Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16
IN THE UNITED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 08-cv.QI385-CMA-BNB EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
,,'
TAMMY LANE, MICHAEL GALASSO and CALVIN REED, Plaintiff Intervenors,
OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. d/b/a UNITED COMPANIES OF MESA COUNTY, Defendant.
CONSENT DECREE
I. RECITALS I , Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), an agency of the United States of America, alleges that Oldcastie SW Group, Inc. d/b/a United Companies of Mesa County ("United") engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful employment discrimination based on sex and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 011964 ("Title VU "), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. at seq. The alleged employment discrimination included sexual harassment, hostile work environment, disparate tenTIs and conditions of employment, and discharge of a class of employees based on sex and/or retalia tion, and on different tenTIs and conditions 01 employment.

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 16
2. Tammy Lane, Calvin Reid. and Michael Galasso filed Charges of Discrimination ("Charges") with EEOC regarding the alleged discrimination, and later intervened in a lawsuit brought by the EEOC in the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado, Cause No. 08·
cv-01385-CMA·BNB. They filed a Complaint in Interven tion, and they are referred to herein as
the "Intervenors: Intervenors Michael Galasso and Calvin Reed each added a claim for disability discrimination in violation of the American s with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). 3. The Parties hereto, desiring to settle this action by an appropriate Consent Decree ("Decree"), agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the Parties arld the subject matter of this action, and agree to the power of this Court to enter a Decree enforceable against United. 4. This Decree is final and binding upon the Parties as to the issues resolved, as well as upon their successors and assigns. 5. The Parties hereto agree that this Decree fa irly resolves the issues alleged by EEOC and the Intervenors and constitutes a complete resolution of all EEOC's and the Intervenors' claims of unlawful employment practices under Title VII and the ADA that were made against United in the Charges and Complaints.
II. JURISDICTION 6. The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties arld the subject matter of this lawsuit. EEOC·s Complaint and Intervenors· Complaints in Intervention assert claims that, if proven, would authorize the Court to grant the monetary and equitable relief set forth in th is Decree against United. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title VII, and the ADA, and is not in derogation of the rights and privileges of any Party or person. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for the duration of the Decree for the purposes of entering
all orders. jUdgments and decrees which may be necessary to implement the relief provided
herein.
2

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 16
III. DEFINITIONS 7. Complaint of Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation - A complaint of discrimination. harassment. or retaliation shall be any oral or written complaint. which comes to the attention of a supervisor or manager of United and makes allegations which are apprecia ted by any supervisor or manager as an allega tion of discrimination. harassment. or retaliation. regardless of whether the employee complains in writing or expressly uses the terms "discrimination," "harassment," or "retaliation."
8. EEO - The term "EEO" shall refer to the phrase "equal employment opportunity." 9. Effective Date -The Effective Dale of this Decree is the date on which the Court gives
final approval to the Decree. after hearing, if required.
10. Parties - The Parties to this Decree are EEOC. the Intervenors. and United .
11. Private Counsel - Attorneys representing the Charging Parties. IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS
12. Scope - This Decree covers United's facilities, premises. and employees in Colorado. 13. Term of Consent Decree - This Decree shall remain in effect for 3 years subsequen t to the effective date hereof. In the event the terms and obligations outlined in this Decree are not completed within 3 years, the Parties shall meet and confer concerning all matters that are alleged to constitute noncompliance. EEOC reserves the right to file an enforcement action under Section IX ("Enforcement of Consent Decree") hereof to extend the Decree for whatever period is necessary to allow United 10 comply fully with the terms of Ihis Decree. 14. Compliance with Federal EEO Laws - Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit or reduce United's obligation to comply with the statutes enforced by EEOC: Tille VII, Title I of the Americans with Disabilitie s Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101. el seq.• ADEA. and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §206(d).
J

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 16
15. Effect of Consent Decree - United's compliance with this Decree will fully and completely resolve all issues of law and fact raised by EEOC in litigation arising out of the above-referenced charges as to acts and practices up to the effective date of this Decree. 16. Complete Consent Decree - This Decree constitutes the complete understanding among the Parties with respect to the matters herein, except to the extent that intervenors are entering into separate settlement agreements with United. 17. Severability - If one or more provisions of this Decree are rendered unlawful or unenforceable by act of Congress or by decision of the United States Supreme Court. the Parties shall attempt to agree upon what amendments to this Decree, if any. are appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this Decree. In any event. the unaffected provisions will remain enforceable.
V. NON-DEROGATION OF EEOC RIGHTS 18. Waiver of EEOC Claims - Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude EEOC from bringing suit to enforce this Decree in accordance with the enforcement provisions of Section IX ("Enforcement of Consent Decree") herein. Neither does this Decree preclude EEOC from filing lawsuits based on charges not resolved in this Decree. 19. EEOC Rights Reserved - EEOC reserves all rights to proceed with respect to matters not covered in this Decree and to secure rel ief on behalf of aggrieved persons not covered by this Decree. Under no circtJmstances shall EEOC by commenting or electing not to comment
upon proposed policies or procedures pursuant to Section VI ("Affirmative Relief") be deemed
to have waived its right to investigate or litigate any alleged adverse effects of said policy upon
equal employment opportunities. Nor shall EEOC by commenting or electing not to comment
upon said policies or procedures be considered to have accepted th e validity of or approved the provisions adopted by United.

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 16
20. Charges Flied After the Effective Date - Any individual charges of discrimination fi.ed with EEOC or the Colorado Civil Rights Division ('CCRD") after the effective date of this Decree based on conduct alleged to have occurred prior to the effective date of this Decree will be processed by EEOC in accordance with its standard procedures.
VI. AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF 21 . Notice and Po sting of Decree Notice
21 .01 Posting - Within 60 days of th e Effective Date of this Decree, United shall conspicuously post the Notice of Final Approval of Settlement attached here:o as Exhibit A ("Notice"). in each of its Colorado facilities where all other employee-
21 .02 Orientation on Consent Decree - Prior to posting the Notice required in the preceding Paragraph 21.01, United shall conduct orientation meetings advising all current employees. including supervisors, managers, and human resources employees with responsibility for such facilities, of the terms and conditions of the Decree. United shall notify Ihe EEOC of the dates, times and locations at least 10 business days prior to each of the orientation meetings. and the EEOC shall have the right to attend any or all such meetings. In addition. United shall inform all current and future supervisors. rranagers, and human resources employees
with responsibility for such facilities that any breach of or failure to comply w~h the terms and conditions set forth in th is Decree shall subject them to appropriate
disciplinary action up to and including termination. 22. Injunction
22.01 No Discrimina tion - United is permanently enjoined from discriminating against any employee or applicant in promotions, pay, discipline (including discharge),
5

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 16
terms and conditions of employment. or hostile work environment. because of sex. disability. 22.02 No Retaliation - United is permanently enjoined from retaliating against any employee. applicant. or class member for his or her participation in the EEOC process. the investigation by EEOC into this matter, part icipation in this lawsuit. complaining about or opposing any employment practice made unlawful by one or more of the statutes enforced by EEOC, or for asserting any rights under this Decree. 23. Letters of Reference - Upon request, United shall provide to any Intervenor or Class Member a letter of reference identifying the dates of employment and positions held. United shall change the termination of Tammy Lane to a layoff. and note such change in her personnel file. 24. EEO Training 24.01 Devel o pment of EEO Training Program· Within 60 days of the Effective Date of this Decree. United shall submit to EEOC a proposed EEO training program for new and current employees. including non-supervisory employees, supervisors, managers. and human resources employees. Each training program will include the following information: (a) a detailed agenda: (b) curriculum vitae(s) for the individual(s) who will conduct th e training; and (c) a plan to ensu re that all employees receive the required training. 24.02 Amo unt of Training Required 24.02.01 Non-Supervisory Employees - United will provide non-supervisory
employees at least 1 hour of EEO training within 10 days of hire if a new
employee or within 90 days of the effective date of this Decree if a current employee, and on an annual basis thereafter. This tra ining may
6

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 16
be conducted live by an individual(s) not employed by or associated with United, but may be conducted by Craig Hall or Heather Harper of Oldcastle's corporate office in Atlanta, Georgia or if neither is available, then another in-house attorney approved by the EEOC, wh ich approval shall not be unreasonably denied, or may be provided by videotape presentation purchased from an outside vendor. 24.02.02 Supervisory and Management Employees - United will provide supervisors and managers with at least 7 hours of EEO training within 10 days of hire or promotion into such positions or within 90 days of the effective date of this Decree if a current employee, and on an annual basis thereafter. This training must be conducted live, and by an individual(s) not employed by or associated with United, but may be conducted by Craig Hall or Heather Harper of Old castle's corporate office in Atlanta. Georgia. or if neither is available. then another in-house attorney approved by the EEOC, which approval shall not be unreasonabl y denied, . 24.02.03 Human Resources Employees With EEO Responsibilities - United will provide human resource employees who are responsible for any EEO functions, including but not limited to accepting or investigating discrimination or retaliation complaints, at least 20 hours of EEO training within 30 days of hire or promotion into such a position, or within 90 days of the effective date of this Decree if a current employee, and on an annual basis thereafter. This train ing must be conducted live by an individual(s) not employed by or associated with United, but may be conducted by Craig Hall or Heather Harper of O ldcasUe's corporate
7

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 16
office in Atlanta, Georgia, or if neither is available, then another in-house attorney approved by the EEOC, wh ich approval shall not be unreasonably denied . 24.03 Required Subjects of Training - At a minimum, the EEO training programs shall include the following: • instruction on the requirements of all applicable equal employment opportunity laws including, but not limited to Title V II, the ADEA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; • a review of United's non--d iscrimination employment policies and of the specific requirements of th is Decree, wrth particular emphasis on the comp laint procedure, and prohibitions on retaliation. • tra ining for supervisors, managers, and human resources employees shall include instruction on the proper procedures for responding to employee complaints of discrimination, harassment, and/or retal iation. 25, Modification and Implementation of Policies and Procedures 25,01 Review of Policies - During the fi rst year of th is Decree, United shall, in consu ltation with a qualified consu ltant ("Consultann. which may include Craig Hall or Heather Harper of Oldcastle's corporate office in Atlanta, Georgia, or if neither is available, then another in·house attorney approved by the EEOC, which approval shall not be unreasonably denied,.review United's existing policies and procedures, develop and implement new andlor revised policies and provisions to ensure equal employment opportunities are afforded to female employees and to employees with disabilities. During the second and subsequent years of this Decree, United may on its own or in consultation with the Consultant, develop additional policy revisions to ensure equal employment opportunities.
8

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 16
25.02 Polic ies to be Modified or Developed 25.02,01 Procedure s to Guard Against Discriminatory Decision Making - In consultation with the Consultant, United shall develop and implement policies and procedures to guard against discriminatory decision·making in (a) hiring and/or promoHon into supervisory or management positions: (b) the terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to determination of compensation and reduction thereof, and production expectations; (cl enforcement of policies: (c) enforcement of production policies; and (d) discipline and discharge. 25.02.02 Management Evaluation and Accountability Policy -In consultation with the Consultant, United shall develop and implement a management evalua tion and compensation system which includes EEO compliance and compliance with this Decree as factors for evalua ting manager performance. VII. MONETARY RELIEF
26. Payment to Charging Parties and Private Counsel 26.01 United agrees to pay a total amount of $498,000.00, payable as follows: To Intervenors. back pay damages in the amount of $292,306.35, to be divided equally among them; To Intervenors' counsel, the amount of $205.693.65. 26.02 United's willingness to enter into this consent Decree is not an admission of an wrongdoing or liability by United. and United denies any wrongdoing or liability. 26.03 Payment under this Paragraph Shall be paid in certified funds and delivered to Private Counsel no later than 7 days following the effective date of this Decree. 26. 04 United will not condition the receipt of individual relief on any Intervenor's agreement to (a) maintain as confidential the terms of this decree, (b) waive his or
,

