of alleged discrimination or retaliation; c. A brief summary of each complaint or report, including the date of the complaint, the name of the individual(s) who allegedly engaged in the discriminatory or retaliatory conduct, the Defendant’s investigation and response to the complaint, the name of the person who investigated or responded to the complaint, and what, if any resolution was reached; and d. Copies of all documents memorializing or referring to the complaint, investigation, and/or resolution thereof.
Page 25 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 36

43.2. Training

43.2.1.

For each training program required under Paragraph 35 and

conducted during the reporting period, Defendant shall submit a registry of

attendance.

43.2.2.

For each training program conducted by Defendant’s staff,

Defendant will provide the following information: (a) a detailed agenda; (b)

copies of all training material provided to or utilized by the trainers; and (c)

the name of each trainer and a summary of his or her qualifications.

43.2.3.

For each training program conducted by an outside consultant

or vendor not affiliated with Defendant, Defendant will identify the consultant

and/or vendor and provide a copy of the program agenda.

43.3. Compliance with Pay Transparency provision: If the reporting period

includes the month of January, Defendant shall certify that it complied with the

provisions of Paragraph 24, regarding salary and compensation transparency.

43.4 Posting of Notice: Defendant shall recertify to the Commission that the

Notice required to be posted under Paragraph 38 of this Decree has remained

posted during the reporting period, or, if removed, was promptly replaced.

VIII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE

44. 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.

45. There is no private right of action to enforce Defendant’s obligations under the

Decree and only the Commission or the Plaintiff-Intervenors may enforce compliance Page 26 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 36
herewith. 46. Subject to the provisions of Paragraphs 47 and 48 below, the Commission or any Plaintiff-Intervenor may petition this Court for compliance with this Decree at any time during which this Court maintains jurisdiction over this action. Should the Court determine that Defendant has not complied with this Decree, appropriate relief, including extension of this Decree for such period as may be necessary to remedy its non-compliance, may be ordered. 47. Requirement of Informal Resolution Efforts
47.1. Notice of Dispute – Prior to initiating an action to enforce the Consent Decree, the moving party will provide written notice to all other Parties regarding the nature of the dispute. This notice shall specify the particular provision(s) believed to have been breached and a statement of the issues in dispute. The notice may also include a reasonable request for documents or information relevant to the dispute. 47.2. Response to Notice of Dispute – Within thirty (30) days after service of the Notice of Dispute, Defendant will provide a written response and provide the requested documents or information. The EEOC may also submit responses within fourteen (14) days after service of the Notice. 47.3. Service – Service of the Notice of Dispute and any Responses shall be made by hand-delivery, facsimile transmission, or electronic mail. 47.4. Meeting – After service of the Responses, the Parties will schedule a telephonic or in-person meeting to attempt to resolve the dispute. 47.5. Dispute Resolution Period – If the dispute has not been resolved within sixty (60) days after service of the Notice of Dispute, the EEOC may bring an action
Page 27 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 36

in this Court to enforce the Consent Decree in this Court. With written consent of the

EEOC, a Plaintiff-Intervenor may bring an action in this Court to enforce the

Consent Decree.

47.6.

Expedited proceedings – The provisions of this section do not

prevent the EEOC from bringing an issue before the Court when the facts and

circumstances require immediate Court action. The EEOC’s moving papers shall

explain the facts and circumstances that necessitate immediate Court action. If the

EEOC brings a matter before the Court requiring immediate Court action, copies of

the moving papers will be provided to Defendant’s General Counsel within three (3)

business days of being filed with the Court.

48. Absent extension pursuant to Paragraph 46, this Decree shall expire by its own terms at the end of the 72nd month from the date of entry, without further action by the Parties. Under Paragraph 6, the Decree may expire at the end of the 60th month by joint

motion of the EEOC and Defendant.

IX. EEOC AUTHORITY

49. With respect to matters or charges outside the scope of this Decree, this Decree

shall in no way limit the powers of the Commission to seek to eliminate employment

practices or acts made unlawful by any of the statutes over which the EEOC has

enforcement authority, and do not arise out of the claims asserted in this lawsuit.

X. COSTS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES

50. Except for attorneys’ fees and costs as specified in Paragraph 12, each party shall

be responsible for and shall pay its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Page 28 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 36

XI. NOTICE

51. Unless otherwise indicated, any notice, report, or communication required under the

provisions of this Decree shall be sent by electronic mail or certified mail, postage prepaid,

as follows:

Rita Byrnes Kittle, rita.kittle@eeoc.gov Michael Imdieke, michael.imdieke@eeoc.gov Wasan Awad, wasan.awad@eeoc.gov EEOC Denver Field Office 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203

Dean Bruce Smith Sturm College of Law Frank H. Ricketson Law Bldg., Suite 215C 2255 E. Evans Ave. Denver, CO 80208 Email: bruce.smith@du.edu

With a copy to: Paul Chan Office of the General Counsel 2199 S. University Blvd., Room 101 Denver, Colorado 80208 Email: counsel@du.edu

XII. SIGNATURES 52. The Parties agree to the entry of this Decree subject to final approval by the Court. SO ORDERED this ___U_I_ day of __.__B_Z___________, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
___T__8__JM_F_Z_:__%__B_O_J_FM_________________
United States District Judge

Page 29 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 36

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 36

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 36

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 36

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 36

Exhibit A

Release and Waiver of Claims

In consideration for $________ paid to me by the University of Denver and other valuable consideration, in connection with the resolution of the lawsuit captioned EEOC, et. al. v. University of Denver, Civil Action No. 16-cv-02472-WYD-MJW, and the charge of discrimination filed by Prof. Lucy Marsh, Charge No. 541-2013-01830C, I waive my right to recover for any claims of gender-based compensation discrimination arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq. and/or the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. §206(d), that I had against the University of Denver prior to the date of this release.