,.
Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 16
her statutory right to file a charge with any federal or slale anti-discrimination agency, or (e) waive his or her right to apply for a position with the United. In the event any Intervenor applies for a position, United agrees to treat him or her in the same manner as any other applicant.
27. Tax"s
27.01 United shall prepare and distribute tax reporting forms to Intervenors who receive
payment under this Decree.
27.02 United shall make appropriate reports to the Internal Revenue Service and other tax au thorities. including without limita tion the Colorado Department of Revenue.
27.03 United shall be responsible for the employe(s share of any taxes applicable to
paymen ts under this Decree, Charging Parties shall be responsible for payment of
the employee's share of taxes owed to any governmental au thority as a result of payments under this Decree.
VIII. REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING 28. Document Preservation
28.01 For th e duration of the Decree, United shall maintain such records as are necessary to demonstrate its compliance with this Decree and verify thai the reports submitted are accurate, including but not limited to the documents specifically identified below.
28.02 While the Decree is in effect and for 2 years following the Termination of the Decree, United shall retain the following hard-copy (paper or fiche) and computer records: all personnel files including all performance appraisals. attendance, production, discipline and termina tion records; all complaints of discrimination or harassment based upon sex and/or
10

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 16
disability. and all records of the investigation of those complaints; all complaints of retaliation prohibited by statutes enforced by the EEOC. and all records of the investigation of those complaints; all records of employee discipline and discharge. including any investigative records supporting the decision; all job advertisements; all applications. including employee applications for open positions; all records regarding selection of successful candidates; all notices of rejection provided to employees seeking promotion or change of assignment; all computerized payroll data; and all data used in performance rev iews and selections for positions filled. 29. Reports 29.01 Initial Report - Within 90 days of the effective date of this Decree. United shall provide EEOC with the following: a sta tus report on the project to review and revise existing policies as necessary to ensure equal employmen t opportunities. as required herein; verifICation that all non-supervisory employees. supervisors. managers. human resource employees with responsibility for United's Colorado facilities. and the Owners have completed training on the terms and provisions of this Decree. as required herein: proposed EEO training programs. as required herein. 29.02 Periodic Reports 29.02.01 During the term of this Decree. United shall submit semi-annual reports
to EEOC. With each report, United shall submit all data in both
11

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 16
electronic and hard copy form. EEOC will comply with the Freedom of Information Act exemptions which require EEOC to Wltnhold from production under FOIA certain private personnel, financial, medical, and other documents described in 5 U.S.C.A. §552{bX1) - (9). 29.02.02 The first reporting period wil l begin on the effective dale of this Decree, and will end on the last day of the sixth complete calendar month
thereafter. Each subsequent reporting period will be 6 calendar
months. 29.02.03 Each report shall contain the following information for the relevant
reporting period: • All records documenting disciplinary actions taken during the
reporting period, including documents supporting the discipline, investigative records, and records reflecting the decision·making process; • All records documenting handling of employee complaints of discrimination, harassment, andlor retal iation made during the reporting period. including any records of the complaint, any investigative records (including lawyer·conducted investigations), notes of witness InleIViews. records gathered, investigative reports or recommendations, records reflecting what, if any, remedial steps were taken, and any records documenting the decision-making process, other than portions of documents written specifically to request or provide legal advice. • A list of employees during the reporting period. listed by hire date and calegorized by sex;
12

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 16
All records documenting the selection decision for each available position filled during the reporting period. including job advertisement; applications received; a summary of the applicant pool categorized by sex; name and sex of the person selected for the position. and any records documenting the decision-making process. Copies of all complaints. formal or informal. of sex discrimination, sexual harassment. disability discrimination, andlor retaliation. and copies of the invesligative records . Verification of employee attendance for all EEO training conducted during the reporting period. 29.03 Other Reports 29.03.01 No later than 10 business days prior to holding the orien talion meetings required herein. United shall provide EEOC w1th the dates. times and locations of the orien tation meetings; 29.03.02 No later than 10 days prior to any scheduled training required herein, United shall inform EEOC oftha date. time. and location when the training is scheduled to be conducted. 29.03.03 As requi red herein. United shall deliver to EEOC any proposed or amended employmen t policies 30. Additional Data - EEOC shall have the right to request additional computer or other data from United so long as the information sought is necessary and consistent with the monitoring of the Decree. United shall comply with a reque st for additional data within 20 business days of the request. Any disputes regarding the propriety of any request for additional data shall be
resolved by the Court as provided herein.
13

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 16
IX. ENFORCEMENT OF CONSENT DECREE 31 . Enforcement by EEOC - It is expressly agreed that if EEOC concludes that United breaches this Decree, EEOC may initiate a lawsuit in this Court after complying with the informal resolution procedures set forth herein. 32. Requirement of Informal Resolution Efforts
32.01 Notice of Dispute - Prior to initiating an aclion to enforce the Decree. EEOC will provide written notice to all other Parties of the nature of the dispu te. This notice
shalt specify the particular provision{s) believed to have been breached and a
statement of the issues in dispute. The notice may also include a reaSOflabte request for documents or information relevant to the dispute. 32.02 Response to Notice of Dispute · Within 10 business days after service of the Notice of Dispute. or longer if agreed upon in writing by the parties. United will provfde a written response and provide the requested documents or information. 32.03 Servi ce· Service of the Notice of Dispute and any Responses shall be made by hand-delivery, facsimile transmission. or electronic mail. 32.04 Meeting· After service 01 the Responses. the Parties will schedule a telephone or
in-person meeting 10 attempt to resolve the dispute.
32.05 Dispute Resolution Period· If the dispute has not been resolved within 30 days after service of the Notice of Dispute. or longer if agreed upon in writing by the parties, an action to enforce the Decree may be brought in this Court.
33. Exped ited proceedings - The provisions 01this section do not prevent EEOC from bringing an issue before the Court when the facls and ciraJmstances require immediate Court action. EEOC's moving papers shall explain the facts and circumstances that necessitate immedia te Court action. If EEOC brings a matter before the Court requiring immediate Court action, copies of the moving papers will be provided to United and Private Counsel.
14

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 16
X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 34. Amendment· By mutual written consent of all of the Parties hereto. this Decree may be amended in th e interest of justice and fairness in order to execute the provisions involved. 35. Implementation ' EEOC and United agree to take all steps that may be necessary to fully effectuate the terms of this Decree. SO ORDERED

United States District COurl Judge
Date APPROVED AS TO FOR.'I AND CO~TE~T

By: Mary Jo O'Neill

Regional Anorney

sw.p/e. OLDCASTLE

dlbia UNITED COMPANIES OF MESA COUNTY

By: "/ ~ ~

Date: ....<1/-/.iJ/-,iJ[J;O'--_ _ __

(cv", /<. rZ dedy
Name

Title
51 William E. Moench Trial Attorney EEOC - Den ver Field Office Attorney for Plaintiff
sf Michael Santo Bechtel & Santo. LLP 205 North 4'" SII«I. Suite 300 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Attorney for Defendant
"

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA-BNB Document 92-2 Filed 02/16/2010 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 16

EXHI BIT A

l"OTICE TO EMPLOYEES

This NOlice II being po5lW as part of m. ~rnedy agr«d 10 ptnuanll<) • Consent Decrtt bel\l'~D Oldeu!!e SW Group. Inc, d'l>'. Uni~ Co"".m.. orM .... CounlY (~Unit.(q uid lbo IOqI1.lI EmployTIlent Opponun.ty Corl1TIl1S.1OII (EEOC).

Unlawful Di ..rimioaUoo : Under fmeralla,,'. nl$ unlawful for OIl ernplo)'!:T 10 du;cnrruna'e based 00 race, color... lIgion. "'><' nahol1.l1 orig'n, age (m'~ 40). or d ir.abih,y. This me.". that a supervIsor '" manager ••nnot nuke dec ..i"", abou' hinng, promo'ion, pay. or othoT <ondi""'" of cmplc)ym.n,. ba«<l on l1<e, color. ",lIglOn. "". nahOll.ll on8'n. .ge (O\'er 40). Or ru..abil"y. Thisslso "",ans tha, ,bo ,,-00: onmonm<nt Should bo frtt from h:aru<ment Or ri,h.uk basC'd on rau. color. rellg,on. "''', nahol1.l1 onglll. ag. (0\'" 40). 0.- d .....b,llly.

Unl.,,'ful Itet olilllon: It" also unJ.",'fuIIO ru.cnrruna'" or "'toha,. OgOUlSI any indmdual ,,110 reports or COlqllallU ahout

whot bo or ..,. bellc-'e' 10 be WIlo",ful diSCJ1/tllllaUOft ba«<l on rae•. colo....lIg>on, ..... tlOtlOIl.Ilongln, Ige (o\'er 40). or

dislb,lIty.

.,,= Reporting Improper Conduct: If you ore

ohny e"ena, conduct. or IDformolion. whIch )'0\1 belie". may ,ndic.,o

some ~ d"""TIlm'''on or h:aru<m<n~ II i. "cry '~JUo' tha, you .-.port m. 1Dfo:ma"on so the necessary oleJl5 may

'"¥OPt' be token to io'·.."g.... ,denufy. and pm~y "''''''dy any probloms. You may report such

10 conduct 10 any of m.

follow ing'

R' po"joll ' 0 (;'nitm: W,thlD m. Urutm "'1anwt11On, )'00 may make '''''h a report to tht Hwnan R..ou",e
Roprost1\,."ve at )'Our fo"h,y or to any '''pe'''I_ or manager. By reporung .. problem to Unlled, )'0\1 do not w.",e any nshts to fil~ • dwg~ of d"""mlna,ion with the EEOC or the Colorado Cinl RIghI< D,v,,,on (-ceRn')

R~porl;ng to [EOC: EEOC i. n:5pOflSiblo for ettforclllg f.deralla",~ prohib!tmg c"l'lo)"""" discnmin,uion based
00 race. color... ~g",n. S<X. ""-honal origin. age [over 40). or d". b!ll1y You may ru.".dy .on".' the Dem'.r Fj.ld Office of
m. EEOC. at any ofm. following numbers,

T.Je-pho"" , lOl.S66.1100 TTY,303.866.19j.O Fa:<: 303 ,866.1085
Toll Free: UOO.(#.I4000

1bc Den,,", F!eld Offic. of the EEOC .. locatc<l., 303 Eu, 17- AHn".. SUllO 4 10. Den,'... Colorado 80203.