Date: __________

Signature: ________________________

Page 32 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 36
Exhibit B List of Increased Salaries Paid Intervenors Effective January 1, 2018
[Filed under seal]

Lucy Marsh

$160,000.00

K.K. DuVivier

$205,496.00

Nancy EhrenRreEicDh ACTED$181,896.00

Kris McDaniel-Miccio

$185,974.00

Joyce Sterling

$184,113.00

Catherine Smith

$187,206.00

Celia Taylor

$198,025.00

Page 33 of 34

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 132 Filed 05/18/18 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 36
Exhibit C NOTICE
The following notice is being posted pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree reached between the Parties in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the University of Denver, alleging discriminatory pay practices based on sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and is captioned EEOC, et al v. University of Denver, Civil Action No. 16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW. The University of Denver denies that it engaged in any discrimination related to its pay practices.
The University of Denver and Sturm College of Law are committed to employing fair and equitable salary and compensation practices. Toward that end, the University has agreed to employ a qualified labor economist to conduct an annual compensation equity study. Additionally, the University has agreed to employ an Independent Consultant to advise and make recommendations on methods and criteria for determining faculty salaries and merit raises. The Independent Consultant will also assist in revising and clarifying existing anti-discrimination policies and procedures for Law School employees to report any alleged discrimination, and in developing related training for Law School employees on the revised policy and procedures.
In the interest of having a more transparent salary and compensation system, the University of Denver and Sturm College of Law have agreed to annually disclose certain faculty salary and compensation information to faculty of the Sturm College of Law.
Additionally, the University of Denver has agreed to increase salaries for certain female full professors in the Sturm College of Law to address past disparities which for various reasons may have disadvantaged female Full Professors of law.
The University of Denver reiterates here its long-standing policy against discriminatory employment practices. The University encourages employees to report to the University of Denver Human Resource Department, or to any member of University management, any perceived incident of discrimination based on sex, race, color, national origin, religion, pregnancy, disability, or age (40 or older), or retaliation for opposing such discrimination. Additionally, employees have the right to contact the EEOC directly at 1-800-669-4000, or the Colorado Civil Rights Division at 303-894-7855 or 1-800-886-7675, to report incidents of alleged discrimination or retaliation. Additional information is also found at [insert URL for new web resources@.
The University of Denver assures employees that no University official will retaliate against an employee who makes an internal complaint of discrimination or who contacts the EEOC or the Colorado Civil Rights Division.
This Notice shall remain posted for the term of the Consent Decree.
University of Denver
_______________________________________ Date:
Page 34 of 34

 
 Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 25 Filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF DENVER,
Defendant.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion of Lucy Marsh to Intervene as of Right as Party Plaintiff filed December 28, 2016. No responses or objections have been filed to the motion.
Turning to my analysis, Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute.” Here, Intervenor Plaintiff argues, and I find, that she is granted an unconditional right to intervene in this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”).
Thus, the EEOC initiated this action against Defendant under the enforcement authority granted it by Title VII to remedy what it had concluded were the illegal discriminatory acts of Defendant against Intervenor Plaintiff. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), “[t]he person or persons aggrieved [under Title VII] shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the Commission . . . .” Intervenor Plaintiff Lucy

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 25 Filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Marsh is employed by the University of Denver and filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, and I find she is an aggrieved party. Accordingly, she has a statutory right to intervene pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). EEOC v. PJ Utah, LLC, 822 F.3d 536, 540 (10th Cir. 2016) (holding that “employees [have] an unconditional right to intervene in EEOC enforcement actions,” pursuant to § 2000e-5(f)(1) and must be permitted to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1)). It is therefore
ORDERED that the Motion of Lucy Marsh to Intervene as of Right as Party Plaintiff (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED.
Dated: January 23, 2017 BY THE COURT: s/ Wiley Y. Daniel Wiley Y. Daniel Senior United States District Judge
-2-

 
 Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 31 Filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, LUCY MARSH, Intervenor, v. UNIVERSITY OF DENVER, Defendants.
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
INTRODUCTION 1. This action is brought by Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh to secure redress for Defendant’s violations of her right to be free from employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000-e, et seq.
JURISDICTION 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this case arises under federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000-e, et seq. (“Title VII”).

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 31 Filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8
VENUE 3. Venue is proper in the District of Colorado pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), because the unlawful employment discrimination giving rise to PlaintiffIntervenor’s claims occurred in that District.
JURISIDICTIONAL PREREQUISITES 4. Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh has exhausted her administrative remedies. She filed timely administrative charges of discrimination against Defendant with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on July 27, 2013. 5. The EEOC investigated the charge of discrimination. On August 27, 2015, the EEOC issued a letter of determination finding reasonable cause to believe the Defendant had violated Title VII. Though the parties attempted conciliation, conciliation failed on May 6, 2016.
PARTIES 6. Plaintiff-Intervenor Lucy Marsh is a tenured law professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law (“Law School”). She lives in Colorado and has been employed at the Law School. At all times relevant hereto, she has been a resident of and domiciled in Colorado. 7. Defendant University of Denver (Colorado Seminary) is a Colorado nonprofit that has, at all relevant times, been continuously doing business in the State of Colorado and the City of Denver, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. Defendant University of Denver has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b),(g), and (h).
2