Roportlnz to l ht CCRD; 'The CCRD " the a&o""y tc'$pOO$ible for onforcina .Ute l.",~ prohib'1IIIg employment
dlSCrtmJnalJOo based on race. color...~g",n, "'" nat!Oll.ll ongm. as. (0,',,40). or d,sab,hty. You may d"tttly .onto<;, ,bo
CCRn II any of th. follo"''''3 numbers;

Telephone: (l03) S'14-2997
rill, (303)894-78.l-O
Toll Free l-{SOO) 262 -4 8-45
E·M . il: ccrd@dol'~"'!lIIC,CO.UI

1bc CCRn has offices in m. follo,,'UIlI Inc.uont:
222 S 6- Stree~ .301 Grand Junction, CO 8150S

1560 Broadw.y. _1050 Den,'cr, CO 80202

200 W "B" Sbttt.lrl J4 Pueblo. CO 81003

16

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 1 Filed 06/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. d/b/a UNITED COMPANIES OF MESA COUNTY,
Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMAND ______________________________________________________________________________
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is a public enforcement action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct the unlawful employment practices of discriminating against a female employee on the basis of gender, and of subjecting individuals to retaliation for opposing unlawful discriminatory employment practices. This action seeks to provide appropriate relief to Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, and Calvin Reed, and other similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), contends Defendant discriminated against Tammy Lane on the basis of her sex, female, by subjecting her to harassment and a hostile work environment. EEOC also contends that Defendant retaliated against Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, and Calvin Reed by
1

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 1 Filed 06/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
heightening scrutiny of their work and, ultimately, firing these three individuals for engaging in and participating in protected activity by complaining about practices that violated Title VII.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 703(a), 704, 706(f)(1), 706(f)(3), of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3, 2000e-5(f)(1), 2000e-5(f)(3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, District of Colorado.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and 706(f)(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Colorado and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso and Calvin Reed, former employees of Defendant Old Castle, filed charges of
2

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 1 Filed 06/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10

discrimination with the EEOC on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees,

alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant.

7. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

8. Old Castle managers have made statements reflecting gender bias, including without

limitation, the following:

(a) Brian Cross, Respondent’s Plant Manager, told some of Ms. Lane’s co-

workers that “women should not be at the plant” and that he would not have hired a

woman to do a man’s job.

b) Mr. Cross told Ms. Lane that “women should not be in this job” and that

Ms. Lane needed to grow a “set of balls to stay in the job.”

(c) Respondent’s General Manager, Ron Arellano, also told Ms. Lane that she

needed “to be a man about [her] job” and that she needed to “grow a set of balls” if she

wanted to stay in her job.

(d) Defendant’s male employees, including Arellano and Ty Ducray referred to

Ms. Lane as a “stupid bitch.”

(e) In the spring of 2003, Respondent hired Jake Pimentel who constantly

ridiculed Ms. Lane and called her names including “c***” and “bitch.” Pimentel also

ignored Ms. Lane although they were supposed to work together and refused to

communicate with Ms. Lane about work related matters.

9.

Ms. Lane attempted to report Mr. Pimentel’s refusal to work with her to Mr. Cross, who

refused to listen to her concerns. Mr. Cross hung up the telephone on Ms. Lane.

10. On or about August, 2004, Ms. Lane complained to Mr. Arellano about harassment,

3

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 1 Filed 06/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
including the name calling by Mr. Pimentel. 11. Mr. Reed and Mr. Galasso also told Mr. Arellano that they had witnessed Mr. Pimentel and others harass Ms. Lane and call her derogatory gender-related names. 12. On or about September 2004, Mr. McGehee, Defendant’s Human Resources Manager, came to Montrose and met with employees, including Ms. Lane and Mr. Pimentel, stating that the employees should “behave as [a] lady or gentlemen.” 13. After the meeting in September 2004, Mr. McGehee met with Ms. Lane, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Galasso, to discuss these individuals’ concerns about the workplace discrimination and retaliation. 14. The next day after meeting with Mr. McGehee, Ms. Lane met again with Rick Arellano to express her concerns about retaliation. In that meeting, Mr. Arellano referred to her witnesses as “trouble causing, cry baby, mother f***ers”. Mr. Arellano also stated that he wanted to fire all of her witnesses right then. 15. After Ms. Lane expressed her concerns, the harassment of her was not abated, and, indeed, increased. 16. After Mr. Galasso expressed his concerns, the harassment of him was not abated, and, indeed, increased. 17. After Mr. Reed expressed his concerns, the harassment of him was not abated, and, indeed, increased. 18. Michael Galasso was out on medical leave starting in October 2004. Mr. Galasso was released to return to work and contacted Defendant to return to work on December 15, 2004. When Mr. Galasso was released to return to work, Defendant said his job was eliminated and
4

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 1 Filed 06/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
there was no work for him. 19. The stated reason for Mr. Galasso’s discharge was a pretext for discrimination. 20. Calvin Reed was laid off on or about December 16, 2004. 21. Defendant states that Mr. Reed was laid off because of customer complaints and for failing to keep his truck clean. 22. The stated reason for Mr. Reed’s discharge was a pretext for discrimination. 23. In January 2005, Ms. Lane was laid off. 24. On or about March 16, 2005, Ms. Lane returned to work. 25. On or about April 26, 2005, Ms. Lane was discharged. 26. Defendant states Ms. Lane was discharged for shoddy and careless work. 27. The stated reason for Ms. Lane’s discharge was a pretext for discrimination.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Gender Discrimination in Employment/Sexual Harassment) 28. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs 1-27 of this Complaint. 29. Since at least 2001, Defendant has denied equal employment opportunities to Ms. Lane, in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), by subjecting Ms. Lane to different terms and conditions for her work than for her male co-workers, by maintaining a work environment hostile to women, and by terminating her employment. 30. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 1-29 above has been to deprive Ms. Lane of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status based on her gender.
5

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 1 Filed 06/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
31. The unlawful em ployment practices com plained of in paragraphs 1-29 above were and are intentional. 32. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 1-29 above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to Ms. Lane’s federally protected rights.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Retaliation—Harassment, Discharge) 33. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs 1-32 of this Complaint. 34. Since at least 2004, Defendant has retaliated against employees for opposing illegal practices in violation of Section 704 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) by allowing harassment of employees and discharging employees who oppose illegal practices. 35. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 1-34 above has been to deprive employees of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their opposition to discriminatory practices. 36. During their employment with Defendant, Ms. Lane, Mr. Reed and Mr. Galasso and a class of similarly situated individuals engaged in protected activity under §704 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-4(a), by opposing unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices. 37. Defendant, acting through its managers and supervisors, retaliated against Ms. Lane, Mr. Reed, Mr. Galasso and a class of similarly situated individuals because of their protected activity. 38. As a result of De fendant’s unlawful retaliation, Ms. Lane, Mr. Reed, Mr. Galasso and a class of sim ilarly situated individuals have suffered dam ages, including but not lim ited to
6

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 1 Filed 06/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
backpay, front pay, future pecuniary losses, em otional pain, suffering, inconvenience, m ental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses in amounts subject to proof. 39. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 33-38 above were and are intentional. 40. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 33-38 above were and are done with m alice or with r eckless indifference to the federa lly protected rights of fe male employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment policy or practice which discriminates against women, or retaliates against employees who report gender discrimination. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees and applicants, regardless of gender, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices, including retaliation. C. Order Defendant to make whole Tammy Lane, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, and compensation for other past and future pecuniary losses, in amounts to be determined at trial. D. Order Defendant to make whole Tammy Lane, by reinstating her with all attendant rights and benefits, or awarding appropriate front pay in lieu thereof, in amounts to be determined at trial.
7

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 1 Filed 06/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
E. Order Defendant to make whole Tammy Lane, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;
F. Order Defendant to make whole Tammy Lane, Calvin Reed, and Michael Galasso, and a class of individuals subjected to unlawful discriminatory treatment in retaliation for exercise rights protected by Title VII, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, and compensation for other past and future pecuniary losses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Order Defendant to make whole Tammy Lane, Calvin Reed, Michael Galasso and a class of individuals subjected to unlawful discriminatory treatment in retaliation for exercising rights protected by Title VII, by reinstating them with all attendant rights and benefits, or awarding appropriate front pay in lieu thereof, in amounts to be determined at trial.
H. Order Defendant to make whole Tammy Lane, Calvin Reed, Michael Galasso and a class of individuals subjected to the unlawful discriminatory treatment in retaliation for exercising rights protected by Title VII, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;
I. Order Defendant to make whole Tammy Lane, Calvin Reed, Michael Galasso and a class of individuals subjected to the unlawful discriminatory treatment in retaliation for exercising rights protected by Title VII, by paying punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial
J. Order Defendant and its successors to provide training to officers, managers and employees regarding gender discrimination and retaliation in the workplace;
8

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 1 Filed 06/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10

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

interest; and

L. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

Dated: June 30, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

MARY JO O’NEILL Regional Attorney Phoenix District Office

s/ Rita Byrnes Kittle___ RITA BYRNES KITTLE Senior Trial Attorney rita.kittle@eeoc.gov 303-866-1347

s/ Nancy A. Weeks
NANCY A. WEEKS Senior Trial Attorney nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov 303-866-1947 EEOC Denver Field Office 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203

PLEASE NOTE: For purposes of service upon the EEOC, it is sufficient that pleadings, notices, and court documents be served upon the Trial Attorneys.

9

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 1 Filed 06/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10 10

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 10 Filed 10/14/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
· Plaintiff, vs. OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. d/b/a UNITED COMPANIES OF MESA COUNTY, a Colorado corporation
Defendant.
MOTION OF TAMMY LANE, MICHAEL GALASSO AND CALVIN REED TO INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT AS PARTIES PLAINTIFF
Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso and Calvin Reed (collectively, "Intervenor Plaintiffs"), by their undersigned counsel, move pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) to intervene in this matter as plaintiffs, and state as grounds thereof:
1. Certificate of Compliance with D.C.Colo.L.R. 7.1. The undersigned counsel certifies that they conferred regarding the reliefrequested herein with counsel for the existing parties. Michael Santo, Esq. indicated that Defendant will determine its position after reviewing the Complaint in Intervention filed herewith. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") will not oppose.this motion.
2. Intervenor Plaintiffs make this Motion to Intervene pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), which provides that "[o]n a timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute." Intervenor Plaintiffs are granted an
1

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 10 Filed 10/14/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
unconditional right to intervene in this action by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII").
3. Each of the Intervenor Plaintiffs was previously employed by Defendant. 4. Each ofthe Intervenor Plaintiffs was terminated by Defendant, and thereafter timely filed a Charge ofDiscrimination with the EEOC alleging that they were discriminated against and/or retaliated against in violation of Title VII and other federal statutes. 5. After conducting an investigation, the EEOC determined that Defendant had retaliated against each of the Intervenor Plaintiffs in violation of Title VII, that Defendant had discriminated against Intervenor PlaintiffTammy Lane with respect to the terms and conditions ofher employment because ofher sex in violation ofTitle VII, and that Defendant had discriminated against Intervenor Plaintiff Michael Galasso because ofhis disability in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. 6. 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 and retaliatory acts of Defendant against Intervenor Plaintiffs. 7. As the aggrieved parties, Intervenor Plaintiffs have a statutory right to intervene in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) ("[t]he person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the Commission"). 8. Pursuant to Rule 24, a copy of Intervenor Plaintiffs proposed Complaint in Intervention is being filed herewith. 9. This motion is timely made. No Scheduling Order has entered, no scheduling conference been held, nor any discovery conducted.
2

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 10 Filed 10/14/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4

WHEREFORE, Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso and Calvin Reed respectfully request entry of an Order granting them leave to intervene in this matter as parties plaintiff and accepting their Complaint in Intervention as filed as of the date ofthe Court's Order.
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of October 2008. LOHF SHAIMAN JACOBS HYMAN & FElGER PC

By:

s/ Lynn Feiger

LynnFeiger

950 S. Cherry St., Suite 900

Denver, CO 80246

(303) 753-9000 (phone)

(303) 753-9997 (fax)

lfeiger@lohfshaiman.com

JESTER & GIBSON, LLP

By:

s/ Brian T. Moore

Brian T. Moore

1875 Lawrence Street, Ste. 740

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 339-4779 (direct phone)

(303) 377-7075 (fax)

bmoore@j gllp.com

3

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 10 Filed 10/14/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 14th day of October 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing MOTION OF TAMMY LANE, MICHAEL GALASSO, AND CALVIN REED TO INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT AS PARTY PLAINTIFFS with the Clerk ofthe Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email address: Nancy Weeks EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Nancy. Weeks@eeoc.gov And that service was made by e-mail and U.S. Mail to: Michael C. Santo BECHTEL & SANTO LLP 205 N. 4th Street, Suite 300 Grand Junction, CO 81501-2567 santo@bechtelsanto .com
s/ Lynn Feiger
4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and TAMMY LANE, MICHAEL GALASSO, and CALVIN REED,
Intervenor Plaintiffs, vs. OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. d/b/a UNITED COMPANIES OF MESA COUNTY, a Colorado corporation
Defendant.
ORDER
Having reviewed the Intervenor Plaintiffs’ Motion to Intervene as of Right as Parties Plaintiff and the Complaint in Intervention and Jury Demand, as well as any response, the Court finds that the Intervenor Plaintiffs have a statutory right to intervene in this action and that their Motion to Intervene was timely made. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion and orders that the proposed Complaint in Intervention attached to the Motion to Intervene is deemed filed as of this date.