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 31 Filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 8. Defendant University of Denver is a private university in Colorado that includes the Law School. 9. Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh is a tenured full law professor (“Full Law Professor”) at the Law School. 10. Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh is a highly accomplished legal scholar. Among her accomplishments, she is author of five books and has over forty years of experience teaching law. She is also a recipient of the awards for excellence in teaching and pro bono service. She has served on the Board of Governors for the Colorado Bar Association and the Board of Metropolitan Denver Legal Aid, and was appointed to the Colorado Real Estate Commission by the Governor of Colorado. Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh is also the founder the Tribal Wills Project, which brings law students to reservations to write wills for tribal members, and is Director of the Wills Lab, a class at the Law School in which students write wills for elderly and low income people. 11. Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh was hired by the Law School as an assistant law professor in 1976, at an annual salary of $16,800. The same year, the Law School hired a male as an assistant law professor at an annual salary of $19,000. 12. In 1982, Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh became a Full Law Professor. At that time, Ms. Marsh was paid a salary of $37,320. 13. The male professor hired in 1976 became a Full Law Professor in 1982 as well. He was paid a salary of $40,500.
3

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 31 Filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
14. In 2012, the Law School released a memo to law professors that revealed a pay disparity between male and female Full Law Professors. On average, female Full Law Professors earned $15,859 per year less than male Full Law Professors.
15. The median salary for all Full Law Professors at the time was just over $149,000. Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh’s salary was $111,977.
16. The male professor who was hired, and promoted to Full Law Professor, at the same time as Plaintiff/Intervenor Marsh was earning over $75,000 more than Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh.
17. On January 30, 2013, Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh met with Law School Dean Martin Katz to discuss the memo.
18. Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh was told by Dean Katz that she was the lowest paid Full Law Professor at the Law School. Dean Katz refused to provide Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh with any specific salary data for the remainder of the Law School faculty.
19. When Ms. Marsh asked Dean Katz what would be done to adjust her pay to a level commensurate with her male peers, he told her “nothing.”
20. The Law School has discriminated against Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh by paying her less than her peers because of her sex since 1976, and continues to do so to this day. Despite her accomplishments, and the fact that she is the second-most senior Full Law Professor at the Law School, her salary is less than every other male Full Law Professor, including those more junior to her. At the time of this filing, the Law School has not adjusted Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh’s salary to address the gender disparity in her pay.
4

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 31 Filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
21. The Law School has engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination with respect to the compensation of female Full Law Professors, which continues to this day. As of October 2013, the Law School employed nine female Full Law Professors and sixteen male Full Law Professors. The mean annual salary for female Full Law Professors was approximately $139,940, while the mean annual salary for male Full Law Professors was $159,721. On average, male Full Law Professors were paid approximately $19,781 more annual for performing substantially equal work, a statistically significant disparity. No female Full Law Professor earned an annual salary greater than the mean salary for male Full Law Professors. Upon information and belief, the Law School has continued to pay female Law Professors significantly less than male Full Law Professors because of their sex.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM COUNT 1
UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e ET SEQ.
22. Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh restates and realleges each and every factual allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 21.
23. Defendant’s conduct as herein alleged violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), which makes discrimination with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of sex unlawful.
24. Defendant has violated and continues to violate Title VII as described herein, including but not limited to by paying Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh a lower salary because of her sex.
5

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 31 Filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8
25. Defendant has violated and continues to violate Title VII by engaging in a pattern and practice of discrimination against female Full Law Professors, including but not limited to by paying female Law Professors lower salaries because of their sex.
26. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory actions, Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh has suffered losses in compensation, pain and suffering, and emotional distress. As a result of those actions and consequent harms, Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh has suffered such damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
27. Defendant’s unlawful actions were intentional, willful, malicious and/or done with reckless disregard for Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh’s rights.
28. Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh requests that this Court:
1. Enter a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of in this complaint are unlawful and violate Title VII;
2. Grant all injunctive relief necessary to bring Defendant into compliance with the aforementioned laws;
3. Order Defendant to pay the wages, salary, employment benefits, and other compensation denied to Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh to date by reason of Defendant’s unlawful actions, in an amount to be proven at trial;
4. Order Defendant to pay compensatory damages for Plaintiff-Intervenor Marsh’s emotional pain and suffering, in an amount to be proven at trial;
6

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 31 Filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
5. Order Defendant to pay exemplary and punitive damages;
6. Order Defendant to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of the action;
7. Order Defendant to pay interest at the legal rate on such damages as appropriate,
including pre- and post-judgment interest; and
8. Grant any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
PLAINTIFF/INTERVENOR DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE
Dated: December 28, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Baine P. Kerr Baine P. Kerr Jonathan B. Boonin Lauren E. Groth HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: 303-442-6514 Facsimile: 303-442-6593 kerr@hbcboulder.com boonin@hbcboulder.com, groth@hbcboulder.com
Jennifer Reisch Rebecca Peterson-Fischer EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES 1170 Market Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: 415-621-0672 Facsimile: 415-621-6744 jreisch@eualrights.org rpetersonfischer@equalrights.org
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR
7

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 31 Filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 28, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION was served by CM/ECF system on the following: Jim Goh Steven W. Moore LaLonnie Gray 600 17th Street, Suite 2700S Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 720-343-7533 Facsimile: 720-343-7571 jgoh@constangy.com Attorneys for Defendant Michael Imdieke EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Denver Field Office 303 E 17th Avenue, Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303)-866-1320 michael.imdieke@eeoc.gov Attorney for Plaintiff
__s/Marlene Diamond__________ Marlene Diamond
8

 
 Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 49 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF DENVER,
Defendant.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion of Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel-Micchio, and Catherine Smith to Intervene as Plaintiffs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) filed June 16, 2017. For the reasons stated below, this motion is granted.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute.” “Title VII allows an aggrieved employee to intervene when the EEOC sues the employer.” EEOC v. PJ Utah, LLC, 822 F.3d 536, 538 (10th Cir. 2016) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)). Although proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors did not file individual charges of discrimination with the EEOC, they may still opt in to this suit pursuant to the “singlefiling rule.” Pursuant to this rule, plaintiffs may “piggyback” on an EEOC complaint provided that they are similarly situated to the charging party and that the EEOC charge