It is so ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2008.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Edward W. Nottingham Edward W. Nottingham Chief United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13 Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Document 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 1 of 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and TAMMY LANE, MICHAEL GALASSO, and CALYIN REED,
Intervenor Plaintiffs, vs. OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. d/b/a UNITED COMPANIES OF MESA COUNTY, a Colorado corporation
Defendant.
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND
The Intervenor Plaintiffs, Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso and Calvin Reed, by and through their counsel, for their complaint against Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. d/b/a United Companies of Mesa County ("Oldcastle"), allege as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345.
1

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 13 Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Document 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 2 of 13
2. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 703(a), 704, 706(f)(l) and (3) of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3, 2000e-5(f)(1), 2000e5(f)(3), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, and The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq.
3. Intervenor Plaintiffs timely filed Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC, and all procedural prerequisites for the filing ofthis suit have been met.
4. On March 20, 2008, the EEOC issued its determinations finding that Intervenor Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated employees were discriminated against and retaliated against in violation of Title VII and that Mr. Galasso was discriminated against in violation ofthe ADA.
PARTIES 5. Intervenor Plaintiff Tammy Lane is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident ofthe State of Colorado. 6. Intervenor Plaintiff Michael Galasso is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident ofthe State of Colorado. 7. Intervenor Plaintiff Calvin Reed is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident of the State of Colorado 8. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Colorado and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.
2

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 13 Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Document 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 3 of 13
9. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Title VII and the ADA.
10. At all relevant times, Defendant was the employer oflntervenor Plaintiffs within the meaning ofboth Title VII and the ADA.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 11. The following individuals are referred to throughout the allegations which follow:
a. Brian Cross was the Plant Manager employed by Defendant to manage the Montrose Plant, at which each of the Intervenor Plaintiffs was employed.
b. Ron Arellano was employed by Defendant as its Redi-Mix Manager, responsible for overall management of concrete production.
c. Ty Ducray was employed by Defendant as the Assistant Redi-Mix Manager, taking over as Redi-Mix Manager upon Mr. Arellano's retirement in April2005.
d. Jake Pimentel was hired by Defendant as the concrete batchman in the spring of 2003. He performed dispatching and other duties.
e. Paul McGehee was Defendant's equal employment opportunity officer. Tammy Lane
12. Intervenor Plaintiff Tammy Lane, who is female, worked for Defendant at its Montrose Plant for seven years.
13. Throughout her employment with Defendant, Ms. Lane was subjected to discrimination and a hostile work environment because she is a female. Mr. Cross told Ms. Lane's coworkers that he only hired Ms. Lane because he could not find enough male drivers and that he only hoped Ms. Lane would make it through the summer, implying that he doubted she
3

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 13 Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Document 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 4 of 13
would. Mr. Cross also told Ms. Lane's coworkers that women should not work at the plant and that one "shouldn't hire a woman to do a man's job."
14. Mr. Arellano told Ms. Lane that she needed to "be a man" about her job, and that she needed to "grow a set of balls" if she wanted to stay in her job. On one occasion, a driver overheard Messrs. Arellano and Ducray refer to Ms. Lane as a "stupid bitch."
15. In approximately 2001, Ms. Lane was promoted to Plant Manger after Mr. Cross was demoted due to anger management issues. However, because Ms. Lane is a female, most of the male employees refused to take direction from her. Because Ms. Lane did not receive any support from Mr. Arellano, she was reassigned to Quality Control after only three weeks as Plant Manager, and Mr. Arellano promoted Mr. Cross back into the Plant Manager position.
16. Beginning immediately after his hire, Mr. Pimental constantly used foul language and ridiculed Ms. Lane in front of her coworkers, including calling her a "cunt," and a "fat fucking lazy cunt." Although they were supposed to work together, Mr. Pimentel repeatedly refused to work with Ms. Lane, creating excessive work for Ms. Lane and interfering with her ability to perform her duties. When Ms. Lane attempted to talk with Mr. Pimental about their work issues, Mr. Pimental yelled at her on the phone, "I don't care, they can suck my balls, they are not getting any more fucking trucks." Mr. Pimental never spoke to male employees in this manner.
17. On numerous occasions, Ms. Lane complained to Mr. Cross about Mr. Pimental's harassment and gender discrimination. Mr. Cross's responses to Ms. Lane's complaints included hanging up on her and attempting to make excuses for Mr. Pimental, claiming that it was typical construction lingo, and that Ms. Lane "had better get used to it."
4

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 13 Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Document 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 5 of 13
18. On August 11, 2004, Ms. Lane complained to Mr. Arellano of the hostile work environment and gender discrimination. Ms. Lane identified several co-workers, including Mr. Galasso, Mr. Reed, and Dave Uhlenberg, who witnessed Mr. Pimental's discrimination against and harassment of Ms. Lane.
19. Following Ms. Lane's complaints, Mr. McGehee came to the Montrose Plant to meet with Ms. Lane, the witnesses she had identified, and Mr. Arellano.
20. Following Mr. McGehee's meeting, Ms. Lane met with Mr. Arellano to express her concern about retaliatory behavior toward herself and her witnesses. Mr. Arellano responded to Ms. Lane that her witnesses were "trouble causing, cry baby, mother fuckers," and that he wanted to fire all three ofthem right then.
21. Following Ms. Lane's complaints of discrimination and hostile work environment, the discriminatory environment did not improve. The foul language seemed to be more prevalent, and Ms. Lane and her witnesses were retaliated against. Mr. Galasso and Mr. Reed were fired in December 2004 and Ms. Lane was fired in January 2005, all ostensibly as "layoffs".
22. On March 16,2005, Ms. Lane was brought back from the purported layoff; however, her work was constantly scrutinized and her work environment was increasingly hostile. On April 26, 2006, she was terminated without any reasonable justification.
Michael Galasso 23. Intervenor Plaintiff Michael Galasso worked for Defendant at its Montrose Plant for two years.
5

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 13 Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Document 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 6 of 13
24. In 2003, Mr. Galasso was diagnosed as having Fibromyalgia, which in his instances is complicated by lower-extremity edema. Mr. Galasso suffers from severe and pervasive pain as a result of his condition. Mr. Galasso is substantially impaired with respect to major life activities, including sleeping, walking, sitting, and performing manual tasks.
25. After Mr. Galasso informed Defendant ofhis diagnosis, Mr. Pimental started accusing him of not performing his job appropriately. In addition, Defendant first cut Mr. Galasso's overtime, allowing another driver to work his overtime, and then gave Mr. Galasso an excessive number of hours, all tactics in trying to force Mr. Galasso to leave.
26. In September 2004, Mr. Galasso witnessed male employees and managers make crude and inappropriate remarks about Ms. Lane. For example, he heard Mr. Cross tell Mr. Arellano that that they "should not have hired a woman to do a man's job." The two ofthem then joked back and forth, placing the blame for her hire on each other. Mr. Galasso also heard Mr. Pimentel call Ms. Lane a "lazy, fat, bitch, cunt." Mr. Galasso informed Ms. Lane that he had overheard these comments and agreed to support Ms. Lane in her complaint of sex harassment.
27. Mr. Galasso was called into a meeting with Mr. McGehee, who was investigating complaints of sex discrimination and harassment made by Ms. Lane. Immediately following the meeting, Mr. Galasso expressed his concerns of retaliation to Mr. McGehee and Mr. Arellano. He specifically told them that he had overheard Mr. Pimental tell Mr. Cross that "If something doesn't happen to those guys [Mr. Galasso and Ms. Lane's other witnesses] by winter, I'm out of here."
28. Approximately ten days after the meeting with Mr. McGehee, Mr. Arellano called a meeting with Mr. Galasso and Ms. Lane's other witnesses, Mr. Reed and David Uhlenberg. At
6

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 13 Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Document 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 7 of 13
this meeting, Mr. Arellano accused the witnesses of"conspiring" and "stirring the pot," and he called them "trouble makers." Mr. Galasso, Mr. Reed and Mr. Uhlenberg were told that they better "shut up" or "there would be severe hardships around here."
29. In October 2004, Mr. Galasso was diagnosed with cellulitis, an infection in his lower leg, and was hospitalized and under a doctor's care. Because of the cellulitis, Mr. Galasso was on FMLA leave from October 13,2004 through December 29,2004. On December 15, 2004, when Mr. Galasso called Mr. Cross and told him that he would be returning to work in two weeks, Mr. Cross told Mr. Galasso that "it doesn't matter; Defendant has decided to eliminate your job." Mr. Galasso didn't hear anything further and, on December 29, 2004, left Mr. McGehee a voice mail telling him that he was released to return to work.
30. Two hours later, Mr. Galasso received a facsimile from Defendant telling him he was laid off. The stated reason for termination was a pretext. Less-qualified employees were retained at the time Mr. Galasso was terminated, and a new employee was hired to replace Mr. Galasso.
Calvin Reed 31. Intervenor Plaintiff Calvin Reed worked for Defendant for eleven years. 32. Mr. Reed performed his duties satisfactorily, and when he was terminated he had the most seniority of all the Mixer Drivers employed at Defendant's Montrose Plant. 33. During his employment with Defendant, Mr. Reed witnessed male employees and managers harass and discriminate against Intervenor Plaintiff Tammy Lane simply because she is female. For example, Mr. Reed heard Mr. Cross, state that women should not be in this job, and he heard him tell Ms. Lane that she "needed to grow a set of balls if you are going to stay in this
7

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 13 Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Document 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 8 of 13
job." Mr. Reed also observed male employees speak about her and to her in a degrading fashion and refuse to work with her.
34. In September 2004, Mr. Reed overheard Mr. Pimentel scream at Ms. Lane over the phone: "I don't care, they can suck my balls, they are not getting any more fucking trucks." Mr. Pimentel did not speak like this to the male employees. Mr. Reed reported this conversation to Ms. Lane and encouraged her to object to the treatment she was receiving.
35. Mr. Reed was named as a witness in Ms. Lane's subsequent complaint of harassment and discrimination, and he was called into a meeting with Mr. McGehee, who was investigating Ms. Lane's complaints. Immediately following the meeting, Mr. Reed expressed his concerns of retaliation to Mr. McGehee and Mr. Arellano.
36. Approximately ten days after the meeting with Mr. McGehee, Mr. Arellano called a meeting with Mr. Reed and Ms. Lane's other witnesses, Mr. Galasso and David Uhlenberg. At this meeting, Mr. Arellano accused Mr. Reed, Mr. Galasso and Mr. Uhlenberg of"conspiring" and "stirring the pot," and he called them "trouble makers." Mr. Reed, Mr. Galasso and Mr. Uhlenberg were told that they better "shut up" or "there would be severe hardships around here."
37. Shortly thereafter, in December 2004, Defendant informed Mr. Reed that, although he was the most senior mixer driver and had no previous write ups or disciplinary actions, he was being laid off.
38. The stated reason for termination was a pretext. Less-qualified employees were retained at the time Mr. Reed was terminated, and a new employee was hired to replace Mr. Reed.
8

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 13 Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Document 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 9 of 13
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Asserted by Ms. Lane - Gender Discrimination in Employment I Sexual Harassment)
39. Intervenor Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 ofthis Complaint.
40. Since at least 2001, Defendant has denied equal employment opportunities to Ms. Lane, in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), by subjecting Ms. Lane to different terms and conditions of employment than her male co-workers, by maintaining a work environment hostile to women, and by terminating her employment.
41. The effect of the discriminatory practices complained of herein has been to deprive Ms. Lane of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status based on her gender.
42. The unlawful and discriminatory practices complained of herein were intentional. 43. The discriminatory practices complained of herein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to Ms. Lane's federally protected rights.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Asserted by Each Intervenor Plaintiff- Retaliation in Violation of Title VII) 44. Intervenor Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 43 of this Complaint. 45. During their employment with Defendant, Ms. Lane, Mr. Reed and Mr. Galasso engaged in protected activity under §704 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-4(a), by opposing unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices. 46. Defendant, acting through its managers and supervisors, retaliated against Ms. Lane, Mr. Reed, Mr. Galasso because of their protected activity.
9

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Docume1n3t 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 10 of 13
47. As a result of Defendant's unlawful retaliation, Ms. Lane, Mr. Reed, Mr. Galasso have suffered damages in amounts to be proven at trial, including but not limited to backpay, front pay, future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses.
48. Defendant's retaliatory actions complained of herein were intentional. 49. Defendant's retaliatory actions complained ofherein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Intervenor Plaintiffs.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Asserted by Mr. Galasso - Discrimination Based on Disability) 50. Intervenor Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 49 of this Complaint. 51. Mr. Galasso is a "qualified individual with a disability'' as defined by the ADA. 52. At all times relevant hereto Defendant perceived Mr. Galasso as an individual with a disability. 53. Defendant took an adverse action against Mr. Galasso by treating him less favorably than similarly-situated non-disabled employees with respect to overtime hours and by terminating his employment. 54. Mr. Galasso's disability and/or perceived disability was a factor in Defendant's decision to take the foregoing adverse employment actions against him, and Defendant would not have taken those adverse employment actions against Mr. Galasso but-for Mr. Galasso's disability and/or perceived disability. 55. As a result of Defendant's unlawful discrimination, Mr. Galasso has suffered damages in amounts to be proven at trial, including but not limited to backpay, front pay, future
10

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 11 of Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Docume1n3t 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 11 of 13
pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses.
56. Defendant's discriminatory actions complained ofherein were intentional. 57. Defendant's discriminatory actions complained ofherein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Galasso. WHEREFORE, Intervenor Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant them the following relief: 1. Back pay and actual damages in an amount to be shown at trial to compensate them
for lost wages, benefits, and employment opportunities; 2. Front pay in an amount to be shown at trial; 3. Compensatory and punitive damages; 4. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this litigation as provided under Title VII and
the ADA; 6. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs of this action together with
reasonable expert witness fees as provided by law; 7. Permanent injunctions restraining these violations ofTitle VII and the ADA; and 8. Such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND Intervenor Plaintiffs respectfully request a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by this complaint.
11

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 12 of Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Docume1n3t 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 12 of 13

Respectfully submitted this 14th day of October 2008. LOHF SHAIMAN JACOBS HYMAN & FElGER PC

By:

s/ Lynn Feiger

LynnFeiger

950 S. Cherry St., Suite 900

Denver, CO 80246

(303) 753-9000 (phone)

(303) 753-9997 (fax)

lfeiger@lohfshaiman.com

JESTER & GIBSON, LLP

By:

s/ Brian T. Moore

Brian T. Moore

1875 Lawrence Street, Ste. 740

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 339-4779 (direct phone)

(303) 377-7075 (fax)

bmoore@j gllp.com

Intervenor Plaintiffs' Mailing Addresses:

Tammy Lane 11020 6450 Road Montrose, CO 81401

Michael Galasso 38564 Saddle Mountain Lane Crawford, CO 81415

Calvin Reed 2973 Last Chance Road Delta, CO 81416

12

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 14 Filed 10/20/08 USDC Colorado Page 13 of Case 1:08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB Docume1n3t 10-2 Filed 10/14/2008 Page 13 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 14th day of October 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND with the Clerk ofthe Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email address: Nancy Weeks EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Nancy. Weeks@eeoc.gov And that service was made by e-mail and U.S. Mail to: Michael C. Santo BECHTEL & SANTO LLP 205 N. 4th Street, Suite 300 Grand Junction, CO 81501-2567 santo@bechtelsanto.com
s/ Lynn Feiger
13

 
 Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 08-cv-01385-EWN-BNB EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and TAMMY LANE, MICHAEL GALASSO, and CALVIN REED,
Intervenor Plaintiffs, vs. OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. d/b/a UNITED COMPANIES OF MESA COUNTY, a Colorado corporation
Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________________
AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION _____________________________________________________________________________
The Intervenor Plaintiffs, Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso and Calvin Reed, by and through their counsel, for their Amended Complaint against Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. d/b/a United Companies of Mesa County (“Oldcastle”), allege as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345.
1

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 14
2. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 703(a), 704, 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3, 2000e-5(f)(1), 2000e5(f)(3), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, and The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq.
3. Intervenor Plaintiffs timely filed Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC, and all procedural prerequisites for the filing of this suit have been met.
4. On March 20, 2008, the EEOC issued its determinations finding that Intervenor Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated employees were discriminated against and retaliated against in violation of Title VII and that Mr. Galasso was discriminated against in violation of the ADA.
PARTIES 5. Intervenor Plaintiff Tammy Lane is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident of the State of Colorado. 6. Intervenor Plaintiff Michael Galasso is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident of the State of Colorado. 7. Intervenor Plaintiff Calvin Reed is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident of the State of Colorado 8. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Colorado and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.
2

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 14
9. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Title VII and the ADA.
10. At all relevant times, Defendant was the employer of Intervenor Plaintiffs within the meaning of both Title VII and the ADA.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 11. The following individuals are referred to throughout the allegations which follow:
a. Brian Cross was the Plant Manager employed by Defendant to manage the Montrose Plant, at which each of the Intervenor Plaintiffs was employed.
b. Ron Arellano was employed by Defendant as its Ready-Mix Manager, responsible for overall management of concrete production.
c. Ty Ducray was employed by Defendant as the Assistant Ready-Mix Manager, taking over as Ready-Mix Manager upon Mr. Arellano’s retirement in April 2005.
d. Jake Pimentel was hired by Defendant as the concrete batchman in the spring of 2003. He performed dispatching and other duties.
e. Paul McGehee was Defendant’s equal employment opportunity officer. Tammy Lane
12. Intervenor Plaintiff Tammy Lane, who is female, worked for Defendant at its Montrose Plant for seven years.
13. Throughout her employment with Defendant, Ms. Lane was subjected to discrimination and a hostile work environment because she is a female. Mr. Cross told Ms. Lane’s coworkers that he only hired Ms. Lane because he could not find enough male drivers and that he only hoped Ms. Lane would make it through the summer, implying that he doubted she
3

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 14
would. Mr. Cross also told Ms. Lane’s coworkers that women should not work at the plant and that one “shouldn’t hire a woman to do a man’s job.”
14. Mr. Arellano told Ms. Lane that she needed to “be a man” about her job, and that she needed to “grow a set of balls” if she wanted to stay in her job. On one occasion, a driver overheard Messrs. Arellano and Ducray refer to Ms. Lane as a “stupid bitch.”
15. In the spring of 2001, Ms. Lane was promoted to Plant Manger. However, because Ms. Lane is a female, most of the male employees refused to take direction from her and Mr. Arellano, refused to support her. As a result, a couple months later she was demoted and reassigned to Quality Control.Mr. Arellano promoted Mr. Cross, who had previously been demoted because of anger management issues, back into the Plant Manager position.
16. Beginning immediately after his hire, Mr. Pimental constantly used foul language and ridiculed Ms. Lane in front of her coworkers, including calling her a “cunt,” and a “fat fucking lazy cunt.” Although they were supposed to work together, Mr. Pimentel repeatedly refused to work with Ms. Lane, creating excessive work for Ms. Lane and interfering with her ability to perform her duties. When Ms. Lane attempted to talk with Mr. Pimental about their work issues, Mr. Pimental yelled at her on the phone, “I don’t care, they can suck my balls, they are not getting any more fucking trucks.” Mr. Pimental never spoke to male employees in this manner.
17. On numerous occasions, Ms. Lane complained to Mr. Cross about Mr. Pimental’s harassment and gender discrimination. Mr. Cross’s responses to Ms. Lane’s complaints included hanging up on her and attempting to make excuses for Mr. Pimental, claiming that it was typical construction lingo, and that Ms. Lane “had better get used to it.”
4

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 14
18. On or about August 11, 2004, Ms. Lane complained to Mr. Arellano of the hostile work environment and gender discrimination. Ms. Lane identified several co-workers, including Mr. Galasso, Mr. Reed, and Dave Uhlenberg, who witnessed Mr. Pimental’s discrimination against and harassment of Ms. Lane.
19. Following Ms. Lane’s complaints, Mr. McGehee came to the Montrose Plant to meet with Ms. Lane, the witnesses she had identified, and Mr. Arellano.
20. Following Mr. McGehee’s meeting, Ms. Lane met with Mr. Arellano to express her concern about retaliatory behavior toward herself and her witnesses. Mr. Arellano responded to Ms. Lane that her witnesses were “trouble causing, cry baby, mother fuckers,” and that he wanted to fire all three of them right then.
21. Following Ms. Lane’s complaints of discrimination and hostile work environment, the discriminatory environment did not improve. The foul language seemed to be more prevalent, and Ms. Lane and her witnesses were retaliated against. Mr. Galasso and Mr. Reed were fired in December 2004 and Ms. Lane was fired in January 2005, all ostensibly as “layoffs”.
22. On March 16, 2005, Ms. Lane was brought back from the purported layoff; however, her work was constantly scrutinized and her work environment was increasingly hostile. On April 26, 2006, she was terminated without any reasonable justification.
Michael Galasso 23. Intervenor Plaintiff Michael Galasso worked for Defendant at its Montrose Plant for two years. 24. In 2003, Mr. Galasso was diagnosed as having Fibromyalgia, which in his
5