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 49 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
that was filed “gave the employer notice of the collective or class-wide nature of the charge.” Thiessen v. GE Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1110 (10th Cir. 2001). I find these requirements are met.
First, I find that proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors are similarly situated to the original charging party, Lucy Marsh, given that all four women hold the same position and are allegedly being subjected to the same pattern and practice of sex-based compensation discrimination by their mutual employer. Second, Lucy Marsh’s July 2013 charge of discrimination included allegations that University of Denver was paying both her and other female Full Law Professors less than similarly-situated men. Thus, University of Denver was put on notice as to the collective or class-wide nature of the pay disparity claim. EEOC v. Albertson’s LLC, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (D. Colo. 2008). Furthermore, proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors were specifically identified by the EEOC during the course of its administrative investigation, in the Letter of Determination and conciliation process, and in the EEOC’s Complaint and Amended Complaint. As such, University of Denver was made aware of the nature and scope of the proposed PlaintiffIntervenors’ claims. Id. (granting motions to intervene for several former employees, including four who the EEOC specifically identified in its complaint and who did not file individual charges).
Finally, as to the timeliness of the motion, only limited written discovery and no depositions have taken place and an extension of discovery and related deadlines was granted. Thus, there is no danger that any existing party will be prejudiced by proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors’ addition to the suit. It is therefore
-2-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 49 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3 ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion of Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel-
Micchio, and Catherine Smith to Intervene as Plaintiffs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED, and the Complaint in Intervention is ACCEPTED FOR FILING.
Dated: June 28, 2017 BY THE COURT: s/ Wiley Y. Daniel Wiley Y. Daniel Senior United States District Judge
-3-

 
 Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 19
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, LUCY MARSH, NANCY EHRENREICH, KRIS McDANIEL-MICCIO, and CATHERINE SMITH,
Intervenors, v. UNIVERSITY OF DENVER,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
Plaintiff-Intervenors Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, and Catherine Smith for their Complaint in Intervention state as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. This is a sex-based wage discrimination suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to seek redress for female Full Law Professors, including Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, and Catherine Smith (“Plaintiff-Intervenors”), who are compensated substantially less than male Full Law Professors by their employer, Defendant University of Denver (“DU”). After issuing a determination finding reasonable cause to believe

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 19
that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, and the Equal Pay Act, in regard to DU’s pay practices, the EEOC filed this lawsuit against Defendant on September 30, 2016.
PARTIES 2. The EEOC is a federal agency charged with enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended. 3. Plaintiff-Intervenors Ehrenreich, McDaniel-Miccio, and Smith are residents of the State of Colorado. 4. Plaintiff-Intervenor Lucy March is a resident of the State of Colorado. 5. DU is a Colorado nonprofit corporation having its principal place of business in the City and County of Denver. 6. DU’s principal office is 2100 S. University Boulevard in Denver, Colorado 80208.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and specifically under Title VII. 8. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the employment practices and other conduct alleged to be unlawful were committed in the District of Colorado. 9. At all relevant times, DU was covered by the definition of “employer” set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) of Title VII.
2

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 19
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS 10. DU is engaged in the business of higher education. 11. DU operates the University of Denver Sturm College of Law (“Law School”). 12. As of October 2013, excluding the Law School Dean at the time, DU employed 25 tenured Full Law Professors, of which 16 were male and 9 female. 13. The 9 female Full Law Professors included Lucy Marsh, Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, and Catherine Smith, all of whom are still employed by DU. 14. Full Law Professors are tenured, which means that they have a right to continuous reappointment until they resign or retire and may be terminated under only a limited set of conditions pursuant to a specific set of procedures that include appeal rights. 15. All Full Law Professors are responsible for teaching courses, producing legal scholarship, and providing service to DU, the public, and the legal profession, and are evaluated in these three areas, i.e., their teaching, scholarship, and service. 16. Despite their laudable performance in each of these areas, Plaintiff-Intervenors were and continue to be paid less than the mean annual salary for male Full Law Professors. 17. In July 2013, Lucy Marsh filed charge of discrimination number 541-2013-01830, in which she claimed that DU paid her and other female Full Law Professors less than similarlysituated males. 18. The EEOC identified 9 female Full Law Professors – a list that included PlaintiffIntervenors – over the course of its administrative investigation who it alleged were subject to a sex-based pay disparity.
3

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 19
19. On August 27, 2015, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination in which it found “reasonable cause to believe that there is a violation of Title VII in that there appears to be a continuing pattern or practice at the Sturm College of Law, dating back to as early as 1973, of compensating female law professors less than their male counterparts.”
20. Furthermore, the EEOC observed in its Letter of Determination that, “[DU] was aware of these pay disparities at least as of December 2012, but took no action to ameliorate this disparity, in effect intentionally condoning and formalizing a history of wage disparity based on sex.”
21. The EEOC attached a Schedule A to its Letter of Determination in which it listed nine persons aggrieved, including Lucy Marsh and the three Plaintiff-Intervenors, along with their prospective wage increases, backpay owed from September 2012 through August 2015, liquidated damages, and total damages.
22. This lawsuit followed the failure of EEOC-facilitated conciliation. 23. Upon information and belief, Defendant continues to pay Plaintiff-Intervenors less than similarly-situated male employees. Plaintiff-Intervenor Nancy Ehrenreich 24. Plaintiff-Intervenor Nancy Ehrenreich earned her B.A. magna cum laude from Yale University and J.D. cum laude and LL.M. from the University of Virginia. 25. DU hired Ehrenreich to teach at the Law School in 1989. 26. Ehrenreich received tenure from DU in 1996 and became a Full Law Professor in 2002. 27. Ehrenreich created and continues to teach a Race, Class, and Reproductive Justice seminar, which was one of the first such law school courses taught in the U.S.
4