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 14
instances is complicated by lower-extremity edema. Mr. Galasso suffers from severe and pervasive pain as a result of his condition. Mr. Galasso is substantially impaired with respect to major life activities, including sleeping, walking, sitting, and performing manual tasks.
25. After Mr. Galasso informed Defendant of his diagnosis, Mr. Pimental started accusing him of not performing his job appropriately. In addition, Defendant first cut Mr. Galasso’s overtime, allowing another driver to work his overtime, and then gave Mr. Galasso an excessive number of hours, all tactics in trying to force Mr. Galasso to leave.
26. In or about August 2004, Mr. Galasso witnessed male employees and managers make crude and inappropriate remarks about Ms. Lane. For example, he heard Mr. Cross tell Mr. Arellano that that they “should not have hired a woman to do a man’s job.” The two of them then joked back and forth, placing the blame for her hire on each other. Mr. Galasso also heard Mr. Pimentel call Ms. Lane a “lazy, fat, bitch, cunt.” Mr. Galasso informed Ms. Lane that he had overheard these comments and agreed to support Ms. Lane in her complaint of sex harassment.
27. Near the beginning of September 2004 Mr. Galasso was called into a meeting with Mr. McGehee, who was investigating complaints of sex discrimination and harassment made by Ms. Lane. Immediately following the meeting, Mr. Galasso expressed his concerns of retaliation to Mr. McGehee and Mr. Arellano. He specifically told them that he had overheard Mr. Pimental tell Mr. Cross that “If something doesn’t happen to those guys [Mr. Galasso and Ms. Lane’s other witnesses] by winter, I’m out of here.”
28. Approximately ten days after the meeting with Mr. McGehee, Mr. Arellano called a meeting with Mr. Galasso and Ms. Lane’s other witnesses, Mr. Reed and David Uhlenberg. At this meeting, Mr. Arellano accused the witnesses of “conspiring” and “stirring the pot,” and he
6

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 14
called them “trouble makers.” Mr. Galasso, Mr. Reed and Mr. Uhlenberg were told that they better “shut up” or “there would be severe hardships around here.”
29. In October 2004, Mr. Galasso was diagnosed with cellulitis, an infection in his lower leg, and was hospitalized and under a doctor’s care. Because of the cellulitis, Mr. Galasso was on FMLA leave from October 13, 2004 through December 29, 2004. On December 15, 2004, when Mr. Galasso called Mr. Cross and told him that he would be returning to work in two weeks, Mr. Cross told Mr. Galasso that “it doesn’t matter; Defendant has decided to eliminate your job.” Mr. Galasso did not hear anything further and, on December 29, 2004, left Mr. McGehee a voice mail telling him that he was released to return to work.
30. Two hours later, Mr. Galasso received a facsimile from Defendant telling him he was laid off. The stated reason for termination was a pretext. Less-qualified employees were retained at the time Mr. Galasso was terminated, and a new employee was hired to replace Mr. Galasso.
Calvin Reed 31. Intervenor Plaintiff Calvin Reed worked for Defendant for eleven years. 32. In 2001 Mr. Reed was diagnosed with bone marrow cancer and underwent six months of extensive chemotherapy. Mr. Reed requested accommodations during this period in order to obtain treatment. 33. Mr. Cross reacted with hostility to Mr. Reed’s request for accommodation. Oldcastle did not make the accommodations requested by Mr. Reed but nonetheless made accommodations that permitted Mr. Reed to continue in his position. 34. Since 2001, Mr. Reed has been regarded by Defendant as disabled and has had a
7

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 14
record of disability with Defendant. 35. Mr. Reed performed his duties satisfactorily, and when he was terminated he had
the most seniority of all the Mixer Drivers employed at Defendant’s Montrose Plant. Mr. Reed was qualified for the position in which he was employed.
36. During his employment with Defendant, Mr. Reed witnessed male employees and managers harass and discriminate against Intervenor Plaintiff Tammy Lane simply because she is female. For example, Mr. Reed heard Mr. Cross, state that women should not be in this job, and he heard him tell Ms. Lane that she “needed to grow a set of balls if you are going to stay in this job.” Mr. Reed also observed male employees speak about her and to her in a degrading fashion and refuse to work with her.
37. In or around August 2004, Mr. Reed overheard Mr. Pimentel scream at Ms. Lane over the phone: “I don’t care, they can suck my balls, they are not getting any more fucking trucks.” Mr. Pimentel did not speak like this to the male employees. Mr. Reed reported this conversation to Ms. Lane and encouraged her to object to the treatment she was receiving.
38. Mr. Reed was named as a witness in Ms. Lane’s subsequent complaint of harassment and discrimination, and a couple weeks later he was called into a meeting with Mr. McGehee, who was investigating Ms. Lane’s complaints. Following the meeting, Mr. Reed expressed his concerns of retaliation to Mr. McGehee and Mr. Arellano.
39. Approximately ten days after the meeting with Mr. McGehee, Mr. Arellano called a meeting with Mr. Reed and Ms. Lane’s other witnesses, Mr. Galasso and David Uhlenberg. At this meeting, Mr. Arellano accused Mr. Reed, Mr. Galasso and Mr. Uhlenberg of “conspiring” and “stirring the pot,” and he called them “trouble makers.” Mr. Reed, Mr. Galasso and Mr.
8

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 14
Uhlenberg were told that they better “shut up” or “there would be severe hardships around here.” 40. Early in December, 2004 Mr. Reed informed Messrs. Cross and Pimentel that he
would need a day off work in order to obtain a biopsy to test for possible cancer. 41. Shortly thereafter, later in December 2004, Defendant informed Mr. Reed that,
although he was the most senior mixer driver and had no previous write ups or disciplinary actions, he was being laid off. This followed approximately two weeks after Mr. Reed informed Defendant that he needed time off for a biopsy and approximately three months after Mr. Arrellano accused Mr. Reed and others of “stirring the pot” because of their statements in connection with Ms. Lane’s harassment complaint.
42. The stated reason for termination was a pretext. Less-qualified employees were retained at the time Mr. Reed was terminated, and a new employee was hired to replace Mr. Reed.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Asserted by Ms. Lane - Gender Discrimination in Employment / Sexual Harassment)
43. Intervenor Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 42 of this Complaint.
44. Since at least 2001, Defendant has denied equal employment opportunities to Ms. Lane, in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), by subjecting Ms. Lane to different terms and conditions of employment than her male co-workers, by maintaining a work environment hostile to women, and by terminating her employment.
9

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 14
45. The effect of the discriminatory practices complained of herein has been to deprive Ms. Lane of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status based on her gender.
46. The unlawful and discriminatory practices complained of herein were intentional. 47. The discriminatory practices complained of herein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to Ms. Lane’s federally protected rights.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Asserted by Each Intervenor Plaintiff – Retaliation in Violation of Title VII) 48. Intervenor Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint. 49. During their employment with Defendant, Ms. Lane, Mr. Reed and Mr. Galasso engaged in protected activity under §704 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-4(a), by opposing unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices. 50. Defendant, acting through its managers and supervisors, retaliated against Ms. Lane, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Galasso because of their protected activity. 51. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful retaliation, Ms. Lane, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Galasso have suffered damages in amounts to be proven at trial, including but not limited to backpay, front pay, future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. 52. Defendant’s retaliatory actions complained of herein were intentional. 53. Defendant’s retaliatory actions complained of herein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Intervenor Plaintiffs.
10

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 14
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Asserted by Messrs. Galasso and Lane – Discrimination Based on Disability) 54. Intervenor Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint. 55. Mr. Galasso is a “qualified individual with a disability” as defined by the ADA. At all times relevant hereto Mr. Galasso had a physical impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities and Defendant perceived Mr. Galasso as an individual with such an impairment. 56. Mr. Reed is a “qualified individual with a disability” as defined by the ADA. At all times relevant hereto Mr. Reed had a record of an impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities and Defendant perceived Mr. Reed has an individual with such an impairment. 57. Defendant took an adverse action against Mr. Galasso by treating him less favorably than similarly-situated non-disabled employees with respect to overtime hours and by terminating his employment. 58. Mr. Galasso’s disability and/or perceived disability was a factor in Defendant’s decision to take the foregoing adverse employment actions against him, and Defendant would not have taken those adverse employment actions against Mr. Galasso but-for Mr. Galasso’s disability and/or perceived disability. 59. Defendant took an adverse action against Mr. Reed by terminating his employment. 60. Mr. Reed’s record of disability and/or perceived disability was a factor in Defendant’s decision to take the foregoing adverse employment action against him, and
11

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 14
Defendant would not have taken that adverse employment action against Mr. Reed but-for Mr. Reed’s record of disability and/or perceived disability.
61. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful discrimination, Messrs. Galasso and Reed have suffered damages in amounts to be proven at trial, including but not limited to backpay, front pay, future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses.
62. Defendant’s discriminatory actions complained of herein were intentional. 63. Defendant’s discriminatory actions complained of herein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Messrs. Galasso and Reed. WHEREFORE, Intervenor Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant them the following relief: 1. Back pay and actual damages in an amount to be shown at trial to compensate them
for lost wages, benefits, and employment opportunities; 2. Front pay in an amount to be shown at trial; 3. Compensatory and punitive damages; 4. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this litigation as provided under Title VII and
the ADA; 6. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs of this action together with
reasonable expert witness fees as provided by law; 7. Permanent injunctions restraining these violations of Title VII and the ADA; and 8. Such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.
12

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 14

JURY TRIAL DEMAND Intervenor Plaintiffs respectfully request a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by this complaint. Respectfully submitted this 31st day of October 2008.
LOHF SHAIMAN JACOBS HYMAN & FEIGER PC

By: ____s/ Lynn Feiger_____________________ Lynn Feiger 950 S. Cherry St., Suite 900 Denver, CO 80246 (303) 753-9000 (phone) (303) 753-9997 (fax) lfeiger@lohfshaiman.com

JESTER & GIBSON, LLP

By:

s/ Brian T. Moore

Brian T. Moore

1875 Lawrence Street, Ste. 740

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 339-4779 (direct phone)

(303) 377-7075 (fax)

bmoore@jgllp.com

13

Case 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB Document 17 Filed 10/31/08 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 31st day of October 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email address: Nancy Weeks EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Nancy.Weeks@eeoc.gov Michael C. Santo BECHTEL & SANTO LLP 205 N. 4th Street, Suite 300 Grand Junction, CO 81501-2567 santo@bechtelsanto.com
_____s/ Samantha Lee ____________________
14

 
 Case: 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB As of: 06/16/2011 11:58 AM MDT 1 of 9
NDISPO, TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08−cv−01385−CMA −BNB

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Christine M. Arguello Referred to: Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/30/2008 Date Terminated: 02/26/2010 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Nancy A. Weeks U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue #410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1947 Fax: 303−866−1375 Email: nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 06/04/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

William Earl Moench U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue #410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1378 Fax: 303−866−1375 Email: william.moench@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Tammy Lane

represented by Brian Thomas Moore Jester Gibson &Moore, LLP 1999 Broadway #3225 Denver, CO 80202 303−377−7888 Fax: 303−377−7075 Email: bmoore@jgllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn D. Feiger

Case: 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB As of: 06/16/2011 11:58 AM MDT 2 of 9

Lohf, Shaiman, Jacobs, Hyman &Feiger, PC 950 South Cherry Street #900 Denver, CO 80246−2666 303−753−9000 Fax: 303−753−9997 Email: lfeiger@lohfshaiman.com