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 19
28. In 1997 and 1998, without any additional remuneration or credit, Ehrenreich co-taught a ground-breaking clinical course on intimate partner violence, the Battered Women’s Clemency Reform Project, that ultimately resulted in four grants of clemency by then Colorado Governor Roy Romer.
29. In addition to the courses listed above, Ehrenreich has taught the following courses at the Law School: Criminal Law, Torts, Jurisprudence, and Gender and the Law.
30. Over her career, Ehrenreich has been a highly effective and appreciated professor. She was nominated for a DU-wide teaching award in spring 2015 and received the Law Stars teaching award in spring 2017.
31. As a scholar and public intellectual, Ehrenreich has been a leading voice on reproductive issues, drawing attention to the importance of an intersectional approach that includes lowincome women and women of color.
32. Over the span of her career, Ehrenreich has produced 21 scholarly publications, as well as several blog posts, op-ed pieces, and magazine articles. Her work has appeared in renowned journals, including the Yale Law Journal, the Duke Law Journal, the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, and the Michigan Journal of Race and Law.
33. Ehrenreich’s book, The Reproductive Rights Reader: Law, Medicine, and the Construction of Motherhood, was published in 2008 by NYU Press. This edited volume, for which she also wrote a lengthy introduction, has been used in law and undergraduate courses across the country.
5

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 19
34. The Law School has recognized Ehrenreich’s scholarly accomplishments and promise by awarding her a William F. Beaney Memorial Research Fellowship, the Hughes Rudd Fellowship, and a DU Professorship Grant.
35. Ehrenreich has made significant service contributions to DU, including: constituting and serving as the first chair of DU’s university-wide Sexual Harassment Board; serving on the Law School’s Curriculum Committee, Curriculum Reform Committee, Admissions Committee, and the Strategic Planning Committee; chairing the Lateral Appointments Committee and serving several times as a member of the general Appointments Committee; helping to organize and plan a series of annual conferences at the Law School called the Legal Theory Symposium Series; chairing the Faculty Development Committee; and serving on the Faculty Executive Committee and several performance review committees charged with assessing her colleagues.
36. In April 2004, Ehrenreich was invited to deliver the DU-wide Provost’s Lecture entitled “Home and Security.”
37. Nationally, Ehrenreich: served for ten years as a member of the national board of Latina and Latino Critical Legal Theory, Inc., including serving as national co-chair of the organization for three of those years; served for several years on the national board of the Society of American Law Teachers; and is a founding member and active participant in the work of the Rocky Mountain Collective on Race, Place, & Law.
38. Several male Full Law Professors who DU hired between one and 10 years after Ehrenreich, currently earn more than $40,000 more annually than Ehrenreich.
6

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 19
Plaintiff-Intervenor Kris McDaniel-Miccio 39. Plaintiff-Intervenor McDaniel-Miccio earned, with the highest distinction: her B.A. at
Marymount College of Fordham University, her M.P.A from the University of New York’s Rockefeller College, her J.D. at Antioch University School of Law, and both her LL.M. and Doctor of the Science of Law from Columbia University School of Law.
40. DU hired McDaniel-Miccio to teach at the Law School in 2002. 41. McDaniel-Miccio came to DU with considerable teaching experience, including her time as a lecturer at the City University of New York School of Law, a visiting clinical professor of law at Albany Law School, and a tenured associate professor at Western State University Law School. Prior to law school, McDaniel-Miccio was a university lecturer in gender studies and political theory at the University of New York. 42. At the time that she was hired by DU, McDaniel-Miccio had also been practicing law for a number of years as an assistant district attorney in Bronx County in the Appellate and Supreme Court departments and as the founding director and attorney in charge of the Center for Battered Women’s Legal Services of Sanctuary for Families, Inc. in New York City where she litigated precedent-setting cases and authored key legislation. 43. McDaniel-Miccio received tenure from DU in 2006 and was promoted to Full Professor of Law in 2009. 44. Over the course of her career with DU, McDaniel-Miccio has taught Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Jurisprudence, Family Law, Topics in Jurisprudence: Colonization, Topics in Jurisprudence: Law and Religion, a seminar on domestic violence, a seminar on the holocaust, and a comparative course (U.S. and Ireland) on marriage equality and religion.
7

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 19
45. In 2012, then Dean Katz nominated McDaniel-Miccio for the University Scholar/Teacher of the Year Award, noting in his supporting letter that she is an “extraordinary teacher and a rare blend of activity lawyer, public intellectual and gifted [at] teach[ing].”
46. McDaniel-Miccio has been the recipient of an array of both national and international scholarly awards including a Fulbright Scholar and Teaching Award, the Marie Curie Transfer of Knowledge Award, Fulbright Senior Specialist, the GEMMA Scholar and Teaching AwardErasmus Mundus, and the Trinity Long Room Interdisciplinary Scholar Award.
47. Furthermore, DU awarded McDaniel-Miccio the Hughes-Ruud Research Professorship, DU Public Good Grant, and DU Internationalization Grant in recognition of her cutting edge scholarship and intellectual bridge building with national and international communities.
48. Starting in 2008, McDaniel-Miccio developed professional relationships with academic institutions in Ireland as a way to build an international bridge between DU, the Law School, and Irish academies, including Queens College, Belfast, University College Dublin, Trinity College Dublin, and NUI Galway.
49. In 2015, McDaniel-Miccio received dual appointments for three years to the Equality Institute of University College, Dublin and the Trinity College Gender and Women Studies Program to continue her research on gender equality in the U.S. and Ireland.
50. In 2015, McDaniel-Miccio was awarded the highly prestigious Irish Law Society Award, UCD Chapter, for Human Rights. Previous recipients include Noam Chomsky, Bill Clinton, Seamus Heaney, Antonin Scalia, and former Republic of Ireland presidents Mary Robinson and Michael Higgins.
8

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 19
51. McDaniel-Miccio has authored 22 law review published articles, seven of which are featured on the Law School’s Faculty Highlights and Intellectual Life website, and three book chapters, including works peer reviewed for publication by the Oxford University and Cambridge University Press. Her articles have been published by Harvard, Columbia, and Georgetown in journals on gender, law, and international law.
52. McDaniel-Miccio has lectured and keynoted at myriad conferences and scholarly convocations throughout the U.S. and Ireland, six of which are featured on the Law School’s Faculty Highlights and Intellectual Life website.
53. Over four years, McDaniel-Miccio designed and implemented four ground-breaking international conferences on feminist theory and politics in the U.S. and Dublin that attracted attendees from the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East.
54. McDaniel-Miccio has engaged in pro bono consulting across the U.S. and Ireland, including with: the Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-Motivated Violence, Marriage Equality, and Women’s Aid in the Republic of Ireland; the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Colorado Bar Association’s Access to Justice Committee and Domestic Violence Task Force, and the Denver Domestic Violence Task Force in Colorado; the New York State Office of the Governor, New York, Kings, and Bronx County District Attorneys’ Offices, the New York City Police Department and Child Welfare Departments, the New York State Legislature, Codes Committee, Children and Family Committee, and Legislative Women’s Task Force; and, in California, the YWCA of Orange County and California State University at Fullerton’s Women’s Center.
9

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 19
55. At present, McDaniel-Miccio is creating The Bella Abzug Institute for Gender Equality and Social Justice, which will incorporate interdisciplinary advocacy, research, and scholarship. She has convened a body of scholars, academics, state actors, community and statewide nongovernmental organizations, members of the bench and bar from Colorado and New York to assist in the development of the Institute.
56. At DU, McDaniel-Miccio was appointed by the Law School Dean to serve as: chair of the Curriculum, Faculty Development and Mentoring Committees and the International Conference Committee on Feminism and the Law; member of the Multicultural, Appointments, Lateral Appointments, and Student Mentoring Committees; and faculty advisor of the Jewish Law Students and Women and the Law Associations, DU’s Law School LGBT student group, and Student Members and Former Members of the Armed Services Association.
57. Outside of DU, McDaniel-Miccio has: been appointed to the District Court Advisory Council for the Denver District Court, the New York State Court of Appeals Taskforce on Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Family and Criminal Taskforce on Orders of Protection, and the New York City Police Department Advisory Board on Hate Crimes; testified before the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee on Hate Crimes, and the New York State Assembly’s Codes Committee and Committee on Children and Families; and authored key state legislation on domestic violence and hate crimes in New York.
58. In May 2012, McDaniel-Miccio sent a request to the Law School’s Dean, Marty Katz, that her pay be compared to other Full Law Professors with the same number of years of teaching to ensure that she was being paid a comparable amount.
10

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 19
59. Katz responded that Full Law Professors’ salaries are based on both the number of years since they graduated from law school and their teaching experience. When McDaniel-Miccio asked how these factors were weighed, Katz responded that there was no “clear formula” and referred to the process of determining salaries as “complex” and “evolving.”
60. Katz concluded McDaniel-Miccio’s salary review by issuing a memorandum stating that her salary was “on target” but failed to include any information to support this result, including the salary ranges for other Full Law Professors with comparable experience despite having offered to share that information with McDaniel-Miccio.
61. McDaniel-Miccio was, therefore, shocked to see that the EEOC had listed her as an aggrieved party in its August 2015 Letter of Determination. Plaintiff-Intervenor Catherine Smith
62. Plaintiff-Intervenor Catherine Smith earned her B.A. at Wofford College and her M.P.A. and J.D. from the University of South Carolina.
63. After law school, Smith completed two one-year federal judicial clerkships with U.S. Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe, Jr. and Judge Henry Politz, Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
64. DU hired Smith as an Assistant Professor in 2004. She received tenure in 2007 and became a Full Professor in 2013.
65. In fall 2010, Smith became the Associate Dean of Institutional Diversity and Inclusiveness, a role that she played a major role in crafting.
11

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 19
66. The Associate Dean of Institutional Diversity and Inclusiveness position was one of the first of its kind and has served as a model for other units on DU’s campus and other law schools nationwide.
67. Over the course of her career with DU, Smith has taught: Torts; Employment Discrimination; Family Law; Sexuality, Gender and the Law; and Comparative Sexuality and the Law.
68. Smith has been recognized for her superior teaching ability, including receiving the Most Engaging Professor and Most Outstanding Professor awards from the Law School’s Student Bar Association in 2012.
69. Since 2002, Smith has published 12 articles, five short essays, five blogs and op-eds, and 10 other publications.
70. Smith’s scholarship on the rights of children has generated significant recognition, including:
a.in 2010, Smith’s article, Equal Protection for Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents: Challenging the Three Pillars of Exclusion – Legitimacy, Dual-Gender Parenting, and Biology, won the UCLA Law School, Williams Institute’s Dukeminier Award as one of the best sexual orientation law review articles of the year;
b.in 2011, Smith’s essay on the rights of children of same-sex parents was one of several selected by the American Association of Law School Section on Gender and Sexual Orientation Identity’s writing competition, On the Cutting Edge: Charting the Future of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Scholarship; and
12

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 19
c.her more recent publications on the rights of children have been published in the Washington University Law Review, U.C. Davis Law Review, and the Duke’s Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems.
71. Based on her research and scholarly agenda advancing the rights of children, Smith coauthored three amicus briefs on behalf of Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children that were filed in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases, U.S. v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges as well as a case in the Fifth Circuit.
72. In recognizing the detrimental impact of same-sex marriage bans on children of same-sex couples, Justice Kennedy cited the Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children’s amicus brief in the majority opinion of Obergefell.
73. The Law School’s Faculty Highlights and Intellectual Life website features three of Smith’s recent publications and two of her recent presentations at Columbia Law School, Yale Law School, and Texas Southern University.
74. At DU, Smith has served as: chair of the Faculty Appointments Committee in a year when the Law School searched for three legal research and writing faculty and nine tenure-track faculty and the Inaugural Faculty Executive Committee; member of six hiring and search committees, as well as, the Promotion and Tenure (Policy) Committee, Spanish for Lawyers Program Committee, and Budget Committee; and faculty advisor for the Law School’s LGBT student group. Smith has also organized numerous campus speakers and academic conferences.
75. Smith has an exemplary record of service to the Law School and greater community and has been recognized accordingly, including as a recipient of the Colorado Women’s Bar Association Foundation’s “Raising the Bar” Award in 2014, and the recipient of the Haywood
13