Intervenor Plaintiff Michael Galasso

represented by Brian Thomas Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn D. Feiger (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Calvin Reed

represented by Brian Thomas Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn D. Feiger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. doing business as United Companies of Mesa County

represented by Michael Craig Santo Bechtel &Santo, L.L.P. 205 North 4th Street #300 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970−683−5888 Fax: 970−683−5887 Email: santo@bechtelsanto.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/30/2008 07/01/2008 07/02/2008
07/08/2008 07/17/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT and Jury Trial Demand against Oldcastle SW Group, Inc., filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(llk, ) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
2 MEMORANDUM from Judge Matsch RETURNING CASE for reassignment to another district judge. (llk, ) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
3 LETTER REASSIGNING CASE pursuant to memorandum of 7/1/2008. Case reassigned to Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham for all further proceedings. Judge Richard P. Matsch no longer assigned to the case. (llk, ) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
4 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Dispositive Motions due by 2/27/2009. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 7/8/08. (ewnsec, ) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
5 ORDER: Scheduling/Planning Conference set for 9/17/2008 09:30 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Signed by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/17/2008. (sss, ) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

Case: 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB As of: 06/16/2011 11:58 AM MDT 3 of 9

09/09/2008 09/10/2008
09/10/2008
10/01/2008 10/14/2008 10/15/2008 10/20/2008 10/20/2008 10/20/2008 10/22/2008
10/31/2008 10/31/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/17/2008
11/17/2008

6 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate 5 Order, Set/Reset Hearings Scheduling Conference, Unopposed MOTION to Reset Scheduling Conference by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
7 MEMORANDUM regarding 6 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate 5 Order, Set/Reset Hearings Scheduling Conference filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 9/10/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
8 MINUTE ORDER granting 6 Unopposed Motion to Vacate and Reschedule Scheduling Conference. Scheduling Conference set for 9/17/2008 is vacated and reset to 11/6/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/10/2008.(sss, ) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. waiver sent on 8/21/2008, answer due 10/20/2008. (Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
10 MOTION to Intervene as of Right as Parties Plaintiff by Interested Parties Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint in Intervention, # 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Feiger, Lynn) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
11 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Brian Thomas Moore on behalf of Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed (Moore, Brian) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
12 ANSWER to 1 Complaint AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND by Oldcastle SW Group, Inc..(Santo, Michael) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
13 ORDER granting 10 Motion to Intervene as of Right as Parties Plaintiff. The proposed Complaint in Intervention is deemed filed as of this date. Signed by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 10/20/2008.(sss, ) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
14 COMPLAINT in Intervention and Jury Demand against Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. filed by Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed.(sss, ) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
15 REASSIGNING JUDGE. This action is reassigned to Judge Christine M. Arguello, upon her appointment. All future pleadings should reference Judge Arguello at the end of the civil action number (such as 08−cv−00001−CMA). Unless otherwise ordered, the dates and times for all previously scheduled matters will be maintained and will now be handled by Judge Arguello in Courtroom A−602. Her chambers are located in Room A−638. Her telephone number is 303−335−2174. (Text only entry − no document attached) (gmssl, ) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
16 MINUTE ORDER Scheduling Conference Reset for 11/17/2008 04:00 PM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/31/08. (erv, ) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
17 AMENDED COMPLAINT in Intervention against Oldcastle SW Group, Inc., filed by Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed.(Moore, Brian) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
18 ANSWER to 17 Amended Complaint in Intervention by Oldcastle SW Group, Inc..(Santo, Michael) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
19 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
20 ORDER The parties appeared this afternoon for a scheduling conference. The proposed scheduling order was refused for the reasons stated on the record. Consistent with matters discussed this afternoon: IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall prepare a revised scheduling order modified as discussed at the scheduling conference and submit it to the court on or before November 20, 2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/17/08. (erv, ) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
21 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Scheduling Conference held on 11/17/2008. Discovery due by 5/1/2009.

Case: 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB As of: 06/16/2011 11:58 AM MDT 4 of 9

11/20/2008 11/21/2008 11/21/2008 01/06/2009 01/07/2009
01/07/2009 01/08/2009 01/08/2009
01/08/2009 01/08/2009 02/02/2009 02/02/2009
02/03/2009
03/17/2009

Dispositive Motions due by 5/29/2009. Settlement Conference set for 2/19/2009 01:30 PM in Conference Room before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 7/20/2009. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/27/2009 01:30 PM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. ORDERED:Revised Scheduling Order to be filed by November 20, 2008. (Court Reporter FTR−G.Mattei.) (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
22 Proposed Scheduling Order Revised by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
23 MINUTE ORDER Settlement Conference set for 2/19/2008 01:30 PM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/21/08. (erv, ) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
24 SCHEDULING ORDER: Signed by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/21/08. (erv, ) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
25 MOTION For Extension of Time of Deadline to Join Parties and Amend Pleadings by Intervenor Plaintiffs Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed. (Moore, Brian) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
26 MEMORANDUM regarding 25 MOTION For Extension of Time of Deadline to Join Parties and Amend Pleadings filed by Calvin Reed, Michael Galasso, Tammy Lane. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 1/7/09. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(erv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
27 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by All Parties by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Final Proposed Protective Order)(Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
28 MEMORANDUM regarding 27 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by All Parties filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland,by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 1/8/09. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(erv, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
29 MINUTE ORDER granting 25 UNopposed Motion of Intervenor Plaintiffs' for Extension of Deadline to Join Parties and Amend Pleadings, the deadline for the parties to amend their pleadings or join additional parties is extended to and including January 23, 2009. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/8/09.(erv, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
30 MINUTE ORDER granting 27 Motion for Protective Order, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/8/09.(erv, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
31 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/8/09. (erv, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
32 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
33 MEMORANDUM regarding 32 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 24 Scheduling Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 02/02/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(jjh, ) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
34 Minute ORDER granting 32 Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Discovery due by 7/15/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 8/14/2009. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/7/2009. Final Pretrial Conference reset for 10/14/2009 09:30 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Settlement Conference reset for 6/15/2009 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/3/09.(gmssl, ) Modified on 2/5/2009 to correct spelling error (gms, ). (Entered: 02/03/2009)
35 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by William Earl Moench on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Moench, William) (Entered: 03/17/2009)

Case: 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB As of: 06/16/2011 11:58 AM MDT 5 of 9

04/15/2009 04/16/2009 04/16/2009
04/20/2009 06/02/2009 06/03/2009
06/03/2009 06/04/2009 06/04/2009 06/11/2009
06/16/2009 06/17/2009
06/17/2009 07/02/2009 07/06/2009

36 NOTICE Amended Notice of Deposition by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Santo, Michael) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
37 MOTION For Extension of Time to disclose experts by Intervenor Plaintiffs Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed. (Moore, Brian) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
38 MEMORANDUM regarding 37 MOTION For Extension of Time to disclose experts filed by Calvin Reed, Michael Galasso, Tammy Lane. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 4/16/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(erv, ) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
39 MINUTE ORDER granting 37 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/20/09.(erv, ) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
40 MOTION For Extension of Time FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONCRETE TESTING EXPERT WITNESSES by Intervenor Plaintiffs Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed. (Moore, Brian) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
41 MEMORANDUM regarding 40 MOTION For Extension of Time FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONCRETE TESTING EXPERT WITNESSES filed by Calvin Reed, Michael Galasso, Tammy Lane.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 6/3/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(erv, ) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
42 MINUTE ORDER granting 40 Intervenors Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Disclosure of Concrete Testing Expert Witnesses to and including June 1, 2009. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/3/09.(erv, ) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
43 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
44 ORDER granting 43 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC. Attorney Nancy A. Weeks terminated by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 6/4/09.(erv, ) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
45 MINUTE ORDER Due to a conflict in the courts calendar, IT IS ORDERED that the settlement conference set for June 15, 2009, at 1:30 p.m., is VACATED. The parties are directed to contact Estee Fraitag at 303−844−6408 to reschedule the conference. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/11/09. (erv, ) (Modified on 6/17/2009 changed telephone number and sealed PDF pursuant to chambers)(ervsl, ). (Entered: 06/12/2009)
46 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Discovery Deadline by Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.. (Santo, Michael) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
47 MEMORANDUM regarding 46 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Discovery Deadline filed by Oldcastle SW Group, Inc..Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 6/17/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(erv, ) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
48 MINUTE ORDER granting 46 Motion for Extension of Time Discovery Deadline. Discovery due by 7/29/2009. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/17/09.(erv, ) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
49 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 45 Minute Order, by Intervenor Plaintiffs Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed. (Moore, Brian) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
50 MEMORANDUM regarding 49 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 45 Minute Order, filed by Calvin Reed, Michael Galasso, Tammy Lane. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 7/06/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(cmasec) (Entered: 07/06/2009)

Case: 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB As of: 06/16/2011 11:58 AM MDT 6 of 9

07/13/2009
07/20/2009 07/21/2009 07/23/2009
07/31/2009 08/05/2009 08/21/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/24/2009 08/26/2009

51 MINUTE ORDER granting 49 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify the 45 Minute Order by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/13/09. The parties are to promptly contact chambers to set a settlement conference once a ruling has been made on dispositive motions. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (bnbsec, ) (Modified on 7/15/2009 added link to 45 Minute Order)(erv2, ). (Entered: 07/13/2009)
52 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Discovery Cut−Off and Dispositive Motion Deadline by Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.. (Santo, Michael) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
53 MEMORANDUM regarding 52 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Discovery Cut−Off and Dispositive Motion Deadline filed by Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 7/21/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(cmasec) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
54 MINUTE ORDER: Granting 52 Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Cut−off and Dispositive Motion Deadline. Date for rebuttal expert report (Janet Owens−White)September 15, 2009; Discovery cut−off for limited purpose by 9/21/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 9/18/2009. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 11/9/2009. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/16/2009 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/23/09.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
55 MOTION for Leave to File Separate Motions for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Extend the Recommended Page Limitation for Filing Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.. (Santo, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
56 ORDER − GRANTING 55 Motion for Leave to File Separate Motions for Summary Judgment. Defendants may file separatemotions for summary judgment, which individually shall not exceed 20 pages, inclusive of theundisputed statements of facts. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 8/5/09.TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (cmacd) (Entered: 08/05/2009)
57 MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Moench, William) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
58 MEMORANDUM regarding 57 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 8/24/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (cmasec) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
59 JOINDER in 57 MOTION for Protective Order by Intervenor Plaintiffs Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed. (Moore, Brian) (Modified on 8/24/2009 the Motion has been termed as this is a JOINDER to a Motion)(erv, ). (Entered: 08/24/2009)
60 MEMORANDUM regarding 59 MOTION for Joinder re 57 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Calvin Reed, Michael Galasso, Tammy Lane. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 8/24/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (cmasec) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
61 Docket Annotation re: 59 MOTION for Joinder re 57 MOTION for Protective Order. This has been changed to a JOINDER and the motion has been termed. Text only entry − no document attached (erv, ) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
62 MINUTE ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 57 MOTION for Protective Order : Motion Hearing set for 9/1/2009 10:30 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Defendant shall respond to the Motion on or before August 28, 2009. No reply will be accepted without leave of court, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/24/09. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
63 MINUTE ORDER Re−Setting Hearing on 57 MOTION for Protective Order : Motion Hearing Reset for 9/2/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 401 before

Case: 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB As of: 06/16/2011 11:58 AM MDT 7 of 9

08/28/2009 09/02/2009 09/02/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/15/2009 09/23/2009
09/23/2009
09/23/2009
09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/24/2009