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 19
Burns/Shanara Gilbert Award from the Northeast People of Color Legal Scholarship Conference in 2013, which recognizes “a person who has demonstrated a sustained commitment to the advancement of the legal, social, and economic position of People of Color in our society.”
76. In 2016, Smith also received the national Clyde Ferguson Award from the American Association of Law Schools Minority Groups Section in recognition of her accomplishments in teaching and mentoring, service, and scholarship.
77. In November 2012, Smith discovered that the stipend that she was receiving for her role as Associate Dean of Institutional Diversity and Inclusiveness was $5,000 less than the stipend paid to the male Associate Dean of Scholarship.
78. When Smith brought this to Katz’s attention and asked for her stipend to be adjusted prospectively and retroactively, Katz allegedly raised the issue with Provost Gregg Kvistad.
79. Katz then claimed that Kvistad had authorized DU to make a one-time $7,500 payment to Smith, which represented half of the total pay discrepancy.
80. When Smith again requested the full pay discrepancy or, in the alternative, credit hour equivalents, Katz refused, citing an alleged directive from the Provost that Smith’s recovery be limited to the one-time payment. Defendant’s Response to the Gender Pay Gap
81. In December 2012, Katz authored and distributed to the faculty a memorandum that addressed the existing pay gap between female and male Full Law Professors.
82. Shortly after the release of the memo, Katz met with several female Full Law Professors, including Plaintiff-Intervenors Ehrenreich and Smith regarding the pay disparity between male and female Full Law Professors.
14

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 19
83. During this meeting, Katz stated that, “I don’t think the [pay] differential implies there’s necessarily something wrong.”
84. Katz also indicated, without basis, that female Full Law Professors were not performing as well as their male colleagues when he suggested, among other things, that the Law School should address if its female faculty need “support” to succeed at scholarship.
85. Following the distribution of the December 2012 memo, Katz met with Smith and assured her, not only that she was not being paid less than her male counterparts, but that she was “actually making more” than them.
86. Between December 2012 and August 2015, Smith had several discussions with Katz about the pay differential between female and male Full Law Professors in which she encouraged Katz to rectify the disparity; each time, Katz failed to do so.
87. Smith learned that Katz’s assurance that she was being paid more than her male counterparts was not the case when she received a copy of the EEOC’s Letter of Determination in August 2015 in which she was listed as a person aggrieved with significant backpay in an attached schedule.
88. On August 31, 2015, DU released a Statement concerning the EEOC Letter of Determination stating that Marsh was paid less than her peers “as a result of her sub-standard performance in scholarship, teaching and service.”
89. With respect to the other female Full Law Professors, the statement quoted Chancellor Rebecca Chop as “stand[ing] by [DU’s] historical system of evaluation and merit pay.”
90. The statement implied that the remaining female Full Law Professors were being paid less because of performance inadequacies.
15

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 19
91. When Smith approached Katz about this statement and her concern that it reflected poorly on the reputation and career of all of the female Full Law Professors, Katz responded that the Chancellor, not he, was responsible for the statement.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Sex Discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
against Defendant) 92. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 93. DU subjected Plaintiff-Intervenors to different terms and conditions of their employment based on sex by paying them less than males who occupied similar jobs. 94. DU’s conduct discriminated against Plaintiff-Intervenors on the basis of their sex in violation of Title VII. 95. DU’s actions toward Plaintiff-Intervenors were done knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard of their rights. 96. As a direct and proximate result of DU’s actions, Plaintiff-Intervenors have suffered damages, including lost wages and benefits, diminished reputation and other pecuniary losses, and emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenors Nancy Ehrenreich, Kris McDaniel-Miccio, and Catherine Smith respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and order the following relief as allowed by law:
A. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to those for emotional distress, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life; 16

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 19
B. Back pay and benefits; C. Injunctive and/or declaratory relief; D. Punitive damages; E. Front pay in the form of prospective salary increases; F. Attorney fees and costs of the action, including expert witness fees, as appropriate; G. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate; and H. Such further relief as justice allows. PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE. Respectfully submitted June 16, 2017.
By: SWEENEY & BECHTOLD, LLC s/Charlotte N. Sweeney 650 S. Cherry St., Ste. 700 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 865-3733 cnsweeney@sweeneybechtold.com s/Joan M. Bechtold 650 S. Cherry St., Ste. 700 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 865-3733 jmbechtold@sweeneybechtold.com s/Ariel B. DeFazio 650 S. Cherry St., Ste. 700 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 865-3733 abdefazio@sweeneybechtold.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS
17

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 19
Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Addresses: Nancy Ehrenreich 2255 E. Evans Avenue Denver, CO 80210 Kris McDaniel-Miccio 2255 E. Evans Avenue Denver, CO 80210 Catherine Smith 2255 E. Evans Avenue Denver, CO 80210
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING I hereby certify that I am a member in good standing of the bar of this Court.
By: s/Charlotte N. Sweeney 650 S. Cherry St., Ste. 700 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 865-3733 cnsweeney@sweeneybechtold.com s/Joan M. Bechtold 650 S. Cherry St., Ste. 700 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 865-3733 jmbechtold@sweeneybechtold.com s/Ariel B. DeFazio 650 S. Cherry St., Ste. 700 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 865-3733 abdefazio@sweeneybechtold.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS
18