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/26/09. (erv, ) (Entered: 08/27/2009)
64 RESPONSE to 57 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.. (Santo, Michael) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
65 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland: Motion Hearing held on 9/2/2009. Granting 57 EEOC'S Motion for Protective Order. (Court Reporter FTR−G.Mattei.) (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
66 ORDER: re: Granting 57 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/2/09. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
67 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Summary Judgment Motions by Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.. (Santo, Michael) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
68 MEMORANDUM regarding 67 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Summary Judgment Motions filed by Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 9/14/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (cmasec) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
69 MINUTE ORDER granting 67 Motion for Extension of Time. The dispositive motions deadline is extended to and including 9/23/2009. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/15/09.TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (bnbsec, ) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
70 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against EEOC/Tammy Lane by Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support , # 2 Exhibit 1 , # 3 Exhibit 2 , # 4 Exhibit 3 , # 5 Exhibit 4 , # 6 Deposition Excerpts Exhibit 5 , # 7 Exhibit 6 , # 8 Exhibit 7 , # 9 Exhibit 8 , # 10 Exhibit 9 , # 11 Exhibit 10 , # 12 Exhibit 11 , # 13 Exhibit 12 , # 14 Exhibit 13 , # 15 Exhibit 14 , # 16 Exhibit 15 )(Santo, Michael) (Modified on 9/24/2009 added text as to Defendant Tammy Lane and edited duplicate text)(erv, ). (Entered: 09/23/2009)
71 MOTION for Summary Judgment against EEOC/Calvin Reed by Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1 , # 3 Exhibit 2 , # 4 Exhibit 3 , # 5 Exhibit 4 , # 6 Exhibit 5 , # 7 Exhibit 6 , # 8 Exhibit 7 , # 9 Exhibit 8 , # 10 Exhibit 9 , # 11 Exhibit 10 , # 12 Exhibit 11 )(Santo, Michael) (Modified on 9/24/2009 added defendant Calvin Reed to the Title of the text and edited duplicated text)(erv, ). (Entered: 09/23/2009)
72 MOTION for Summary Judgment against EEOC/Michael Galasso by Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support, # 2 Exhibit1 , # 3 Exhibit 2 , # 4 Exhibit 3 , # 5 Exhibit 4 , # 6 Exhibit 5 , # 7 Exhibit 6 , # 8 Exhibit 7 , # 9 Exhibit 8 , # 10 Exhibit 9 , # 11 Exhibit 10 , # 12 Exhibit 11 , # 13 Exhibit 12 , # 14 Exhibit 13 )(Santo, Michael) (Modified on 9/24/2009 added Defendant Michael Galasso to the title of the Text and Edited duplicated text)(erv, ). (Entered: 09/23/2009)
73 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses by Intervenor Plaintiffs Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Moore, Brian) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
74 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defense by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Todd Chavez, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Determinations, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Invitations to Conciliate, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Acceptance of Invitations, # 5 Exhibit 4 − Conciliation Failures)(Moench, William) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
75 Docket Annotation re: 70 MOTION for Summary Judgment against Tammy Lane was added to the text and duplicate text was edited out. Text only entry − no document attached (erv, ) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

Case: 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB As of: 06/16/2011 11:58 AM MDT 8 of 9

09/24/2009 09/24/2009 10/06/2009 10/06/2009 10/07/2009
12/08/2009
12/11/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009
12/14/2009

76 Docket Annotation re: 71 MOTION for Summary Judgment against Calvin Reed added to the text, Brief in Support and duplicate text was edited out) Text only entry − no document attached (erv, ) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
77 Docket Annotation re: 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment against Michael Galasson, Brief in Support added as text, and Duplicate text edited out. Text only entry − no document attached (erv, ) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
78 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Facilitate Settlement Conference by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed, Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.. (Moore, Brian) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
79 MEMORANDUM regarding 78 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Facilitate Settlement Conference filed by Calvin Reed, Michael Galasso, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tammy Lane, Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 10/06/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (cmasec) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
80 MINUTE ORDER: granting 78 Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines to Facilitate Settlement Conference. All summary judgment responses briefs are to be due on or before December 11, 2009. The deadline for all summary judgment reply briefs are to be due on or before February 1, 2010. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 2/10/2010. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/17/2010 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/7/09.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
81 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 71 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 74 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defense, 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses, 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 70 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Granting Extension of Time)(Moench, William) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
82 MINUTE ORDER granting 81 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The parties shall have to and including 12/14/09 within which to file their responses to all pending motions for summary judgment. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/11/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (cmasec) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
83 BRIEF in Opposition to 74 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defense Defendant's Brief in Support of Its Opposition to Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Santo, Michael) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
84 RESPONSE to 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses Defendant's Brief in Response to Intervenor Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses filed by Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit 6a, # 7 Exhibit 6b, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit)(Santo, Michael) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
85 BRIEF in Opposition to 70 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 71 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Curtis, # 2 Affidavit DeBrucque, # 3 Affidavit Delancey, # 4 Affidavit Edmands, # 5 Affidavit Edwards, # 6 Affidavit Lane, # 7 Affidavit Northrup, # 8 Affidavit Purdum, D., # 9 Affidavit Purdum, T., # 10 Affidavit Reed, # 11 Affidavit Scott, # 12 Affidavit Galasso, # 13 Affidavit Lane Declaration, # 14 Exhibit 1, # 15 Exhibit 2, # 16 Exhibit 3, # 17 Exhibit 4, # 18 Exhibit 5, # 19 Exhibit 6, # 20 Exhibit 7, # 21 Exhibit 8, # 22 Exhibit 9, # 23 Exhibit 10, # 24 Exhibit 11, # 25 Exhibit 12, # 26 Exhibit 13, # 27 Exhibit 14, # 28 Exhibit 15, # 29 Exhibit 16, # 30 Exhibit 17, # 31

Case: 1:08-cv-01385-CMA -BNB As of: 06/16/2011 11:58 AM MDT 9 of 9

12/18/2009
12/22/2009 12/22/2009 12/24/2009 12/29/2009 02/09/2010
02/16/2010 02/23/2010 02/26/2010

Exhibit 18, # 32 Exhibit 19, # 33 Exhibit 20, # 34 Exhibit 21, # 35 Exhibit 22, # 36 Exhibit 23, # 37 Exhibit 24, # 38 Exhibit 25, # 39 Exhibit 26, # 40 Exhibit 27, # 41 Exhibit 28, # 42 Exhibit 29, # 43 Exhibit 30, # 44 Exhibit 31, # 45 Exhibit 32, # 46 Exhibit 33, # 47 Exhibit 34, # 48 Deposition Excerpts 30b6 Ducray, # 49 Deposition Excerpts 30b6 Lamberty, # 50 Deposition Excerpts Alpha, # 51 Deposition Excerpts Arellano, # 52 Deposition Excerpts Cross, # 53 Deposition Excerpts Delancey, # 54 Deposition Excerpts Ducray, # 55 Deposition Excerpts Edmands, # 56 Deposition Excerpts Galasso, # 57 Deposition Excerpts Lane Vol I, # 58 Deposition Excerpts Lane Vol II, # 59 Deposition Excerpts McGehee, # 60 Deposition Excerpts Northrup, # 61 Deposition Excerpts Owens−White, # 62 Deposition Excerpts Reed, # 63 Deposition Excerpts Scott, # 64 Deposition Excerpts Sullivan, # 65 Deposition Excerpts Uhlenberg, # 66 Appendix Anderson v. Wintco, # 67 Appendix EEOC v. DNA, # 68 Appendix Neiderlander v. American Video)(Moench, William) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
86 MOTION for Leave to Supplement Plaintiffs' 85 Joint Response to Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment by Intervenor Plaintiffs Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Intervenor Plaintiffs' Supplement to Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment, # 2 Deposition Excerpts Edmands)(Moore, Brian) (Modified on 12/21/2009 added link to Response)(erv2, ). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
87 MINUTE ORDER granting 86 Motion for Leave to supplement Plaintiffs Joint Response to Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment. The proposed supplemental document, attached at 86−1, is deemed filed as of this date. SO ORDERED by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/22/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (cmasec) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
89 SUPPLEMENT to 85 Joint Brief in Opposition to Motion, for Summary Judgment by Intervenor Plaintiffs Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed. (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Excerpts Kevin Edmands)(erv, ) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
88 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 71 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 70 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.. (Santo, Michael) (Entered: 12/24/2009)
90 MINUTE ORDER granting 88 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Reply briefs due on or before February 19, 2010. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/29/09.TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (cmacd ) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
91 MINUTE ORDER: This matter has been resolved. The parties shall file a stipulation or motion to dismiss with prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a) on or before February 23, 2010, or a status report addressing why dismissal has not been accomplished. All future hearings set before Magistrate Judge Boland are vacated, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/9/10. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
92 MOTION for Order to Enter Consent Decree by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Decree)(Moench, William) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
93 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Party Intervenor Plaintiffs by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Tammy Lane, Michael Galasso, Calvin Reed, Defendant Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.. (Moore, Brian) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
94 CONSENT DECREE by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 2/26/2010. (erv, ) (Entered: 03/01/2010)

 
 Western Slope Sand & Gravel Company Pays Nearly Half Milli...

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-24-10a.cfm

2 of 3

Home > About EEOC > Newsroom > Press Releases
PRESS RELEASE 2-24-10
Western Slope Sand & Gravel Company Pays Nearly Half Million to Settle EEOC Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit
Woman and Two Supportive Men Fired After Sex Discrimination Complaint, Federal Agency Charged
DENVER Ð Oldcastle SW Group, Inc., doing business as United Companies of Mesa County, has agreed to pay $498,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
According to the EEOCÕ s lawsuit, the woman who complained was hired in 1998 by Delta Sand and Gravel of Grand Junction and Montrose, Colo. (now part of Old Castle SW Group, doing business as United Companies of Mesa County). She drove a truck, batched concrete, dispatched trucks and acted as plant manager before she was assigned to work as a quality control technician, where she remained until she was fired.
The EEOC charges in its suit that through much of her employment, the woman who eventually complained (and who has asked not to be publicly identified) was in what was widely considered to be a Ò manÕ s job.Ó After she started working in quality control, the sex-based bias against her became overt, culminating in sex-related name-calling and active interference with her ability to perform her job. Managers and co-workers alike were overheard making crude gender-based insults, and expressing in clear terms that women should not be working in the plant.
The EEOC also said that several male co-workers saw and overheard the harassment and degrading treatment and offered to support the woman if she wanted to complain. She then did complain to management, and identified the men who offered to support her. The men confirmed her allegations, the EEOC said. After a plant-wide meeting was held to discuss the complaints, these men also expressed fear to the managers that they would be retaliated against because they supported their female co-worker.
According to the EEOCÕ s complaint (EEOC v. Old Castle SW Group, doing business as United Companies of Mesa County, Civ. No. 08-cv-01385-RPM, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado), the employeesÕ concern about retaliation was well-founded. The department manager called the men Ò crybaby motherf-----sÓ and Ò troublemakers,Ó and told them they had better Ò shut the f..k up.Ó Over the next seven months, the company terminated the woman and two of the men who supported her.
Sex discrimination and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.
In addition to the monetary relief to the employees, the three-year decree settling the suit enjoins United Companies of Mesa County from engaging in harassment on the basis of sex and from retaliating against employees who complain about it. The employer agreed to train its current and future managers and employees on anti-discrimination laws and to post notices stating its commitment to maintaining an environment free of sexual harassment and retaliation.
6/23/11 6:20 PM