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 06/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 16, 2017, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via electronic mail to the following addresses:
Jim Goh Steven W. Moore LaLonnie Gray Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP JGoh@constangy.com SMoore@constangy.com LGray@constangy.com Attorneys for Defendant
Michael Imdieke Karl Tetzlaff Michael.Imdieke@eeoc.gov Karl.Tetzlaff@eeoc.gov Attorneys for EEOC
Baine P. Kerr Jonathan B. Boonin Lauren E. Groth Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC kerr@hbcboulder.com boonin@hbcboulder.com groth@hbcboulder.com
Jennifer Reisch Rebecca Peterson-Fischer Equal Rights Advocates jreisch@equalrights.org rpetersonfischer@equalrights.org Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor Lucy March
s/ Ariel B. DeFazio Ariel B. DeFazio
19

 
 Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 63 Filed 08/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF DENVER,
Defendant.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion of K.K. DuVivier and Joyce Sterling to Intervene as Plaintiffs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) filed August 15, 2017. For the reasons stated below, this motion is granted.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute.” “Title VII allows an aggrieved employee to intervene when the EEOC sues the employer.” EEOC v. PJ Utah, LLC, 822 F.3d 536, 538 (10th Cir. 2016) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)). Although proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors did not file individual charges of discrimination with the EEOC, they may still opt in to this suit pursuant to the “singlefiling rule.” Pursuant to this rule, plaintiffs may “piggyback” on an EEOC complaint provided that they are similarly situated to the charging party and that the EEOC charge that was filed “gave the employer notice of the collective or class-wide nature of the

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 63 Filed 08/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
charge.” Thiessen v. GE Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1110 (10th Cir. 2001). I find these requirements are met.
First, the proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors are similarly situated to the original charging party, Lucy Marsh, given that they hold the same position and are allegedly being subjected to the same pattern and practice of sex-based compensation discrimination by their mutual employer. Second, Lucy Marsh’s July 2013 charge of discrimination included allegations that University of Denver was paying both her and other female Full Law Professors less than similarly-situated men. Thus, University of Denver was put on notice as to the collective or class-wide nature of the pay disparity claim. EEOC v. Albertson’s LLC, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (D. Colo. 2008). Furthermore, proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors were specifically identified by the EEOC during the course of its administrative investigation, in the Letter of Determination and conciliation process, and in the EEOC’s Complaint and Amended Complaint. As such, University of Denver was made aware of the nature and scope of the proposed PlaintiffIntervenors’ claims. Id. (granting motions to intervene for several former employees, including four who the EEOC specifically identified in its complaint and who did not file individual charges).
Finally, as to the timeliness of the motion, only limited written discovery and no depositions have taken place and the parties have received extensions of discovery and related deadlines. Thus, there is no danger that any existing party will be prejudiced by proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors’ addition to the suit. It is therefore
-2-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 63 Filed 08/23/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3 ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion of K.K. DuVivier and Joyce Sterling to
Intervene as Plaintiffs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) (ECF No. 56) is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint in Intervention is ACCEPTED FOR FILING.
Dated: August 23, 2017 BY THE COURT: s/ Wiley Y. Daniel Wiley Y. Daniel Senior United States District Judge
-3-

 
 Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 80 Filed 10/02/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, LUCY MARSH, K.K. DuVIVIER. NANCY EHRENREICH, KRIS McDANIEL-MICCIO, CATHERINE SMITH, and JOYCE STERLING, Intervenors, v. UNIVERSITY OF DENVER,
Defendant.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion of Celia Taylor to Intervene as Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) filed September 28, 2017. For the reasons stated below, this motion is granted.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute.” “Title VII allows an aggrieved employee to intervene when the EEOC sues the employer.” EEOC v. PJ Utah, LLC, 822 F.3d 536, 538 (10th Cir. 2016) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)). Although proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor did not file individual charges

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 80 Filed 10/02/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
of discrimination with the EEOC, she may still opt in to this suit pursuant to the “singlefiling rule.” Pursuant to this rule, plaintiffs may “piggyback” on an EEOC complaint provided that they are similarly situated to the charging party and that the EEOC charge that was filed “gave the employer notice of the collective or class-wide nature of the charge.” Thiessen v. GE Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1110 (10th Cir. 2001). I find these requirements are met.
First, the proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor is similarly situated to the original charging party, Lucy Marsh, given that she holds the same position and has allegedly being subjected to the same pattern and practice of sex-based compensation discrimination by their mutual employer. Second, Lucy Marsh’s July 2013 charge of discrimination included allegations that University of Denver was paying both her and other female Full Law Professors less than similarly-situated men. Thus, University of Denver was put on notice as to the collective or class-wide nature of the pay disparity claim. EEOC v. Albertson’s LLC, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (D. Colo. 2008). Furthermore, proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor was specifically identified by the EEOC during the course of its administrative investigation, in the Letter of Determination and conciliation process, and in the EEOC’s Complaint and Amended Complaint. As such, University of Denver was made aware of the nature and scope of proposed PlaintiffIntervenor’s claims. Id. (granting motions to intervene for several former employees, including four who the EEOC specifically identified in its complaint and who did not file individual charges).
-2-

Case 1:16-cv-02471-WYD-MJW Document 80 Filed 10/02/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
Finally, as to the timeliness of the motion, only limited written discovery and no depositions have taken place and the parties have received extensions of discovery and related deadlines. Thus, there is no danger that any existing party will be prejudiced by proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor’s addition to the suit. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion of Celia Taylor to Intervene as Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED. The Second Amended Complaint in Intervention is ACCEPTED FOR FILING.
Dated: October 2, 2017 BY THE COURT: s/ Wiley Y. Daniel Wiley Y. Daniel Senior United States District Judge
-3-